Slashdot Mirror
Linking Dangerously
indole writes "Some /.'ers might remember the story of Sherman Austin, a Californina native who created the "anarchy" website raisethefist.com. Besides posting links to bomb-making instructions, the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Well, approximately 18 months later Sherman Austin, now age 20, has been sentenced to 1 year in federal prison. According to Austin, 'he took a plea bargain because he feared his case was eligible for a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to his sentence.' Doubleplusungood."
"(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.)"
GOVERNMENT CHANGES.....
Oh no, sorry it's California.
I thought it was common knowledge that you don't disagree with the government.
No this the problem of the pseudo-patriotism that we have seen in the USA for the past few years. Is the "Patriot Act" really that patriotic?
I'm worried for a friend of mine who runs an informative site on Arab nations. It seems that excersise of First Amendment rights puts a big bullseye for Patriot Act and all sorts of unnecessary national defense matters.
(maybe i should have posted as anon. coward...!)
You should probably go and shoot him in the head. Quickly!
What the hell?
I know, I know, censorship is bad.. but think of all the lives that could've caused..
and then you look around at other countries, tons of them still censors more..
of course, there are the liberal ones, but they aren't the ones where EVERYONE in the world hates...
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
Wilson said he also may not associate with anyone from a group that "espouses physical force as a means of change."
does that include the US government?
Sure, there must be a freedom of speech, but with freedom comes also responsibility. That's what you people over there seem to have forgotten. Inciting people into a violent revolt that thretens the stability of the entire society is not responsible. Talk like this should be dealt harshly with.
If only this damned thing would stop getting in the way of making this country a better and safer place.
I once updated my web page while driving drunk and blindfolded accross landmines, all the while eating food from arby's.
I didn't know they can just ignore the plea agreement. Won't that come in handy with terrorists? "I agreed to 1 year, your honor!" "But I don't feel like it. You get the chair!"
Excuse me while I move to Canada....
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt, though, and I've read about a number of cases of people injuring themselves or others by trying to do that kind of stuff. The mature thing to do is to preemptively avoid spreading that kind of content so that it doesn't fall into the hands of idiots.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Glad to see the REAL criminals being put where they belong, hey aren't ALL the Enron executives still free?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I beleive his website was advocating violent action against innocent people. If his site said "Kill all racial group X" and linked to pages telling people how to make and deliver bombs, I'd want it shut down and the owner in jail, too.
However, the webhosting provider should *not* be responsible, neither should his internet access provider. He should take responsability for his own actions.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
I remember there were some kids who advocated killing their classmates and were into bomb making and guns ect... If we threw them in jail it could have prevented a tragedy, and maybe one was prevented in this case.
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
This to me is just scary. Yes he was giving instructions on how to make chemical reactions work. Whoopdeedo! We live in America, and in the america i grew up in we don't censor information from the public. And he wasn't realyl even giving instructions - he never (AFAIK) disseminated the information, he just linked to it. It's like being arressted for telling people that you KNOW how to make bombs....
But the most scary thing of all is this qoute from this website: "(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.), "
How can the courts do that? This guy has rights that cannot under any circumstances be taken away. Part of those rights are freedom of speech - expecially political freedom of speech - and policital freedom of speech again AFAIK is only when you want to try to change the government somehow.
This guy got shafted by a horrible judge who shouldn't be allowed to work. If i were president, or governer i would pardon this man becuase he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for such a simple thing as disseminating information.
As a highschooler what am I to think growing up? Do we really have our Bill of Rights anymore? Every day i see more news about parts of it being chipped away - of course all in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. (since free speech, habius corpus, etc are an evil evil thing... ) BULLSHIT!
Im trying to balance my fears of terrorist threats to my respect other for peoples freedom of speech. It's an uneasy feeling.
Linking dangerously, huh?
Slashdot links to webpage in question...
We read the article, now we're all terrorists!
The Other Nate
I was going to go to the website to see what he went to prison for, but if it's illegal to aggregate the info, is it also illegal to read it?
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.Raisethefi st.com
The internet archive has the site archived from many dates over the past several years.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
with anyone from a group that "espouses physical force as a means of change."
You mean a group like,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
While I don't feel that what he did warrants a year in jail, I do feel that actively pursuing the violent enactment of eliminating the US government, when creating and voting in a party to constitutionally legislate the same end product is at any non-felonious citizens abilities, is an act against the people itself. How silly is it to attempt to, in the name of the people, overthrow a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
If he had posted the same website 6 months ago, he would be in prison right now, without access to a lawyer. He would probably never see a real court, being subject to a military tribunal, as an "enemy combatant."
Yes, today's political climate is scary. However, you have to be aware that the government is trying to protect its own ass.
I completely agree that there shouldn't be censorship. However, I have the good sense to realize that the poeople with power disagree right now because they got burned. So I'm going to try real hard not to do anything inflammatory and hopefully in another few years this will have blown over, and will just be referred to as another "McCarthyist" age in our history.
That this person got jail time is in my own opinion a good thing, but I dont think that a year is appropriate. This is because I think that this individual is just stupid, and that stupidity on that magnitude should carry a criminal penalty.
Posting bomb instructions online is just stupid. Doing so within a site that openly advocates violence against the authorities that you are subject to is even more so. Freedom of speech does not give an individual the right to make death threats.
END COMMUNICATION
I've been following this Salon story as well, which seems similar.
Essentially, the web site involved had links to another site. That site had links to a porn site. Since this all involves bishops in the Episcopal Church, people have been getting quite excited about it.
It's getting so that someone has to police not only your own web site, but all of those that you link to. I'm one of the web admins for a healthcare site, so I suppose I have to check through a few thousand web links to make sure there's not a link to a penis enlargement treatment that kills someone.
and the thought police won't throw you in jail for
a year. Don't assume you have the right to say
just ANYTHING. You have the right to free speach as
long as the powers that be are cool with it. For
example, it's not ok to yell "OVERTHROW THE GOVT!
BUSH IS AN ASSHOLE!" in a crowded theater because
you might cause a panic that could result in loss
of life. Justice is great if you can afford it, but
most of us can not. You have to have a lot of money
to stay "innocent" of most things you can be accused
of. But that's part of the reward of being
successful. You do get to be in an exclusive club
where you have more and better rights than those
with less money. That's how the system works.
PS: Jesus votes republican. Everyone knows that.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
This is the problem with censorship.
No, your comment is bullshit. You think freedom-of-speech allows you to say whatever you want, but that's untrue, fortunately. If I write a document about how to kill the president, then that's not within the freedom-of-speech. Your freedom ends, when you danger another one's. Or else, it would be *very* hard to silence neo-nazi's and such, just because what they do is spreading their word (of freedom). So, be happy we've got limits for freedom-of-speech.
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
As I recall, this individual wasn't prosecuted for what he said. It was because he was trying to break into military computers. What did he expect to happen?
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
You know, our founding fathers fought the revolutionary war for less that this, you'd think we ( as a nation ) would stop being sheep and fucking standup for what is right.
But then, the TV doesn't tell us to, so we aren't allowed to think for ourselves.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Advocating change through violence - bad.
But this kid didn't just advocate change through violence, he also cr4x0r3d websites, which is how he got himself caught.
Advocating change through violence and being a skr1pt k1ddi3 - bad and stupid.
For once, I say good on the FBI for nailing the twerp. At least one skr1pt k1dd13 will finally find a whole new meaning to the term "raise the fist".
(Now if only I were sure that a certain executive of a certain Stupid Corporate Operation was gonna end up the same way, this woulda be a perfect day ;)
Why is it, that when someone describes in layman terms some basic exothermic chemistry, they are public enemy number 1? Should we hang the acedemics for teaching this chemistry? I am concerned about the wider scale of such generalized concepts in which people are categorized as criminals for learning and retaining knowledge that makes other's feel threatened. From cell phone cloning, to virus generation, to installing NOS on a car, and flying a non FAA Wright Flyer replica. People are increasingly punished for creativity, when they should be punished only for the dangerous and harmful actions they commit. I do not care that I was hit with a rock tied to a stick (tomohawk)only that I was attacked and hit in the first place.
The guy pleaded out for fear of an additional 19 years in the Pen. So the FBI gets their conviction, because of terrorism leverage.
Meanwhile, here in San Diego, enviro freaks burned down a $20 million condo project, and the owner is not going to get insurance because the policy didn't cover "terrorism." Probably 400 people out of work.
When gov't or anyone for that matter plays the terrorism card to its advantage, we ALL lose.
Excuse me, but didn't the Supreme Court say that such penalties were unconstitutional, coincidentally just days after Mitnick's similar restrictions ended?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
. . .the first amendment starting to get the kind of respect that the second has enjoyed for so long.
The irony, of course, is that the fact that he was prosecuted by the government is a stronger indictment of that government than whatever was on his page.
-Peter
Is anyone going to protest this or try to lobby to get this guy's sentence overturned? Or well, *something*? I had no idea this was going on, but I'm pretty pissed now that I know. This seems totally out of question as a ruling and a punishment, how can they even argue he committed a *crime*?
If anyone knows of something others can do, please post here. I'm too unorganized in my personal life at the moment to spearhead anything, but I'd like to participate if anyone else has gotten the ball rolling. This whole thing makes me feel unsafe in my own country.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
"These crazy maniac right winged pro mililtary republicans want to make government so big and so powerful that they can rob us of our freedoms and we can do nothing about it."
The left-wingers want to make government even bigger than what these Republicans want. Socialism is far worse.
PC niceties are fucking killing this country. Racial profiling is evil, so let's submit 90-year old caucasian women to strip searches, just like that nice Saudi gentleman over there. All in the name of social equality.
9/11 changed the rules. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better we'll all be off. Perhaps this kid would have been just another weirdo with a badly designed website in a past life. But this is another world. Our insistence of making believe that everything is OK and should remain exactly the same is pointless and stupid. Let's get with the program. No, it's not nice to send nice youngsters to jail because of what they said in their website. OTOH, if he wants to overthrow the fucking government perhaps he'd like to move to Liberia or Burma. Those governments provide great infrastructure, defense and civil liberties.
I'm involved in the BoomerShoot and there's a whole website about making explosives there. I wonder when all of this will be illegal?
As long as you speak the new speak and waive your flag.
Ever thought about that if you can offshore American "High-Tech", then maybe it's not such high tech afterall.
Maybe it's you who've fallen behind the times and should learn another occupation that's really high tech and cannot be (yet) moved abroad?
BOO! TERRO
... like the guys who put up the websites with a hit list for abortion doctors and celebrating everytime someone nuked one of them?
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I don't know if anyone else picked up on this, but one thing that is mentioned by CNN is that the sentence given was actually more than the prosecution recommended. I don't want to read into it too much, but I do find it interesting.
Actually, it's NOT BS. If you look at all the OTHER issues in his case, convieniently listed here and here. His crime was NOT linking sites, but hacking other sites. The addition of "explosives" issues and call to action to use those links is akin to inciting to riot. The Feds had him cold, and he copped a plea. What's the big deal here ?
WTF are you talking about? Oh yeah, you didn't RTFA. I'll summarize:
Not only did he have an anarchist's web site that linked to bomb making sites, AND he advocated overthrowing the goverment, but, and here's the kicker...
"Austin was arrested with other protesters at the World Economic Forum in New York in February 2002 on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. "
He wasn't just preaching.. he was practicing what he preached. Therefore, he posed a REAL threat, not a virtual one.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
He claimed to be an anarchist, but advocated replacing the United States government with one that would be much more oppressive and totalitarian.
Advocating political change is what freedom of speech is all about. If you haven't got that, then your current government is not worth preserving.
The first amendment clearly states we should not be held accountable for our actions... ...no, wait, nevermind -- you're an idiot.
"Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
If anybody is communists it's the socialist that poise as democrats. Republicans have never and will never believe in socialism. The patriot act doesn't take away American rights it more clearly defines them. Most people have never even read the patriot act, so I guess you are probably one of those fools that speak before they learn the truth. Just remember to quote something memorable "The truth is out there" for those willing to find it.
People seem to like to quote the Bill of Rights, but none of the ammendments added since. The Bill of Rights is not a noose. Our country's founders knew they could not foresee every possible need of this country in the future. Our laws may not be perfect, but they are there for our protection.
People who promote violence against the innocent as a means of freedom are nothing more than disturbers of the peace who deserve their punishments.
I support anyone's right to complain about our government and call for change, but not the promotion of fear and violence.
(cue Mr. Rodgers music)
"Always remember that Republicans and gun owners are scary. And the NRA is Evil. But Anarchists who run websites pointing at bomb making instructions are just practicing free speech! Vote for Dean!"
Fuckin' beam me up Scotty! Am I seriously expected to feel sorry for this guy? This isn't exactly Free Kevin stuff here. The guy points to websites on HOW TO KILL! Not phone phreaking! Not Overclocking! Not DVD ripping! He's advocating violence and sedition. And if he really wants to live in an anarchist contry, he should go to Liberia. He'll be begging for social order in about ten minutes.
Four minutes after posting 10 replies are crying that the government has violated his first amendment rights... let's not forget that the dumbass cracked into several sites (including the army), defaced them, inserted nasty little cgi scripts and happily posted DoS tools. On top of all this he admitted that he did all this. He even said, "If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think..." The moron got what he wanted. They're sending him away on his actions, not what he thinks.
As for the scare bit about "an extra 20 years for the terrorism..." that's a troll for getting the story picked up. Even if he had gone to trial, the extra 20 years isn't a mandatory thing - it's a maximum sentence of up to 20 years. In the end he probably would have ended up in the same spot or gotten an extra year. I can't belive this is even worth digging up again, but hey, it's a slow newsday.
Did he get sentenced for speaking freely about where to find info on how to build bombs, or was he sentenced for HAXORing someone else's computer?
If the former, then it is time for all of us to petition the US government to burn the US Constitution, because it is clear that it no longer is being enforced, so they should stop pretending it means anything.
If the latter, then CNN's website is grossly misleading if not outright lying.
Which is it?
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Gets arrested at a demostration after getting his house raided. Ever hear of laying low?
Everything Zen;
Everything Zen;
I don't think so!!!
Hell no! If you want to silence neo-nazis, who else do you want to silence? If I write a document about how to kill the president, who's to say that I don't want to improve the security system? That's some of what's wrong with the DMCA (I want to improve security, not break copyright law). I agree that harassment is not protected speech, but that's because it is actually a crime that hurts people. If this is the kind of limit we have for freedom of speech, then it really is time for a revolution.
I would find it disturbing if this guy was arrested for posting the information himself. Regardless of the information posted, he hasn't actually committed a crime, nor from what I understand was he in a position encouraging others to perform violent acts. I'll draw a parallel to the likes of the Ku Klux Klan - what they believe and stand for is reprehensible, and they most likely discuss desires to physically harm others of racial minority status. However, talking and doing are two different things. There's a distinction between having a violent impulse and acting on it. If the government launches pre-emptive strikes on our freedom of speech in order to prevent future crimes, they have effectively set a precendent for the erosion of personal freedoms and liberties; once the rust has an 'in', it's only a matter of time before it consumes the body of its host in its entirety. Now, without a doubt, such pre-emptive strikes do indeed prevent crimes and save lives. It comes down to a choice of the society we wish to live in. Would one rather exist in a country where the government keeps a tight fist on all of our actions and communications, secure in the knowledge that violence has been reduced to near-non-existant levels? Or does one value freedom over life and live in a country where occasional acts of violence occur, but the dissemination of information and unhindered distribution of ideas reign free? In this age of the Ashcrofts and Patriot Acts, our historic battle cry of 'Give me Liberty or give me Death' seems to have already rusted away.
Actually, you are the one full of (insert animal here) shit. Freedom of speech means exactly that. You are free to speak whatever the hell you want. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this freedom exists in the United States. A famous quote (forget which president) paraphrased was "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death."
So all the bull about hate-speech being a crime and that words are dangerous is an attempt to limit the power of an individual because it might upset the balance. Do I think that neo-nazis, et. all are morally wrong in what they say? Sure I do. Do I think it should be illegal for them to say it? Hell no! It is no less safe to have a website that tells you how to make a bomb (or in this case to LINK to a website with that info) than to allow chemistry teachers to explain re-dox reactions. Hell, we made thermite as our final lab in high school chemistry. You think that's safer than a bunch of wackjobs saying non-whites are inferior or protesters alleging that maybe the government is corrupt? Slippery slope my friend. Slippery slope.
And people wonder why California is such a fucked up place...
Go ahead and scream fire in a crowded theater, people just look at you weird. Luckily yelling fire is less annoying than your cell phone going off.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Oi.
.
Aren't the jails already full of college-boy, pot-pushers? Now you want to make stupidity a criminal offense. Who is going to pay for the bottom half of the bell-curve watching TV all day?
. . . violence against the authorities you are subject to . .
Kinda gets right to the heart of the matter, don't it? Violent revolution is always a crime and sometimes necessary. Read any American history, you Tory bitch?
illegitimii non ingravare
You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. There's a grey line between speech and stupidity, and based on the article this guy was pretty stupid.
That being said, I feel sorry for the guy. He enters into a plea bargain and agrees to plead guilty and receive 4 months in jail, but the judge gives him a year.
"What the hell?"
What the hell indeed.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Last time I checked it was okay to openly advocate the overthrow of the government? I even thought it was okay to write and speak about it. The problem is when you start acting on those feelings...
I seriously think the government overstepped it's bounds on this. Ironically enough, our civil liberites are here mainly to protect people acting in ways that the rest of us don't approve of...
What's even more tragic was that instead of standing up for his civil rights, this kid got bullied into to a plea bargain because of his fear that he'd be treated like a terrorist and it would increase his sentence from 1 year to 20...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Is not freedom of action.
You cannot incite a riot in a public place, like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Authors have long gotten in trouble with the feds for writing "how to" books and manifestos on bombmaking, murder, child molestation, etc.
This isnt new or a sign of the times. This idiot, through his ACTIONS, not his words, seeks to threaten the safety of other citizens. He can believe whatever he wants, but when he starts telling people to put pipe bombs in my mailbox, he crosses a line.
So sad too bad, here's hoping he's raped mercilessy by people with even less respect for the law than he.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers on this nation, had to say about the subject.
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787.
" . . . forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William Stephens Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
What does this have to do with a European viewpoint?
I'm European myself and I think promoting change in society is legitimate. I also think promoting it in a way that raisethefist does it is legitimate also, such as giving tips on how to best evade police repression during protests etc.
They're making a hysterical example of Sherman that'll teach many to shut their mouths and think twice before engaging in political activity.
Yours is a kneejerk opinion you learned from someone else. And it has nothing to do with a European viewpoint whatsoever.
As a highschooler what am I to think growing up?
For starters, you shouldn't advertise yourself as a promoter of the use of explosives in order to undermine your government. Free speech notwithstanding, your leaders don't look kindly on that sort of thing. Neither do conservatives. Neither, broadly speaking, does any sane human being.
It's interesting that his website was not covered under the 1st amendment. Although the material is something of a desired nature, why was he charged for his thoughts on overthrowing the US?
It's interesting that the people in the enron/worldcom/adelphia/etc cases screw people out of millions, yet only some will get jail time. This guy creates as website based on the 1st, yet he's put in jail.
Why is it that in the US only rich white people can get away with murder (with the exception of O.J. simpson), yet the average person who doesn't believe in their government is a "terrorist" or anti-american citizen?
and in the america i grew up in we don't censor information from the public
Care to tell me where this magical fantasy land is.
The America I know of (USA, in North America, between Canada and Mexico). Has ALWAYS kept secrets from the populace. Like every government has hidden details, and some unethical people within it.
This si the way it is, and that is why you should vote, and protest and work to change.
On this case, he plead guilty to the charges. The other thing is that if he actively worked to promote violence and attacked government computers he was committing a crime.
Protesting and working against the government is fine, just do it legally.
Cracking computers, making bombs and advocating violence is wrong.
A convicted criminal does not have the same rights a citizen, that is the way our justice system works.
(I'm not a US citizen)
...when will the sheeple awaken?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
His speech was deemed harmful, something we haven't had the right to (and shouldn't!) before. To say something just to hurt someone is the same as hurting them.
This isn't the case of a political extremist giving a public speech to express his views. Enough people thought he was dangerous, and promoting violence, that he got a year in jail. So don't go waving the "All censorship is evil and bad" banner too much. You end up looking foolish.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
From the FA...
Austin admitted posting links about bombs.
He is going to prison for an "<A href", not for hosting the information himself.
This is the kind of thing that makes Ashcroft spooge his pants, no doubt.
I beg to differ about your insinuation that the "Republicans" are turning this place into the soviet union...
If anyone, it's the damnned left-wing pieces of crap who insist on controlling what everyone sees and hears through the media, education, and other outlets.
Why is it that CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?
Warning: IANAL.
First take a look at the search warrant issued against the home of Austin.
What we see here is that he's being suspected of breaking two specific laws.
18 USC 1030 - Computer Fraud
Austin is charged under this because he was suspected of being responsible for several defacements which are detailed in the warrant. Looking at what's in the warrant there seems to be more than enough evidence to support this charge.
18 USC 842(p)(2) - Unlawful Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, etc...
In the search warrant are several quotes from raisethefist.com in which information about explosives is provided along side some comments that encourage this knowledge be used against police officers.
Here's the exact quote from 18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A):
to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;
Clearly what Austin did, provide information about explosives within the context of causing harm to others with said knowledge, falls under this law.
From the information that I have available it seems very apparent that Austin did commit crimes under current US law.
Now had Austin removed suggestions for use of this bomb making knowledge and just presented it in a separate, straight-forward format, he could not be charged under 18 USC 842.
However, he still defaced some sites and thus is still in violation of 18 USC 1030.
Remember, IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward to me. No freedom of speech issue here.
...if he had been warned that the Feds were not down with his site's content in advance, but from what I hear, he was just raided with no forewarning whatsoever. That's unfair.
Furthermore, if the government was so concerned about the bomb-making sites he was linking to, why didn't they just shut down those instead? They sounded a lot more dangerous than an excersize of the First Amendment.
"Screw slashdot." -- Linus Torvalds
I invite you to read that page.
Here's a quote that defines just how many of your rights have been looted from under your ignorant feet
Fourth Amendment? Who needs it, certainly not the helpful Government. They'll never abuse this power, only use it to fight Terrorists! Oh, and Drugs! Oh, and they'll use it to Save The Children!
Naturally, raisethefist.com is pretty much devoid of content now. Fortunately for thos of us who like to know firsthand what the news is about, the Internet Archive has several backups of the site and what it's about.
So you think that a Disorderly Conduct and Unlawful assembly charge warrants a ONE YEAR sentence?
Do you believe that the US WEF protesters were trying to commit sedition?
There is a huge difference between opposing certain policies of a government and attempting to overthrow it. ( A ridiculous possibility in the case of the US ).
However, from the article it sounded like he didn't try to actually make a bomb. Instead he just posted some hyperlinks. The fact that he got arrested for posting LINKS to material like that is beyond scary. I'm not one of those "information wants to be free at all costs" zealots, but I mean this is shit that any college chem major could figure out on their own. The government shouldn't have a right to arrest and convict this kid just because of his website, no matter HOW offensive or big of a threat the US gov't perceives it.
Now, back to slacking off at work...
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
one motive
one market
one desire
one mind
one order
one control.
free country?
one lie.
It's always nice to see /. mods who don't read the articles.
I hope all of us can show support for Mr. Austin, as this direct affront on the U.S. Constitution transpires. It is wrong to jail anyone for being a revolutionary (didn't Stalin and Hitler do this?). Sherman, I'll play some Atari Teenage Riot loud and hard. Throw your fist up!
Sez right near the top: "Austin, 20, pleaded guilty in February to distributing information related to explosives."
Ahh, a fine tradition. Our Founding Fathers, the guys we're supposed to be so in love with and who supposedly knew so much about liberty, passed the Sedition act in 1798.
I can't remember the name, but I think there was another act prohibiting advocating the violent overthrow of the government passed during the Red Scare, around 1917.
The Patriot Act is only the latest iteration of this.
If this judgement is to hold up in court, then Smith & Wesson need to be held accountable for publishing their
owner's manual to the S&W 22A pistol online. Otherwise, this is hypocritical.
Showing people how to do something does not equate to them actually doing it. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater does not equate to telling others what would happen if you did such a thing. There's a difference between intent and deed, and it's being trampled on here.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
> This is why we need software like Freenet, the
> government is turning into the soviet union.
> These crazy maniac right winged pro mililtary
> republicans want to make government so big and so > powerful that they can rob us of our freedoms and > we can do nothing about it.
Why those bastards! Don't they know that's the Democrat's job to steal our constitutional rights away to enslave us in socialism!
Dammy
Could someone explain to me why linking to bomb-making instructions is a prison-worthy offense, while standing up on a pulpit and praying for God (or one of his little helpers) to smite specific members of the Supreme Court is perfectly acceptible? One could make a real Constitutional argument for the former by combining the 1st and 2nd amendments. The latter is a lot harder to justify, except of course, "Well, HE'S popular and too many people like him."
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Says the Constitution of the United States of America:
You could probably make a good claim that 1) linking to bomb-making instructions and 2) advocacy of the ovethrow of the government constitutes "aid" to enemies of the United States.
Treason is explicitly defined as a capital crime. The dude is pretty lucky he only ended up with a year in jail--not to say that he should have.
-- "The reward of suffering is experience." - Aeschylus
The constitution is a bit of a .. well.. an untruth.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Try being a mid-easterner after 9/11!
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Try saying that you want to kill the present some time, and mean it. See what happens.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
As long as you have a government sanctioned permit.
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, don't go being unpatriotic! You're with us, right?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
- Among the people who did not even read the PATRIOT act (or at least not all of it) were many of the members of congress who voted for it.
- You say that it more clearly defines our rights. I contest that and say that it more narrowly defines them (esp re the 4th amendment), and if you keep narrowing the definitions, you eventually define our rights away to nothing.
The Republicrats have all got it wrong. One side wants economic freedom but legislated morality. The other wants us to be able to do as we please with our bodies and minds, but not with our wallets and checkbooks. I say let people do as they please, so long as they are not actually causing harm to someone else. Don't prosecute the guy who teaches how to make a bomb; he isn't hurting anybody. The criminals are the ones who actually blow up the bombs and cause injury. Keep following this precident, and we're going to end up with the thought policeThat is all. Carry on. </transmission>
I am not familiar with the site, nor the person in question. Advocating the overthrow of the US government is not tolerable by any means. Advocating a change in politics and policies would fall under freedom of speech. When lives are threatened, yes they are threatened by an overthrow, that freedom of speech is abused. Like the person who looked at the situation from a European POV, freedom of speech comes with responsibility. I know I am going to get flamed for this but: for all those who think this is a violation of the 1st amendment, do you agree that arresting a muslim-american on the basis that they created a website that advocates overthrowing the US government is a violation of their rights granted by the 1st amendment?
That is nothing new. The police have always been able to search with probable cause. It just defines what so many people have forgotten
"Austin was arrested with other protesters at the World Economic Forum in New York in February 2002 on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. "
WTF are you talking about? Oh yeah, you didn't RTFA. [snip] He wasn't just preaching.. he was practicing what he preached. Therefore, he posed a REAL threat, not a virtual one.
It has become increasingly difficult to practice our freedom of peaceful protest, so don't be so quick to write this guy off as a "real threat".
I was at the WEF protest in NYC, too. Cops were turning some people away from the protest, pinning other people behind barricades and not letting them leave the protest, packing hundreds into some pens while leaving other pens with only a handful of people. Numerous people who disagreed were arrested. One cop nearly pushed me over when he hit me in the back with his club when I stopped to ask another cop for directions (politely) as we were leaving. . .
This is far from being about overthrowing the government.
This is about teaching how to make explosives with the intent be that those who learn how to use that knowledge against the government.
But the real kicker is that, according to the search warrant, Austin was flying under the radar until he defaced a couple web sites. Then an FBI investigator started looking into Austin and found his site raisethefist.com.
From that site Austin secured himself a second charge under 18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A) which makes it unlawful to provide information about explosives when the intent is that such knowledge be used to committ a crime.
Chemistry departments, class notes posted online, etc... Should be the same info in a more detailed form.
"A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted."
Nope. The situation still REQUIRES that the occupant be informed. You got it wrong, no surprise.
" Fourth Amendment? Who needs it, "
We do. And it stays intact, with "reasonable" and "warrants" still required.
If he wants to argue against the government, fine. I agree with him there -- our government is pretty fucked up. Stealing from the people under the euphemism of taxes and inflation is wrong. If he wants to link to pages on making bombs, fine, so long as he does not actively encourage people to kill others (it is illegal to try to persuade others to take illegal action, or to incite a riot).
However, this guy did quite a bit more than that. He hacked into people's computers. He hacked into military computers. This constitutes a clear and obvious case of what is analagous to tresspassing -- violating another person's property (in the case of the military computers, violating the property of the US taxpayers).
This guy is clearly a danger to those around him. If he doesn't like some government policy, or the governmnet itself, fine. He can criticize as harshly as he wants. However, unless his rights are directly threatened, he can't take up force. What if this nutcase reads something one of you wrote, and decide that he doesn't like what you believe in, or doesn't like you, so that -- he thinks -- gives him the right to hack into your computer and fuck up your data?
So, why exactly is it that we're supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Maybe the punishment is a little out of line with the crime. 4 months in prison was recommended; the judge gave 1 year. But justice is an inherently subjective, not objective, matter. Trying to nail down the "just" sentence to within a couple of months -- or maybe even years, in the case of more severe crimes -- is a matter of art, not science.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
First off, back when he was arrested (check the link) it was also because he'd defaced websites and was inciting people to violence. This, I believe, is what he actually got nailed on. They dropped the bomb materials charge since that is BS and is protected free speech. However threats against people and against the government are not, likewise calling peopel to violence is not.
If I stand around and yell about what an idiot you are, and how much I hate you I am excersizing my right to freedom of speech, if in a retarded manner. However if I call you up and make death threats that is NOT prtected and I can be arrested for it. Also if I stand around and try to get people to act violently towards you, that is not protected and I can be arrested.
You can't use your right to freedom of expression to try and infringe on my rights (in this case the right to life).
of the time the clinton admiistration had a anti abotion website shut down for listing abortionsts names and cossing them out when killed... free speech.. but liberals belived it incited volence.. sowrd cuts both ways
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
" I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Voltaire (1694-1778)
Keep in mind, before we jump all over the potential violation of his right to freedom of speech, he chose not to defend himself. It was his decision to go for a lighter sentence in a plea bargain rather than take the risk of being found guilty. You can't fault the government for that. Perhaps you can fault his publicly appointed defender or the judge but in this case, the law wasn't even tested.
> You are wrong on two counts:
... Troll feed here!*
*Troll feed! Get your troll feed here! Just 2 bucks a box. Get 'em while they're hot. Going fast!
He got 4 months. Either he already served 8 month being a pain in the ass, or the rest is probation.
Do you believe that the US WEF protesters were trying to commit sedition?
I have no idea. Do you believe abortion protestors are there to kill the doctors?
Everybody has their own agenda. If he was 'REALLY BAD' I'm sure he would have gotten more time.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
But the word "peaceably" is not attached to the right to free speech or press. It is only attached to the right for the people to peaceably assmble (ie, it's ok to stand outside Congress and protest something, but not ok to start a riot over it).
That is exactly right.
Not only is 'peacably' applied solely to the right to assemble (i.e. you don't have the right to assemble with an army outside the whitehouse and threaten, or attempt, a putsch), the notion of even trying to apply the word peacably to speach or the press is doomed to catastrophic failure (either for the one trying to create the definition or, more likely, the no-longer-even-remotely-free society to which it is applied).
We're not talking about a slippery slope here, folks, we're talking about already being in the nadir of the valley if we attempt such a thing.
Ask yourself, what exactly is "peaceful" speach?
Is advocating the murder of a president peaceful speach?
How about advocating the overthrow of a government?
How about advocating the removal of a congressman? From office, that is.
How about advocating mass protests to raise public awareness of an unjust, preemtive war?
How about shouting obsceneties to the cops beating your friends with billy clubs during the protest you participated in?
How about particularly colorful descriptions of corrupt government employees or politicians, such as Senator "Disney" Hollings, particularly a description wishing ill upon such for the harm they've caused society and/or millions of innocents.
How about screaming obscenities to your spouse in during one of your more colorful fights?
Limit speach to only "peaceful" speach, and you go well beyond 'Disneyfying' human discourse, you eliminate it altogether. Even by reasonable definitions of 'peacable' Elmer Fudd, Bugs Bunny, and the rest of the Looney Toons would fail.
As soon as we impose that constraint on our speech, or our press, we have lost the freedom completely. There will be no slippery slope, merely an unscalable cliff we'll be at the bottom of, indefinitely, until less than peacable action corrects the injustice (be it in 10 years or 100) and restores the constitution.
If we haven't lost this fundamental freedom (along with all the others the Drug Warriors and Nationalists have already shredded over the last two decades), we are on the brink of doing so, and undoing that loss will be extremely costly and take many, many years, perhaps decades, of struggle (peaceful and otherwise).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
When I was in the USA last month, a surprising number of people admitted to me that they were very concerned about the way their civil rights and liberties were being eroded in the name of the war against terrorism.
The same people also told me however, that they would not go on the record with their comments because they feared being labeled unpatriotic.
It seems that issue of patriotism has been raised to such importance in the USA that the government is now able to use it as an effective tool to silence any anti-government (pro constitution) sentiment by the people.
It's about time US citizens woke up and realised that they've been suffering the "thin end of the wedge" for some time now and if they don't remind the government (in a non violent manner) that they are elected to SERVE and not to rule then a powderkeg situation will result.
Surely the USA can learn from its own history -- doesn't anyone remember (or care to remember) the McCarthy years? Replace "communists" with "terrorists" and you'll find that, 50 years on, there's very little difference.
You are not allowed to say "I am going to kill the president." Why? Because it will get you arrested. According to the law that is a threat.
/.'ers think that this case should be thrown out of court and him set free. Gimme a break. You do something that is going to get you arrested, then don't be surprized when it happens. There are many ways to go about doing things. Often the same thing can be accomplished using their own tools (politics) instead of something rash.
As is asking for people to gather to overthrow the government. You will get silences, while this isn't quite the same as a threat to the 'Leader of the Free World' it is a threat.
If you want to do this legally, do what most other people have done. Join The Green Party. That's a legal political movement, instead of something like a cu.
Also, giving out information on how to construct illegal devices will flag you. Weather you like it or not.
So, in short, all you over zealous
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Lionel Hutz?
Why is it that CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?
Maybe I am missing something, but what does that have to do with the left wing?
Oh, I forgot, CNN has a terrible left leaning bias, is that it? It was really easy for me to forget that they were on the left while they were cheerleading for the war in Iraq. If CNN was really left leaning, they would have spent the entire time talking about why what we were doing was wrong.
CNN did show pictures of the injured after 9/11, and they were no where near anti-war.
Cry about the media bias all you want, It will not convince me that it exists until I find the things that they are saying to be to liberal more often than once a month.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
In print, and from at least one major distributor, Amazon.com.
I bunch them together because they both share the same fatal flaw in their platfoms. Democrats are for personal/social freedom but against economic freedom. Republicans are for economic freedom (to a certain extent at least), but against personal/social freedom. Neither one of them is consistant in their philosophy, and as I said, they share the same inconsistancy, hence I group them together.
That is all. Carry on. </transmission>
This is not in the constitution itself, but is the US Code covering advocating the overthrow of the US government.
/ parts/i/chapters/115/sections/section_2385.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
I don't know about you, but all my quibbles with life here are relatively minor, compared to what they would be in most other places in the planet, and I don't think it's a good idea to let people run around taking up arms in revolution against the US.
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to jail those who advocate violent overthrow of the government, and I hardly believe that doing so makes the US a 'police state'...It simply makes us a nation of laws.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
So did your founding fathers. Fucking Americans.
That's actually not true at all. The Founding Fathers were all for violent overthrow of governments, so long as the government in question wasn't a good one. Remember, they actually went and did that. In the Declaration of Independece, they wrote: This is why they included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution; in the minds of the Founding Fathers, the people should be able to take up arms against an oppressive government if necessary.
Well, the door was open...
If you really think the government needs to be violently overthrown, as in the American Revolution of 1776, don't expect the current government to assist your efforts.
Speak your peace (not "piece," by the way), change minds, reform the system, vote your conscience, protest, seek redress for grievances -- but do not expect sympathy for promoting violent acts.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Google on Sherman Austin and Hacking
Pick your own site.
"According to the FBI, Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated."
"Austin has also admitted to hacking into a number of websites to post anti-government messages."
For those claiming this is a free speech issue alone, last I checked freedom of speech didn't include freedom of breaking and entering someone else's computer system in order to speak from their platform.
No Zen is good zen
Unless you say something we dont agree with...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Here and Here
The kid was hacking websites (and attempted to hack military computers according to logs on his computer) JUST AFTER congress passed the PATRIOT act which equated:
Politically Motivated Hacking = Terrorism
Stupid kid was asking for trouble.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
EVERY anarchist supports overthrowing the (and every) government. This establishes precedent for supressing all of them (more; did you know it's illegal for a foreign anarchist to enter the country?).
And as for protesting, well, one, it says he was arrested, not convicted, and two, there's a bit of a difference between civil disobedience and throwing bombs.
News From The Peoples Repbulic of California:
Crisis has been averted, and a dangerous man is behind bars. He will serve as an example to all those that would dare critisize our way of life. This criminal was also involved in terrorist activity and bomb making.
Our successful re-education of that silly baseball player and countless of other examples prove that we can help people think the way they should. After all we know whats good for you, and we know how you should think.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
The problem with this is that the authorities are not hunting for neo-nazis, they're hunting for environmentalists, anti-globalization folks, anarchists, communists, in other words, political bodies which sometimes have valid concerns and challenges to the society.
Anyways, is knowledge on how to kill someone a danger in itself for that person? Is *knowing* how to make a nuke or how to kill the president a danger that should be neutralized? If so, then we're all potential murderers that must be put behind bars, because everyone knows how to kill a man, especially in the US: grab a gun, aim, pull the trigger. Pretty simple.
BTW, it's ironic that you mention neo-nazis, because the first article that you can read on raise the fist actually talks about neo-nazis being *protected* by the police when doing a demo at the capitol.
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
This looks more to me like a CNN screw up then anything else. They said it was for information of bomb making but other sources say it was hacking military computers. Oh yeah and did he say to use those bombs against the government anywhere?
Creative Demolition
Professor Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University maintains a web page with much detailed information on this case. Apparently, he doesn't agree with Sherman's acts, but is at odds with the free-speech component of this case.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/
18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A) IS a violation of the first amendment. The fig-leaf of "with the intent that..." is a bunch of hooey.
Here you go:
1. Buy gun.
2. ???
3. Dead president!
Come get me.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Darl C McBride 1799 Vintage Oak Ln Salt Lake City, UT 84121-6539 (801)424-2006
I'm all for free speech...and gladly advocate protecting people's right to make opposing viewpoints. That said, Title 18 has been around for a long time, and if you didn't know that it was illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government when you did it, then it sucks to be you.
Just another day in Paradise
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let's nominate this guy for a Darwin Award. I mean, c'mon, if the guy is stupid enough to do ALL THESE THINGS and land a rather cushy 1 year federal hard ass-pounding prison term, I'd think he's rather damned fortunate he didn't get the all expenses paid 20-year vacation/sabatical from daily grind of whatever it is he calls work.
Link to warrant/affidavit and other info. Here
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I've not lost any rights lately. Have you? Of course not.
how about the right to travel freely around the country on an airplane without having my bung-hole searched for things that might actually help terrorists cause the plane to crash? like nail clippers or tweezers (which is why I carry a knife made of ballistic nylon; totally undetectable w/o sticking your hand in my underwear waistband and grabbing my sack). either that or the TSA is just a bunch of queers who inherited the moron mindset from their big-brother butt-buddies at the FBI. his name wasn't Hoover for nothing.....
I'm good with numbers -
These crazy maniac right winged pro mililtary republicans want to make government so big and so powerful that they can rob us of our freedoms and we can do nothing about it.
Umm, I think it's the democrats who want the large govt. The republicans want a small govt with a big shadow.
This is flamebait?
Protesting the WEF deserves a prison sentence?
"Land of the Free"?
LMFAO!!!
Oh yes, the mythical liberal media. Last time I checked, the vast majority of the media outlets in the U.S. belong to a decreasing number of large corporate conglomerates--not known for their liberal viewpoints. Ask yourself this: what happened to the end-game coverage of the Florida voting scandal and subsequent recounts? Why isn't there any real coverage about the nasty environmental depredations brought on by large American corporate concerns? Why are there endless television commercials from auto manucturers and yet none from the consumerist groups who would love (and have tried on multiple occasions) to purchse ad time for opposing viewpoints? Why is talk radio largely dominated by ultra right-wingers? Education? Again, American education is rapidly being infiltrated by American corporate concerns such as McDonalds, Pepsi and Coco Cola in the form of donations in exchange for in-school advertising, distribution and the infamous, mandatory and comercial-ridden propoganda engine known as Channel One. Then of course there's the constant attack on modern science from the right-wing Creationist camp. So where's all this liberal influence?
> CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?
Because he's not an American, and his family won't see that & sue their panties off. Plus, of course, he's an Iraqi, which makes him "inferior."
I think you need to go back under that rock you crawled out from under and go back too bed. How old are you man, like 200. This is the millenium, things change, such as: women have had equal right now for a pretty good while and its most likely to stay that way for a long time so get used to it. Another thing, the constitution was made up and signed by quite a few "good christian men", and if im not mistaken the constitution grants the free people of the United States of America Free Speech, and i'am very grateful for that. You need to get with the program and realize things change over time.
HaHaHaHaHa
A remark attributed to Voltaire, notably by S.G. Tallentyre [a nom de plume of E. Beatrice Hall] in The Friends of Voltaire (1907). But Tallentyre gave the words as a free paraphrase of what Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Tolerance: 'Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privelege to do so, too.' So what we have is merely Tallentyre's summary of Voltaire point of view.
Then along comes Norbert Guterman to claim that what Voltaire did write in a letter of February [6,] 1770 to a M. Le Riche was: 'Monsieur l'Abbe, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.' So, whether or not he used the precise words, at least Voltaire believed in the principle behind them.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Ironically I have a book on making bombs and explosives published by the the us federal government, that has detailed instructions on how to make explosives form commonly available materials. 'Improvised Munitions Handbook' Dept of the Army Technical Manual TM 31-210. I guess the lesson is only the government can publish bomb making materials. I purchased the book legally from a civilian publisher several years ago. I guess guys in flak jackets will be breaking down my door any minute.. MM
His speech was deemed harmful, something we haven't had the right to (and shouldn't!) before. To say something just to hurt someone is the same as hurting them.
... it may well turn out that supporting Bush's foreign policies will have been to support policies that result in far more American deaths than Al Q'aeda could ever achieve in its most ambitious dreams. Just think of the potential consiquences of his failures in North Korea and Iran, or the possible consiquences of a regime change in Pakistan.
Nonsense. Until fairly recently Americans did have the right to speech, harmful or otherwise. The 'fire in the theater' decision did not preclude, nor was it intended to preclude, discussions on setting fire to a crowded theater, or even discussions on how to orchastrate the event for maximum entertainment to bystanders (perhaps by playing a flute?), but to address a particular, very narrowly defined, immediate cause of immediate harm.
Attempting to extend that narrow (and at the time very contraversial) exception to include any speech that might, possibly, incite harm at some point in the future (as has been done here) is not just exceptionally harmful to freedom of speech in general and political discussion and dissent in particular, but absolutely lethal.
Are you engaging in harmful speech when you come out in support of Al Q'aeda?
Are you engaging in harmful speech when you support president Bush's foreign policies?
Don't be too sure about the answer to either of those
Ban 'harmful speech' and you will have essentially banned any and all speech, at the whim of whoever happens to be wielding authority at that point in time. Regardless of who that is (Bush, Chaney, or Howard Dean) you will have completely gutted the freedom the first amendment was intended to protect, in a way that will probably require 'harmful' actions in order to restore (if restoration is ever even a possibility).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Actually, I kept all that shit figuring it would go away. I have the collected Jolly Roger works and the Anarchist's Cookbook. Does that make me old? ;)
It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt, though, and I've read about a number of cases of people injuring themselves or others by trying to do that kind of stuff.
No doubt. I knew I was in trouble when I saw, repeatedly, the symbol for calcium referred to as "C" (instead of "Ca"). Whoever wrote most of that thing was a complete poseur. But it was still fun when I was 15. ;)
The mature thing to do is to preemptively avoid spreading that kind of content so that it doesn't fall into the hands of idiots.
You're probably right, although I really don't like the sentiment there, though. I mean, this is the damned first amendment here. Spreading information is now illegal if the gov. doesn't like it? What the hell is that? I really wish hte ACLU or someone would have taken this up. Remember, we don't *need* the 1st Am. for protection of speech no one finds offensive. We need it to protect speech that is attacked, like this.
As mentioned previously, advocating the overthrow of the gov. is a right and privelege granted to us by the Declaration of Independence, assuming that wasn't just a bunch of crap. So what did this kid do wrong? It's not like he actually did any of this stuff. And didn't the abortion group that posted doctors' names on its website get off? Or am I wrong?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"Why is it that CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?"
Perhaps because the average american gets physically ill when seeing another dead american, while watching children dying in some part of the world that they can't even point to on a globe is seen as a better version of Survivor(tm)?
Which of those offences merits a custodial sentence, in your opinion?
Or do you think that people can either:
a) have free speech
b) protest peacefully
but if they choose to exercise both they should be arrested?
...But, tellingly, he was only indicted on the count of sharing information on the construction of incendiaries.
Do you really think that, had they had *real* evidence to link Sherman to some of the other crimes he's been accused of here (vandalising websites, trying to incite racial violence, hacking military computers, etc etc), that the FBI and prosecutors would have only been recommending 4 months in prison, especially in the current political atmosphere? Doubtful, highly doubtful. I've read the complete sentencing recommendation information - if half of what they *thought* he *might* have done had been remotely provable, they would not have accepted a plea bargain.
Its also extremely easy to be charged with "disorderly conduct and failure to disperse" when you're at a political protest, whether you are committing a violent act or merely exercising your *right* to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. It happens all the time, and not just to "unwashed anarchists".
I have to admit, I'm biased - I'm a friend of Sherman's and know him to be not a frothing violent-tendencied lunatic, but one of the most gentle people I've ever known, who advocates self-defense against an increasingly-oppressive government. Considering his beginnings as a political activist (getting shot with rubber-coated steel shot while filming a MayDay parade turned police vs. civilian riot), I can't blame him.
No, I do not advocate violent overthrow of the state. My anarchism is simple idealism, a hope for utopia tempered with the knowledge that utopia means "no place" in Greek. But still - a girl can dream, right?
my sig says it all...
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
They're not concentration camps; they're freedom camps. I'm sure the government was just trying to correct this mistake on Austin's part. Your hesitation to agree is understandable -- and even permissible as long as you don't take it too far -- but unofficial terminology will only serve the enemy.
Satan Rulez Doode. Iron Maiden sez so and that's good enough for me.
And George Bush plays with himself, because he doesn't have any other friends.
Once these folks start encouraging violence (either explicitely or implicitely,) it's a different story.
I know what explicit encouragement of violence is (there are borderline cases, as well, of course), and I think it is right that this is illegal (just not 20 years of imprisonment, that would be extreme).
But what should "implicit encouragement of violence" mean? Isn't that something like "anti-Soviet activities", the favorite charge against opponents in the USSR? A whole principally fair and democratic constitutional order can be destroyed if there is one such muddy charge with which opponents can be sent to prison.
The republicans spend more money than the left wingers, Bush has spent more money in these 4 years than Clinton did in 8, Clinton balanced the budget, cut down spending, sure he did spend money but the money that was spent was at least spent on this country.
Bush has us providing welfare for the whole third world!!! Afganastan,Iraq,Africa, Who is next? North Korea? Iran?
We are spending money building schools, paving roads, and providing healthcare for people WHO ARENT EVEN AMERICANS!!!
I'd rather at least benefit from the spending.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
As a follower of media trends and sympathizer of anti WTO, IMF, and Globalization trends i must say that I am surprised to see this kind of support from /.ers This is normally the kind of discussion shared with my punk rock friends and the like. Kudos to everyone for well thought political discussion.
First of all, advocating voilence against anybody and providing links to bombs instructions is not a crime. Slashdot would like you to think it is, but the missing element of truth to this story is the kid got caught HACKING. (See prior slashdot stories)
Despite all its invasive provisions, EVEN the PATRIOT Act doesn't criminalize advocating violence and bomb making instructions.
Sometimes I'm glad that people are disenfranchised from their governments, because people like you would run this country into pure tyranny at every knee jerk reaction.
So far, we've done a great job building a free and prosperous society WITHOUT interfering with free speach and due process.
Somehow, we've manage to control the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, Militias and other crazies without resorting trampling on everybody's bill of rights, so why the sudden urgency now?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I submit this story hours ago, and it's rejected.
/.
/. needs a change of editors. The /. community is ok, and the OSS/Linux-centric stories are often valuable, at least for OSS/Linux advocacy. It's a good digest.
/. is promoting its supremely lame subscription service. Brilliant.
Meanwhile there's very little news appearing on
Now hours later that same story is approved, and appears.
But over the last year I've noticed the rate of new stories has gone down, while at the same time
Now, mod me down. Some of the moderators are as useful as the editors.
Enjoy.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
"Yet, in the case of his violent protests against free and fair trade, he advocates oppressive government controls to negate the economic decisions of invididuals." He has not personally participated in violence at protests. We're not pro-capitalism - but at the same time, do you *really* think the average joe is the one making economic choices? The WTO and the IMF aren't the friends of the countries they get involved in. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I'm sorry, just about every time I turned on the TV when the war started (and not just CNN) was:
Yeah I hate those kids they send out these days just before the movie starts and they are there to tell you about the refreshments or upcoming simulcasts of WWe events. No one asks me if I want to hear them... wait we were talking about some jerk who was offering links to bomb-making equipment, he is a jerk, but I don't know if he needs to be sent to "become a really big criminal super jerk" prison.
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
Reread the post you're responding to. The question here is whether the judge has the right to ban this kid from associating with anyone who advocates for change -- not only the violent ones.
Fine and that may be the case (but then, I'm not a constitutional lawyer) but he is still a script kiddie who caught defacing web sites. He took the plea bargin because he was guilty. And of course while it's all 'correct' to support this guy for his 'thoughts', he clearly does advocate using violence to reach his ends and thus I'm happy to have him off the street.
Dr. Rick
- "It's such a fine line between clever and stupid" (Nigel Tufnel)
- Zort! (Pinky)
Disorderly conduct or unlawful assembly are not felonies.
.sig in here now, I could be arrested and convicted to 20 years in prison]
He was convicted for a felony.
Nothing I read in the CNN article said he was convicted for anything else but providing links to sites that, among other things, had bomb making instructions.
The CNN article did NOT say he was advocating the use of bombs against the federal government.
Now, in typical hack-journo way, the CNN article might have failed to mention all the facts about this case, but if I have to go with the information provided by the CNN article, he was convicted of expressing unpopular thought.
There's probably more to the story, but if you RTFA, as you instruct, one can only assume John Asscroft is yet again managed to stiffle the freedom of speech in the name of national security.
[I will resist the temptation of putting my usual
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Listen to actions not words. Is the government bigger now than it was under Clinton? YES!
Are we spending more now than we spent under Clinton? YES!
The military is about 100 billion dollars bigger, then you have trillions of dollars that Bush spent, then theres the money to bailout the airline industry twice, which equals to about 40 billion dollars, plus our troops are spread all around the world as we build infastructure for other countries. The new department of homeland security another 80 billion dollars at least, the missle defense system, the new spy technology created to take advantage of the patriot act.
Tell me how anyone can say the Republicans dont want big government, Look at how big government got when Reagan was in charge during the cold war.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
We are still free. As proof, you can still buy the Anarchists Cookbook from Amazon. The law this guy broke reads as follows (emphasis added):
It shall be unlawful for any person-
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
We can teach how to blow each other up OR violently overthrow the government - just not both at the same time.
This is SlashDot, after all...
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
The conviction is for not deleting links to information on explosives that were posted to his site by someone else:
All this crap about hacking is obviously fake or they would certainly have convicted him of that too.
The Dictator list linked by Tackhead ... Source: Planet Earth's High Score List, sorted by dictator: H: Saddam Hussein
isn't very comprehensive at all.
We are missing some very friendly people like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who regularly throws his political opponents in jail where they often simply die.
We are also missing other prime tourist destinations like the very aptly named "Democratic Republic of the Congo" which was name thusly after a very bloody coup and continues to have thousands of its citizens massacred every year.
Oh, but I forget these countries don't have OIL^H^H^H WMD so their problems don't really count.
Firstly the US Supreme Court has established that Free Speech doesn't protect speech that advocates violence or doing shit like yelling fire in a movie theatre.
.. and how do they prove intent?"
Secondly the US Supreme Court, Federal Courts, State Courts, Federal Appeals Courts have established in cases relating to threating abortion/women's health clinics that you don't have a right to free speech when advocating or alluding to violence.
Now saying the US Government is turning into the Soviet Union or Communist China or Nazi Germany not only shows a serious lack of understanding of those governments and what they did but it's also a slap in the face to the tens of millions who died because of those governments.
From reading the stuff on the Raise the Fist website, I see nothing different with what happened to this guy with what's happened to those sweet folks who post the home addresses of women's clinic staffs and tell if they have gun permits or wear bullet-resistant vests.
"Distribution of information related to explosives is not illegal.. What's illegal is the INTENT part. They have to prove you have intent to use the information to cause further crime of violence
That is no different than this...
"A federal appeals court, reversing its own decision, ruled Thursday that anti-abortion rights activists who created Wild West-style posters and a Web site targeting abortion doctors are liable because their works were illegal threats and not free speech."
Patriot Act or not, what he did is in violation of Federal Law because of what the Federal Appeals Courts said.
Telling people how to make bombs out of shit around their house is perfectly fine. Advocating violence is fine. Engaging in violence is where the line exists. Laws that attempt to preempt violence by promoting fascism are retarded, and the people that support them more so.
So show people how to build something that has no other purpose than to kill and destroy is alright? Show this to people who are inclined to actually carry out such things? No. No, no.
You ideas are strictly those of an unrealistic ideolog and nearly sociopathic in how little empathy they give to possible victims of the violence this young man espouses and encourages.
"troup of Godless men"
From the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
Godless, I think not.
I'm talking about censorship via political correctness in the schools, providing a revisionist version of history, and not exposing students to an unbiased version of events that they can draw their own conclusions from. Nowadays, everyone is so worried about political correctness and not hurting anyones feelings that they are putting themselves and their country in danger. Teachers are being told what words they can and cannot say because they might "offend" someone.
Here's some questions for you to ponder
Lets say, a few months ago, you were on one of those trams at an international airport, and you see some guy standing close to you who happened to look Oriental (or is the PC term Asian?), with luggage tags from Beijing on his luggage. This guy is coughing up a storm and not caring about who's around him. Would you suspect him of having SARS or would that be "racist"?
You see two Middle-eastern fellows with a rented U-haul truck pulling up to a farming store and buying dozens of bags of fertilizer. Would you call the FBI, or would that be "racist"?
My sentiments exactly.
Only problem is that leaving the US fascist state will become increasingly difficult as the months progress. If you are the sort who doesn't like what is happening in the US, then your name is probably on a list. If your name is on a list, then there is an increasing probability that you will be stopped at a border crossing or airport.
It's only a matter of time before being stopped turns into being re-directed to a barbed-wire facility. --In Denver, perhaps?
The time to get out is NOW.
-FL
chocolate rations are up!
FreeBSD for the impatient.
I dont think all Democrats are socialist, some are, but not all of them, yes they are left wing, yes they like to spend, but Republicans like to spend as well.
The only difference is in where the money is spent, Democrats spend the money on our people, Republicans spend the money overseas on Africa, Iraq, and anywhere but over here.
If you compare the budgets, Republicans actually spend more trying to have this police state, than Democrats spend providing public schools, and other programs.
I dont have a problem with spending, I mean the rich pay most of the taxes right? Thats what all you republicans love to say, so if the Rich pay most of the taxes it means I benefit when they pay taxes which support Public Schools, Police, and other federal programs, in fact these taxes often help me get a job.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You forgot the obligatory "Wake up America!"
Reynolds +0.46
Because he's not an American, and his family won't see that & sue their panties off. Plus, of course, he's an Iraqi, which makes him "inferior."
That may be what an intelligent individual may see, but don't you think that the constant barrage of wounded civilians serves to turn people against the war?
So much for freedom of speech.
Yesterday I've been browsing a freesite (on Freenet) called Subversive Bookwarez which had a nice logo depicting a human upside down with the words smash your state written underneath, distributing books like Ray Bradbury's Farhrenheit 451, Orwell's 1984, some Philip K. Dick books, etc. Very nice stuff.
I think sites like raisethefist.com should not be taken down, regardless of bomb making instructions, etc. Next thing you know, they're gonna shut google down for returning search results on "home made bombs".
Last time I checked, Clinton didn't have a war going against terrorists. Wars tend to be expensive. Given the advanced law-fu he whipped out to get out of one scandal after another, I'm sure he could've come up with some legal pretext with which to detain Osama bin Laden when Sudan offered him up on a platter. That would've saved us the expenses we're racking up now. Because he was too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office, though, we're stuck with the present situation.
s/Clinton/The Republican-controlled Congress/
From 1993 to 1995, non-defense spending was accelerating out of control. There was even a pie-in-the-sky plan (never fully implemented, fortunately) to socialize one-seventh of the economy by having the government provide womb-to-the-tomb health care.
I'm not claiming that Bush or the current Congress are perfect. (Putting you and me on the hook for Bill Gates' prescription meds once he passes a certain age is a dimwitted idea I would've expected from card-carrying Democrats.) I shudder to think how much worse off we'd be if Al Gore had won in 2000...the Democrat party is enough of an impediment to progress as it is, even as the minority party.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
He can't because they don't give out names. But he's right, there were two Gitmo prisoners that were beaten to death. However, that doesn't mean that things CAN'T be turned on there held come election year. Even a tyrannical president can be held accountable with the right legislation.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
> People who advicate murderous violence (you know, bombs that kill people?)
> have stepped over the line, and are a dnager to everyone.
do i have to even mention how much that sounds like the current president?
"Life is great; without it, you'd be dead." -Harmony Korine
In case you don't realise, this is where the police make up some plausible sounding stuff, go to a friendly judge and get him to rubber stamp it. Then they execute the warrant in an attempt to find some real evidense that will stand up in an actual court. In this case despite removing all the computers, books, and documents in his house they found nothing. Which is why he wasn't immediately charged with anything. In the end they were forced to fall back on the linking to information on explosives (18 USC 842) and scare him with threats of 20 years in jail into pleading so they never had to present any evidense at all. He has only been convicted under 18 USC 842 and therefore I think we can safely assume that the computer fraud stuff was just something they used to pad out their search warrant with. This is purely an issue of free speach (linking to information the US government doesn't like) since that is the only thing he has been convicted of.
Slashdotters judge for yourself whether the content of his webpage was grounds for imprisonment:
archive.org mirrors back to September, 2000.
> You're in high school, presumably in the U.S. Which means that every day during the school year, you are forced (whether you wish it or not) to attend a government school, or a private school approved by the government, or be taught at home in ways the government considers appropriate. If you resist this, you and perhaps your parents will be jailed.
Wholly incorrect in this one. The government does not force him to go to high school. Compulsory schooling in the U.S. goes through grade 8. He can drop out of high school if his parent/legal guardian allows him to do so. Nobody gets jailed for this. More telling, if his parent/legal guardian tells him he cannot go to high school, there's very little that government can do to force them to let him go.
> During your stay in this brainwashing center, you will be taught that which the government has decided you will know...If cast out, the rest of society will participate in diminishing the opportunities you have available to you for the rest of your life.
Again, misplaced. All of those things are put in place not by the government, but by communities themselves. No public school in the U.S. has ever successfully implemented a dress code without popular parental support, and more parents complain that schools graduate students who don't succeed than ever complain about high failure and holdback rates. In all of the situations you cite, the school derives its policy and authority from the community, which is comprised of the parents/legal guardians of the student body. It may be true that the students themselves don't have "rights" in the legal sense, but that's solely and completely because of their status as minors. High school students above the age of eighteen do indeed hold all of the rights ascribed to any adult, and one such adult student successfully campaigned to eliminate a dress code at his high school, and voted in the referendum to remove it.
> And you're concerned about "the America you're growing up in" not wholly respecting some other guy's right to free speech? WAKE UP. Your own "rights" have never been respected by the government at any point of your existence to date, and you apparently haven't even noticed.
Still have the Bill of Rights? You have never had the rights therein... yet you're worried about them being chipped away? I submit that your priorites are somewhat misplaced.
Again, not valid. He does indeed have rights, he just can't defend them on his own because he's not recognized by the government as an adult. It's the responsibility of his parent/legal guardian to defend those rights, and this has been done quite often in the past. Besides, it's very bad form to compare his "lack of rights" to the guy convicted in the article, as the commentor will gain all of the rights he discusses when he reaches majority, and at no time does the government hold control of those rights, except as allowed by his parent/legal guardian.
Virg
It's hilarious to me that "advocating the overthrow of the US government" is illegal. The people who founded this country overthrew their government. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, all the founders were revolutionaries who spent years advocating the overthrow of their government. Some of them, Jefferson especially, wrote extensively about the need, the right, and the DUTY to overthrow governments when they became oppressive. They also wrote this little thing known as the First Amendment. Now we are told "well, it was OK for them, but you can't do it to us..."
"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots"
- Thomas Jefferson
So go ahead, criticize the government, it's your consitutional right to do so... unless "They" decide that people might be actually listening to you. Then, it's "treason".
Not that I'm advocating such things, of course. Though I'm sure that my record, "enshrined in some little folder somewhere in Washington" is now a bit bigger, I guess.
"That's right," Colonel Catchart cried emphatically. "You're either for us or against us. There's no two ways about it."
"I'm afraid he's got you," added Colonel Korn. "Your either for us or against your country. It's as simple as that."
"Oh, no, Colonel. I don't buy that."
Colonel Korn was unruffled. "Neither do I, frankly, but everyone else will. So there you are."
This thing is reductible to a few simple points:
1. With few exceptions, all information (speech) is licit under our constitution--including things that would let you blow stuff up or overthrow the government.
2. So long as you do not get together with other and plan to *perform* a set of *actions* like assassinating someone at a given place at a certain time, you can talk about overthrowing the government to your heart's content.
3. Our notion of government is one where the people and the nation are in some sense the property of a ruling body; the ruling body serves the people and not vice versa.
In a population with a diversity of ideas, there will always be a number of people who will want not reform but revolution, and it is one of the functions of government to keep their numbers low by providing a free and prosperous society that is immune to revolutionaries because there are no viable, convincing arguments for a grass-roots revolution in such a society.
With this in mind, what the government did is like a crime against nature and it shows a sickening lack of understanding. In most cases, a few years of working a decent job and getting laid semi-regularly beats the anarchy right out of young men, instead, the government's activist stance here works to demonstrate that the kid's Anarchist, revolutionary philosophy is spot-on correct.
It says that our government can and does punish the dissemination of information it dislikes (mis-)using anti-terror laws to suppress free speech just like every modern dictatorship, from Hitler's Germany to the People's Republic of China. The only difference is one of extent--the placement of the threshold of action--and a prosecution sweetened by judicial blackmail does a lot to lesson the difference.
Another thing to consider is what it's going to do to the kid in the long run. It hard to imagine how much the kid is going to hate the system after spending what should be his sophmore year in college in a federal prison. Before, the kid wanted to talk about throwing bombs, in a year's time, maybe he'll end up wanting to do Timothy McVeigh one better.
You've gotta love it.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Here is a copy of the plea bargain Austin signed. It doesn't mention any of the hacking allegations the FBI included on the warrent they used to search his house. Whether or not Sherman is a hacker, he was sentenced to prison for providing information - not conspiracy or incitement, but simply speech. Whether or not you agree with Austin's politics, that's quite simply terrifying.
So the anarchists cookbook is now in a grey area?
here is the legal code:
"(2) Prohibition. -
It shall be unlawful for any person -
(A)
to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B)
to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence"
I would say just the Title, "Anarchist's Cookbook" would make it illegal to print or sell.
Can't wait till the Boy Scout's start singing "Amerika Uber Alles"
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
>> ...the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Yeah, that'll do it. Fomenting revolution is usually against the law.
Where do these people come from?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Let's examine history.
1) Feel oppressed by government.
2) Overthrow the government. (No such thing as a PEACEFUL overthrow. No one voluntarily gives up running a country.)
3) First act as new government - make it illegal to overthrow the government.
Rinse and repeat.
"Population 1,656"
There are a lot of people out there that would like to see more emphasis placed on diplomacy and multilateralism abroad and more concentration on social programs like health care at home. I don't see how this makes them suck weasels, circle-jerkers, or small-minded.
You are the one here being intolerant.
GWB has used the phrase "with us or against us" several times.
Q Mr. President, does it appear that Iran is flexing its muscles in Western Afghanistan, and does that threaten the U.S. war on terrorism in that region?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror; that our nation and our fight against terror will uphold the doctrine, either you're with us or against us; and any nation that thwarts our ability to rout terror out where it exists will be held to account, one way or the other.
Source - vote-smart.org presidential speeches page"I know it when I see it."
The anarchist cook book is available in most libraries and shows you Exactly how to make bombs Ah crap will I go to jail for telling you this?
yeah because that Napoleon guy was a real loser...
If anyone, it's the damnned left-wing pieces of crap who insist on controlling what everyone sees and hears through the media, education, and other outlets.
;)
Like Fox News?
(I'll admit that left-leaning people have done a fair bit of damage to the free exchange of ideas--but left-leaning people also ended segregation, so it's not all bad.)
Why is it that CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?
Because we ALL saw the 9/11/01 attacks, and there weren't that many wounded?
There were ambulances lined up on the freeway waiting to help the wounded--and they sat there until they were told to go home.
Judging purely by their results, Al-Queada was a bunch of idiots. They struck too early in the morning to hit a full building, and the buildings that they did hit fell straight down instead of falling over--killing most of their victims.
Simple military truth: deaths enrage the opponent, wounds cripple them.
What an awesome slashcode idea. Regardless of how :) When I'm spewing forth my
offensive you seemed to feel about my obvious
scarcasm, I think there is some mechanism you can
use to permanantly block my messages. I've never
used it myself, but I remember there used to be
this "troll" list you add to your foes list or
something, then chose to not see posts from those
people. As my comments are highly rated at times,
when I'm on slashdot which is rare, you are probably
going to be subjected to more of them. You might
want to pursue this blocking gimmick you can set
up with your account because I genuinely wouldn't
want you to feel discomfort by accidentally
reading my posts.
rhetoric, I'm almost always playing a heavy
devils advocate with a kernel of truth theme
and it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
At least there is still one country in the Americas that is not a total police state.
Oh well, what the hell...
It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government. REPEAT: It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government.
Lets outlaw these sites first since both these groups have proven records of actually doing what they say in text.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Laws have little to do with morality outside of a theocracy. For example, it's unlawful to speed on an open highway; however, it's in no way immoral if you're not doing it wrecklessly. Laws provide a framework for people to live under in relative peace. Morals get mixed up with laws when people belonging to a dominant religous attitude start governing based on their own personal morals.
The ultimate irony in this whole thing is the US Patriot Act itself ... it will eventually take away the very freedoms it purports to protect. How ironic.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Hell yeah, once they had grabbed Bin Laden, the rest of them would have forgotten their hatred and gone home to their villages.
As to universal health care, with the economy looking as shaky as it does right now, I'm glad to be in Britain with it's much derided National Health Service.
It's funny how much national outlooks differ. Over here, the people are most definitely against the removal of universal health care. Deregulated markets and winner-takes-all economics are not the only way to help people to be prosperous, secure and happy.
It's not about what he did, it's about what the Feds can easily prove.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Actually, it wasn't Voltaire who said that, even though it's been attributed to him for nearly a century.
It was written as a commentary on his character.
The origin of the quote has been traced to a book first published in 1906 entitled Life of Voltaire, written by S. G. Tallentyre, the pen name of Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
Questioned about it in 1935, she explained: "I did not intend to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim, and should be much surprised if they are found in any of his works."
You can look this up in the book They Never Said It
-
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote.
Unless you're willing to support the right of your enemy to speak his mind, you do not truly believe in free speech.
When the government fears the people, it's a democracy.
When the people fear the government, it's a dictatorship.
When a citizen is locked up for being against the current administration, it's fascism.
Thus, by definition, based on this event and many others, we already live in a fascist dictatorship.
This guy should absolutely not be in jail.
He has the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of these United States, otherwise known as the first article in the Bill of Rights, to say what he wants, where he wants and when he wants, without fear of goverment action.
If that includes telling people how to make bombs, that's fine. If anyone chooses to use that information and actually make a bomb and use it, it is 100% the responsibility of that individual, not the person who told him how to make it. If it was, Einstein would have died in prison for being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. After all, he gave the scientists the information they need to learn how to make an atomic bomb.
If what the person says includes suggesting that the government be overthrown, he also has the right to say that. He even has the right to scream it from a mountain top. If someone takes him up on that, it's a different issue. Most people use their right to Vote as the means to replace a rotten government.
I think the FBI is extrapolating here. He had bombing info AND anti-establishment info on the same site, so they conclude he must be a threat to national security.
So, be careful what you link to.
If I tell my friends that I can't stand George W. Bush and his policies, does that make me a threat to the country?
No.
To Bush himself?
No.
To his reputation?
No, he seems to be perfectly capable of ruining that himself.
-- This sig for rent.
How many of us get angry when after your compulsory weekly shooting spree, a lawyer of one of the little twerps being brought up on charges claims that GTA inspired the killing and thus his client should be allowed to go free and the game company should get sued and held accountable?
All of you? Ok so now how about when some little twerp in a bid for attention creates a website detailing bomb building and other potentialy sensitive pieces of infomation, then whines and crys about freedom of speech?
Not necessarily a bad thing. Would you have preferred homogenous cheerleading TV instead?
I hate thought crimes, I hate when people punish thoughts.
Look, I dont like the KKK, the Nazis, and so on, and they should be public enemy #1, but they have every right to make a website and teach hate because this is what freedom is all about, its what our country is about.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
That doesn't have to be true. People take a plea bargin because they know that some large percent of the legal system is completely broken and they never know which side of the percentile they are on. Taking a plea bargin has absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocense. It's called mitigating your risks, plain and simple.
Give a coin to a stranger, ask that person to flip it for you. If it's tails, you go to jail. If it's heads, you go free. Furthermore, if it's tails, flip again. If it's tails again, add on tens years to your stay. Believe it or not, going to court is more or less just like that. Don't believe me, ask any reasonable lawyer.
This is why many people plea bargin and even in some extreme cases, confess to something they didn't do. There are studies that actually support something like a large single digit of confessions are false. In these cases, they still go to jail. This is spite of the fact that evidence actually shows they didn't commit the crime. In fact, some of these cases have enough evidence to convict someone else, however, they are still not freed from jail.
The legal systems are nothing but a crap shoot, with the winner often being the person with the biggest wallet. Remember, courts have ZERO to do with justice!
The fanatical religious leader, obviously. History, recent and ancient, bears that one out without much need for thought. It's not like it takes more than a few minutes of searching to come up with instructions on making a homemade bomb, regardless of how many people the Feds lock up for posting links.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
By your own 'silver rule' I should feel justified removing your essential liberties and rights to free speech. Good thing someone thought idealism was practical once, huh?
"Remember, fascism and a police state doesn't come all at once, it comes piece by piece. How far will we allow it go until we are all locked up in concentration camps."
Well, if history is any lesson... this guy will use his time in prison to write about his struggle. Then when he gets out he'll fall into the welcome arms of his supporters, form a political party with no respect for the institutions of the old Republic, and exploit an opportunity to sieze power.
So. To answer your question, how far will we let it go? Until guys like this actually start to look like a reasonable alternative to the current Republic. You didn't ask how long, but I'll throw that in as a bonus: 1933-1923=10 years.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
First, if you're ever arrested and read your rights, the person reading them will conclude with something like "Do you understand these rights as I have read them?" The correct answer to this is always, "No, I don't." This isn't being facetious either -- without a background in law and how the exercise (or not) of those rights will affect your legal position, you are in no way capable of understanding the full ramifications.
Secondly, if you're ever in a position where you're being interrogated, the answer to any question is always, "I want my lawyer." Never, under any circumstances, agree to anything unless you have first spoken to your lawyer. Oh, and here's a freebie... even if you have 25 heavily armed agents in riot gear storming your house, remember this piece of advice: right after you shit your pants, always ask to see their search warrant. No warrant, and they'll need to take that double-barrel shotgun elsewhere, thank you very much.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
As I recall, last time it was posted there was a great deal of outcry and outrage about how the police had raided him for the content of his website - only it turned out that hey, they raided him for cracking and defacing a number of (government) web sites. And they found explosives. But that wasn't mentioned, in the original story cause that would screw up the image of the government stomping on some poor, innocent anarchist who was only espousing his political beliefs. Lovely how nothings changed.
Why?
One question for you: did you look at his website?
I was thinking specifically of the American
citizen who was assassinated in Yemen for
suspicion -- nailed by a CIA chopper with a
Sidewinder.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Right now we have a Republican controlled congress, senate, president, hell republicans even control the media.
Whats your excuse now? Republicans control EVERYTHING and still are spending through the roof, what do you have to say about that? It has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, the War on terrorism is expensive yes, but its HIGHLY over rated, we were attacked once in 10 years, yes it was a big attack but these terrorists were trying to attack us and failing all through the Clinton admin, Bush has his guard down and we get attacked and suddenly we have to give up all our freedom because the CIA didnt do its job?
Throwinng more money at the problem is not the solution, it doesnt work public schools so why would it work for this? I mean thats what you republicans love to say, now eat your words!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I guess he's off to the federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
You make some very good points. However, the idea of perfectly free speech can only exist in an anarchistic state. While intellecually appealing, it's not really possible. Our legal system has grown over the years, and we as Americans have to (we don't have a choice if we stay in the US) obey it. And it has decided, as you pointed out, that some speech is simply not protected.
And yes, it is naturally under the authority of whatever governemnt is in power. But it is not "at the whim" nor is it "whoever happens to be wielding authority." There are rigourous checks and balances to sto pany person's "whim." And we elect our leaders, so it's not any Joe Schmoe who decides what is legal and illegal.
Personally, I believe in the freedom of speech. However I also believe in the law, and changing unjust laws. This kid clearly broke the law, and now he's serving a (rather moderate) sentence.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Oh wow, damn, you completely prove your point about by linking to stories about CNN and NBC. Guess what, Geraldo was FOX reporter (and remember FOX is fair and balanced ;)!
And what a neutral new sight, I know every time I want fair news I go with a site with pop ups about Hillary Clinton Playing cards and ads about Ann Coulter's "righteous" fight to revive McCartyism.
Shut up.
forget it.
You're not the first in this thread to bring it up.
If you'll remember your American history, the revolution took place because there were no other options. Does the phrase "taxation without representation" ring a bell? The American people were under British rule, yet had no say in the government. We've figured out how to get that representation in a peaceful manner since then.
It's called an election.
oops sry, didnt see the CNN link, so you did try to back that one up.
forget it.
Before you try to convince yourself that you are safe because you are different from this guy in X ways, remember that they always come for the easiest targets first, but if nobody speaks out then, then it will only be a matter of time before they come for the rest of us.
...that many of the people on Slashdot who think "the people" should own all the source code fail to realize that "the people" own all the armed forces. Yes. That's right.
We The People through our elected representatives hold the "code" to all deadly force originating from within the US.
We The People decide what the protocols are for using that force.
We The People decide which forks are the official version.
We The People have decided that it is in our best interest to have one and only one DeadlyForceObject in the program.
The proposed addition of AnarchistDeadlyForceClass, and the desire to instantiate objects of said class was considered and soundly rejected by We The People. It was determined that it would create file-format confusion, as well as causing havoc on the network.
In other words, trying to form an alternative military for the purpose of overthrowing the current sovereign nation ain't too bright.
Most successful revolutionaries form peaceful political organizations first, or form them in parallel with a militant wing so that they can deny connections with the militants.
The political aspect of the "anarchist" and "anti capitalist" movements in the US has virtually no popular support. If that ever changes, we will be in a sorry state.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm moving to Mos Espa until the whole thing blows over. Come get me when it's safe.
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
Overthrowing the current government is protected political speach under the first amendment. It is definetly what the founding fathers intended. After all they over threw their government.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
FYI, I wasn't singling out CNN... And I'm well aware who Geraldo works for. The sight[sic] that I linked to just happened to be the first pertinent one that google turned up. I know I'm fighting a losing battle in this mostly liberal technology industry, but hey, free speech is what it is all about right? :)
It's all good.
I submit that those who do not practice what they preach are the real threats.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes, because we know that disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly are just the first signs of the next Sirhan Sirhan. Big threat, being disorderly and being charged with an unconstitutional crime against freedom of assembly.
Sieg Heil!
What else can you say??? The US is already fascist, no longer proto- .
``L'imagination au povoir.''
We've figured out how to get that representation in a peaceful manner since then.
Yep, it's called professional lobbyists. Pony up the bucks and you'll be represented just fine.
No, I'm not usually this cynical.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Ya, searching google for "media bias" is to the right as searching for "bill o'reilly sucks" is to the left.
u rvey.html #survey
I pulled one link that seemed decent though:
http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-s
I support your right to agrue that there is a bias, so I have the right to say thats just a big crack-pot conspiracy theory.
forget it.
This isn't 1984, and this young kid certainly isn't Winston. Hey...it wasn't bomb-making, or anarcy, or anything else that got this kid in trouble - this stuff is all over the web and has been for years. Specifically, it was advocating the violent overthrow of the United States Government that got this kid toasted.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government never has been, or will be, legally protected constitutional amendment and associated laws which gaurd freedom of speech, and I'm amazed that so many penis-brains on this board don't get it.
When they overthrew the existing government, the founding fathers knew it was illegal (at least until they were done overthrowing).
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Ben Franklin - At the signing of the Declaration of Independence
The nature of revolutions is that they are illegal under the old government and remain so as long as the old government remains.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Mr. Hard Ass anti-communist has spoken.
Then this would be a site you would love:
iNfOwArS
But then again, since you are iliterate (the main clue is that you don't know what the word Communism means) it will likely not be comprehendible to you.
Pffft. Impediment to progress? Both parties are. The government will fuck you over, doesn't matter if it's wearing the mask of republican, or democrat. Democrats sometimes support things like universal healthcare, whilst republicans support universal corporate welfare. Might I remind everone that the Military is ran completely like an authoritarian socialist (state-capitalist) institution?
STEP 1. Beat someone up.
STEP 2. ?
STEP 3. Social progress!
Makes sense.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Heres a few examples which spring to mind.
In my youth, I engaged in a few actions (locking myself to the houses of parliment and Malaysian airlines office) with 90% arrest chance. And yes I got arrested but not charged. Its a very different fealing being locked up for your beleif rather than for a crime or an injustice. Indeed its even empowering in a way.
This case is a little different. But I hope he will take it in the right way, with dignety. And realise that its part of the process of change. A year (six months with good behaviour) is not than long for your beleifs.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
It's also interesting to point out that it's unconstitutional to require that you provide Identification in order to travel by air.
These suburban revolutionariess prattle about their lost rights.
What do you think happens during a revolution?
The *only* revolution that ever turned out well was the American one.
*Every* *single* *other* political revolution resulted in situations much, much worse than what led to the revolution in the first place.
And oh, btw the way, the solution to you "losing your rights" is not to blow up innocent people (up to and including government bureaucrats). Given how few people participate (relatively speaking) in American politics, if your cause is persuasive, it should be no problem getting a plurality to support you.
Ah, but thats the rub, isn't it? You guys don't have a plurality backing you. Hence the revolution. My way or the highway. If you can't get what you want out of the system, break the system, and fuck whoever else gets hurt.
Yes. Yes, yes. Talk is supposed to be protected. Instructions are supposed to be protected. INFORMATION is SUPPOSED to be PROTECTED. INFORMATION is dangerous. denying access to information is way, WAY more dangerous.
1/3 of the convicted criminals currently being cycled through California are illegal aliens.
The net-net of immigration was positive prior to 1965. The 1965 immigration act fucked that all up.
Instead of allowing immigration based on the quality of the immigrant, we now have an immigration policy based on pre-existence of family members already in the United States. So Pablo gets a greencard, moves in, and mom, dad, Pablo's wife and 4 kids all get to come in. Only Pablo is the only one that works. Because a $10/hr day laborer job will put a family of 6 below the poverty level, Pablo is on more public assistance (way more) than the hypothetical taxes he might pay. But since he earns so little, changes are he gets the earned income tax credit, so he actually gets paid money by the Federal government, not pays any in. Pablo's folks are too old to work, so they also get public assistance. And yes I'm using an ethno-centric immigration example because the vast majority of our immigration comes from Mexico, and the vast majority of immigrants are very poorly educated and are a net drain on the economy. In effect, the 1965 Immigration Act has done exactly what it's proponents (Edward "I drowned my girlfriend" Kennedy) said it would not.
Guns have no other purpose than to kill or destroy. Cigarettes have no other purpose than to kill or destroy. Oh wait, except both of those things make tons of money for their makers, employ millions of Americans and bankroll thousands of politicians.
This is the best thing I've read all day. We shouldn't allow immigrants in that need to be "job trained" in the first place. The real benefit would be keeping unqualified immigrants out in the first place. Immigration is NOT a right, it is a privilege.
to go along with his memorable raisethefist.com domain name, he could now also have "federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.com" (still available) which could contain links to, and information on, methods for not dropping the soap in the shower. Large section also for how not to become "bubba's" bitch. ;o)
I am NaN
Alex Jones is an idiot. He's a disinformation agent for the government. He throws enough truth in to make peak interest of the people that are angry about the current state of affairs but he obfuscates the truth with government contrived and sanctioned lies and disinformation.
And if you think I have no idea what communism is, you are so, so very wrong. I spell communism in lowercase to reflect my disrespect and disdain for such an evil philosophy.
I've read Das Kapital and several of Lenin's works. I've studied Stalin and Stalinism in depth. I've also been to the Soviet Union and have some friends there and from there.
You know not of what you speak, for you sir, are an idiot.
Revisionist history? The Major history lobbies are conservative. They remove anything that might look bad on a particular president or administration from history textbooks. And anything that might be construed as "un-patriotic". Don't talk to me about liberal bias in history books.
the government still taxes felons.. felons aren't allowed to vote on the very laws that made them felons.. taxation without representation.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.)
That to me sounds like they're encroaching on rights to freedom of political expression, without fear of reprisal by those in power (going back to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).
It's in the same ballpark as some corrupt african states where people either support the government, live as a political exile or face the prospect of being torured and/or killed.
Ok, so nobody is being tortured or killed in the USA (that's what happens in Cuba at Guantanamo, and a whole other kettle of fish), but this man's right to change the government should still be respected. We all have that right, whether we know it or not, we get to vote in another government if the current one makes a right pig's ear of the job.
The right to political activism and peaceful protest should be a given in any country that truly deems itself "free".
I am NaN
To what charge did he plead? Is it obvious that his only crime was the exercise of free speech?
...if the police are shooting at you how do you make bombs?
I reply:
From BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Missing from the Sherman case is imminence, the intent that the bombmaking information be used in furtherance of a particular crime.
See alsoHESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)
Held: Appellant's language did not fall within any of the "narrowly limited classes of speech" that the States may punish without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and since the evidence showed that the words he used were not directed to any person or group and there was no evidence that they were intended and likely to produce imminent disorder, application of the statute to appellant violated his rights of free speech.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
There's Tons of Liberal Media Bias. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Monica Crowley, Ann Coulter, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Joe Scarborough, Robert Novac, Bernard Goldberg, Brit Hume, John Stossel, William Kristol, Laura Ingraham, and John McLaughlin.
can you shout bomb instead? Or what if the theatre's only half full? Or three quarters, I really don't think a three quarters full theatre could be considered crowded. Hell, with these new fangled multiplexes where each seat has 8 metres of leg room even if the oversold seats by a factor of two it still wouldn't be crowded. ;o)
I am NaN
I guess the keyboard really is mightier than the firearm.
That's not what the RIAA says.
for linking to the same websites?
Yes, but my great-grandparents were legal immigrants. And despite being poor, they were never on welfare, and never committed any violent crimes. They learned English and they respected the society that had taken them in.
The Internet is full. Go away.
Hint: Recruit foreign nationals for protesting against your government (and feel free to confuse this with terrorism).
Guys, don't forget Mike Hawash.
Hey, be quiet over there! You can't vote in prison! We are counting the days, so keep your head down for a bit.
Whether or not it came with representation. They would have had a sufficient number of seats in parliament to assure things went as they liked, and the future revolutionaries knew it.
Or do you think that people can either:
a) have free speech
b) protest peacefully
but if they choose to exercise both they should be arrested?
Of course not. Which of those offences should an officer overlook, in your opinion?
Or do you think that people can either:
a) promote methods of overthrowing the government
b) participate in a demonstration against government policy in which hundreds are arrested
I get it. If they choose to do both, they're completely harmless.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Why dont we tell the true history about our founding fathers who were all for Freedom as long as you are a white christian male?
Of course we never mention that slaves built the whitehouse, and we never give them any credit.
We celebrate totally fucked up holidays like "Thanksgiving" which is an insult to ANY Native American, and we pretend like Native Americans just up and gave up their country.
We make heros out of cowboys who slaughtered "indians", we make heros out of outlaws who would shoot random people who pissed them off.
Lets say, a few months ago, you were on one of those trams at an international airport, and you see some guy standing close to you who happened to look Oriental (or is the PC term Asian?), with luggage tags from Beijing on his luggage. This guy is coughing up a storm and not caring about who's around him. Would you suspect him of having SARS or would that be "racist"?
I dont know, but if the Asian person suspected you of being a racist white male, does this make the Asian racist, is this reverse racism or is the Asian just not being politically correct? I mean we know most white males are racist just like most Asians have SARs, most Gays have aids, and most Blacks are gangster rappers and atheletes.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
sherman - you are a pathetic WEASEL.
Bull. And. Shit. I've got a copy of the the 600+ page act. It does take away rights, and is a stepping stone to bridge and define alot of other questionable legislation. It provides the police with more *federal* power. It allows a police officer to get a search warrant from any judge. This means that a police officer in new york could get a warrant from a judge in Texas, to investigate a crime in new york. He can do this infinite times, thus if he fails to get a warrant in both new york and texas, he can keep going to another state. Or just another judge. It allows roving wire-taps with no real oversight, it allows use of secret evidence, and gives the government the authority to deny rights to anyone declared an enemy combatant (which it can do rather arbitrarily), and prosecute anyone who provides any support to a terrorist group (which it can define arbitrarily: Case in Point, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elaam. A Group involved in Guerrilla Warfare with the government of Sri Lanka because they were cut out of representation in the government. They target military targets, with only as much blowback onto the civilian population as any war causes. They're on the list because of our diplomatic ties with the government of Sri Lanka.) Among many other things. Combine that with the Deutschland Security Act, and you have a very well reinforced Stasi. It is interesting to note (something that isn't noted in the news articles) that Sherman is the first U.S. Citizen/Activist to be tried under the patriot act. This is a case to test the waters of the legislation, which means it will likely be used again, under even more flimsy circumstances.
Sure, he didn't actually light the fuse, but he still caused the fuse to get lit.
Tim
We have ridiculous Holidays such as thanksgiving and crap, and we try to pretend like the US was founded on freedom, is this liberal or conservative bias?
People forget that people were burned for being witches, made into slaves for being non white, made into virtual slaves if you were female, and the only way to actually be an "American" for the first 300-400 years in this country was to be a white christian male.
Should we ignore the fact that we have never had a female President? I mean NEVER. We also never had a president who wasnt white, I mean NEVER. We never had a president who wasnt christian, and I mean NEVER, and lastly we never had a President who wasnt married (or at least I cannot remember one).
So, the only people who think that theres no racism, sexism, etc etc in the USA right now, and all throughout history, are conservative christian white males, like George Bush for example. Read a history book, how much do you see on the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the womens rights movement? You barely see any of it.
In my History class it was mentioned along with Kennedy for like one chapter, and the rest of the book was War, after War, after War, slaughter after slaughter, slavery here and there, more war, more killing, and theres a trend, there has always been a group of people throughout history in this country who have been against freedom.
Guess who those people are? The Religious zealots who happen to be on the right, the conservative christians, the ones who burned witches, enslaved millions and millions of people, murdered the native americans, stole the land, and then made an insulting holiday called "thanksgiving" to rub it in their faces.
There is ALOT about history that we cannot be proud of and we shouldnt be celebrating, and theres alot of things we should be celebrating. I'll never celebrate wars, I'll never celebrate thansgiving, or slavery, I do feel proud of the constitution, this was a wonderful step forward, I do feel proud of the civil rights movement, the womens rights movement, gay rights movement, and the internet, the inventing of the radio, the TV, the car, the airplane, world war 2, putting a man on the moon.
This country is great, I'm sure someone here will comment that I am a liberal because I care about liberal history, but please point out some history from the right which was great, what the fall of the soviet union? is that all?
I dont even like to divide history like this because we are all on the same team, but conservatives love to try to divide everything whenever they get the chance and label a person a liberal, a communist, a terrorist, or anything else they can think of when you disagree with them and honestly I'm getting sick of the paraniod witch-hunts, and the loss of freedom that conservatives bring, they have been doing this for hundreds of years, starting with the burning of witches, then there was communists, and now terrorists.
The problem with these paraniod witch-hunts is, yes while some of the people are bad, the way they find a "witch" is simply be having some established conservative just call you a witch.
Bill Oreilly can say you are a terrorist on national TV, and suddenly you are a terrorist, no trial, no hiring a lawyer, you are just captured and put somewhere on guantonimo bay and never heard from again.
Thats not constitutional, and its not right, why do we want to give this much power to the government? its ridiculous that they can just point the finger at someone and put them in jail just because they want to, but thats the current law.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Actually, from a tactical point of view, they were smart. It's interesting to note, that they didn't commit terrorism in how we usually define it. (The intentional targeting of civilians). They hit military and economic infrastructure, the civilians were "collateral damage" to use the favorite term of the news media and administration. Thus over-all, they used a great tactical plan. And considering we still haven't destroyed Al-Quaida, they seem to have got away with it too.
I mean hes caused riots, caused terrorist attacks, etc etc, how about Trent Lott? can we arrest him and put him in jail? I know he didnt truely cause anything but hes clearly a racist and hes bad right?
Why are we selectively targetting specific groups, why do we allow hate groups to exist in this country but we go after anti government groups or groups like the davidians in waco?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
That's because it's a good point.
Except that it doesn't work.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
*ahem*
I believe the whole "liberal media" thing has more to do with allegedly neutral news sources, rather than obviously biased ones.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
The first amendment? You mean this:
Sure doesn't look like his objective was either to be 'peaceably' or to attempt to 'petition' the government. Looks like it was to violently oppose a government that was democratically elected and could quite as easily be democratically replaced -- if such a notion was popular.
dumbfuck, you WERE NOT ARRESTED FOR YOUR BELIEFS. You, one arrogant sonofabitch, decided to violate the law imposed on you in a non-totalitarian country in order to usurp the powers granted to the government by the people through their votes. You used physical force instead of democratic pressure. I hope all you dumbfucks who have to resort to this due to your being a superminority in your area can see that you are attempting to deny your countrymen the right to democratic process via the rule of law.
Protest against REAL injustice, you petty little powderpuff! IN THIS WORLD, there are people raping and indiscriminately beating women just because they can! And to all of you neomarxists spoiled by wealthy living, quit your bitching and HELP PEOPLE. Don't destroy public or corporate structures, feed people.
You whiny activist-mentality rejects can suck my dick if you think that any of the brain-dead things you do will affect genuine change in the world. Goddamn Here's what you're missing: Those problems that have vexed mankind for a hundred or more years do so because they are DIFFICULT to solve. It's not as simple as 'quit making nukes', or 'don't buy a gun'. Damnit, you have to somehow convince everyone to make a change in their attitudes, behavior and choices. This is why, from 1930-2003 not ONE problem has been solved by student activists. Think about that.
Sure doesn't look like his objective was either to be 'peaceably' or to attempt to 'petition' the government. Looks like it was to violently oppose a government that was democratically elected and could quite as easily be democratically replaced -- if such a notion was popular.
Doesn't make a lick of difference what his objective was though, if he didn't act.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The slippery slope is a perfectly valid argument. What it states is that the absence of the government's ability to dictate freedom is an essential freedom in and of itself. It doesn't apply when the government already has the right to regulate certain freedoms, such as the examples you already stated, but when it comes to freedom of speech, the argument applies perfectly because that freedom should be absolute and unlimited.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Obviously we need to shut down CNN, too. What's funny is CNN themselves have often aired hysterical rants about how irresponsible it is to distributed bomb-making instructions on the Internet, while hosting such information themselves.
I don't agree at all with this misguided 20-year-old. He's making it easier for others like himself to wreak havoc on society. However, one must consider the heart of this issue: the freedom of information. He posted links to information that could be used for "wrong." But if a person were determined enough, he or she could get to this information anyway. Information is best when it's free because this way, at least both the "good" and the "bad" have access to it. This move can only pave the way for further restrictions on what information you can distribute, whether it be what you say, what you write, or, in this case, what you provide a URL to. Frightening indeed.
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither do I - get Mac OS
Some cops do go to a protest looking for trouble. At some protests, the higher ups "pump up" the cops by telling them that we are racists or neo-nazi's and in one case told the cops that we had "bags of urine we were preparing to throw at them or had already thrown at them" (i heard this from a new york cop). In new york city, riot duty is not-required, only cops who want to bust heads sign up. Many nyc cops look down on the nyc riot cops as sicko's. I've seen nyc riot cops break peoples fingers who were handcuffed, and were not resisting. They don't "just have a club" they have a range of weapons, riot cops normally have a club, a gun, pepper spray, and in many cases flame resistant body armor. The frontline riot cops in new york are backed up by snipers teams, armored personal carriers, mounted police and cops with assualt rifles. "at least 20 to 1" in nyc the cops typically outnumber the protesters. At all of the protests I've been to only two where we did outnumber the cops. I rememeber a protest in boston, where the anarchists were surrounded by "special operations cops" (outnumbering us 2 to 1), outside of that they were flanked by a row of horses on the right and a row on the left, with 2 lines of spec ops motorcycle cops in front and 2 lines behind with a few fast responce vans following the march. About 18 anarchists about 80 cops, all of them armed with guns, pepper spray, shackles, and a pissed off expression. They pushed them around and yelled abuse at them from time to time, threated them, told them to shut up. If you would like evidence of any of this, look on the web, or goto a major protest. This is not a secret.
A masterful troll. But a troll nonetheless. As ingenious as you may think it is to take the side of your opponent and hyperbole it out of the park, there are some who will see it for what it is. BTW- I grew up with a Christian Conservative family and I know how they think and this just ain't it- it's more like a silly caricature of all the wacky beliefs usually found buried beneath the surface all rolled into one guy. That almost never happens. When it does, people die. Usually so does the wacko.
But, again, masterful troll. fucker.
Anyone can pick up a chemistry book and make basic explosives. Anyone can set his mind to gaining knowledge and make bombs. Posting information on explicit bomb making is questionable, but is it really wrong?
What's next? "You were overheard talking about how a bomb is made, therefore you are arrested!"
Gotta love how all this works!
I dont think they needed a website for that last time...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,794163 ,00.html
One more thing as well, do not fear the loud obnoxious drunk guy at the bar. Fear instead the quiet one who sits in the back and keeps his anger in.
Dude, stfu. The gvt used to go after people for publishing steps to making a nuclear device until said people pointed out that it was commonly available knowledge that had simply been connected.
In any case, its not this guys fault if another Timothy decides to blow up a building. ITS TIMOTHY'S FAULT. You're a ludite in the same vien as those people who claim that Grand Theft Auto incites violence towards women. Those ludites and you need to fuck off.
Announcer: this is another public service announcement brought to you, in
Part, by slim shady.
Eminem: (whispered): tell 'em I don't give a fuck
Announcer: slim shady does not give a fuck...what you think!
Eminem: tell 'em to suck it
Announcer: if you don't like it, you can suck his fucking cock!
Eminem: tell 'em they kissed my ass
Announcer: little did you know, upon purchasing this album, you have just
Kissed his ass!
Eminem: tell 'em I'm fed up
Announcer: slim shady is fed up with your shit...and he's going to kill you!
Eminem: yeah
Announcer: uh...anything else?
Eminem: yeah...sue me.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Protest isn't a disruption of the democratic process. When people are uninformed, they vote out of ignorance. This is assuming they bother to vote at all, most don't.
Protesting is one way of making your opinions heard. Is it effective? I don't know that it is, but you try getting your opinions on the news if your opinions aren't already status quo on the station in question.
I can't speak for pfafrich, but I'm a libertarian, which isn't anything like marxism, communism, or "neomarxism" (not sure what you meant by that). Getting to my point, chaining yourself to a public building in protest is not a crime. Pfafrich was right when he said he was arrested for his beliefs. Or, nearly right anyway. He was arrested for expressing his beliefs in an extremely visible way.
I put these two together because they are so obviously contradictory. How do you intend to change people's opinions without making them aware that there are opinions other than theirs? Let's pass a law then, shall we? "Everyone is required to have [x] opinion," Thus Sayeth Uncle Sam.
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't help anything.
Specifically in response to #2: It could be argued that the reason the Vietnam war ended when it did was because student activists gradually changed the opinions of enough people to make it politically necessary to end that war. By politically necessary, I mean, "If we don't put an end to this right now, people might not vote for us."
I should point out that I wasn't alive during the Vietnam War. If the previous paragraph was grossly inaccurate, I apologize.
Perhaps I'm going through a little too much trouble to respond to what seems to be an obvious troll.
-- It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Seriously. Review Whitney v. California. In summary:
According to the following, I guess he can't associate with the President or any of the other members of his big Republican machine.
"as Wilson said he also may not associate with anyone from a group that 'espouses physical force as a means of change.'"
I guess poor Sherman will just have to leave the country and go somewhere where he has freedom of speech.
The folks wanting to strip U.S. citizens of their right to keep and bear arms probably forget (or neglect) the fact that it's the last line of defense we have against police-state tactics.
EG. Even if the law has decided that they're going to make it "ok" for cops to sneak into your home, unannounced, and go snooping around, if they have "probable cause" to believe you're doing something illegal - the fact that you might just have a loaded weapon handy for self-defense will deter police from making such bold moves. (If you're a cop, you're probably going to value your own life enough to say, "Hey, the law says I *can* do this, but it doesn't mean I think it's a smart idea. For my own safety's sake, I'd rather announce my presence instead of sneaking into this guy's house at night."
As I recall, this guy was arrested for hacking (or at least attempting it) federal sites, not for saying he wanted to over throw the US Government. While I agree that it speaks ill of our legal system that such a crime may count as terrorism, a year in federal prison is a comparitively light sentence when you consider what some other people have done for similar crimes.
And by the way, overthrowing the US Government is one of those ideas that started with the brilliant Ben Franklin, who thought we shuold have a revolution once every 17 years or so.
One law, Judicial Restraint, or Peace Bond, or 810 Order, can restrict people as if on probation even if no crime has been committed, without a conviction. The only thing required is suspicion of (various things) by the police. A judge then makes a decision something like those he makes when allowing a search warrant. The level of proof necessary is 'reasonableness' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In other words, bias, prejudice, weak evidence and other vagueries are officially invited to attend to someones legal harassment by the state.
These 810 orders result in a one year prison term if the terms are not agreed to by the individual in question. They are renewable annually to no end.
810.1 orders are particularly interesting, because in addition to there having to be no crime committed, there needen't even be a target of a crime apparent, only the vague possibility that one could occure. This special treatment is metted out to pedophiles, the new garbage class of the world.
As I said before, this law is not overtly pursued. We only very rarely hear about so-and-so being forced to sign a peace bond, even though hundreds of people do so every year. It hasn't appeared on any journalist's radar. One may think that only those people who 'deserve it' fall under the yoke. But what it amounts to, in my view, is an legal loophole to persecute people the police and society doesn't like, without the threshold of proof or process inherent in a usual court-convictions.
Instead of giving an individual the benefit of the doubt, or treating a prison term as the sum payment for a particular crime (as it is said to be), certain segments of the population are open to continual threat of harassment and punishment by a fickle public mood.
In this case, Austin could have been quietly harrassed out of existence by an application of the 810 Order. He would have been forced to appear before the court, then given the choice of losing his right to live freely, or go to prison. The Canadian media would have said nothing about it, except maybe to yawn.
_KhlER3L
juvenile at best, damaging at worst. Anyone who has actually seen the site (fish around, there are archives [hint--archive.org]) can see that it is all over. The message presented is far from consistant, and many points of his arguments depend of wild conspiracy theories. He's one of those people that thinks that the line at the DMV is a global new world conspiracy to prevent him from excercising his god given right to drive, for the purpose of immobilizing the masses for the impending coup. Ok, so maybe not that extreme, but close. It's people like him that damage the reputation of people really trying to change things for the better. While this prosecution does present issues for freedom of speech, he is no hero....
====
Crudely Drawn Games
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They were permitted to vote prior to being convicted of their crimes.
This is not remotely the same as having entire unrepresented
geographical areas.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Yeah, their all "out to get you!" Please.
If you were one of the environmentalist, anti-globalization, anarchist morons throwing bricks through store windows at the WTO conference in Seattle...then yes, they probably are coming after you - and for good reason.
Otherwise, place the foil hat back on your head, check the phone for bugs, and start planning for the apocalypse.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
You know, I'm not really too sure this guy was really sure of what he was talking about. Sure, he may not like the government..but he's not really an anarchist. To tell you the truth, what happened to him was what he deserved. He was obviously a violent "anarchist" if he had information on bomb construction. Anarchy isn't about the violent overthrow of the government, its about living in a peaceful utopia. You think I'm lying..just check a freaking dictionary.
Actually, from a tactical point of view, they were smart.
Come again?
Since 9/11, Al-Quaeda has seen the USA activly seek them out like the USA has sought out no foe since Vietnam. We deposed their biggest support-government, toppled a terroist-supporter (Hussein may have not supported Al-Queada, but he did support suicide bombers in Israel) in center of the Arab world, and generally got far more engaged in Al-Quaeda's world than we were on 9/10/01.
It's interesting to note, that they didn't commit terrorism in how we usually define it. (The intentional targeting of civilians). They hit military and economic infrastructure, the civilians were "collateral damage" to use the favorite term of the news media and administration. Thus over-all, they used a great tactical plan.
A plan that causes your enemy to become determined to engage your territory and hunt you down is a horrible tactical plan; if the 9/11 attacks had actually demoralized America, the Taliban would still be in power today.
(Now, _POLITCIALLY_ Al-Quaeda may have had a great plan, and if their goal was "get the USA to stop sitting on its ass and acking like jerks", they've succeeded... but I doubt that was what they were going for.)
And considering we still haven't destroyed Al-Quaida, they seem to have got away with it too.
It's hard to destroy a movement--but we seem to have been rather effective in coming very close. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, we expected loads of Al-Quaeda attacks--but there hasn't even been as many as frequently as there were before 9/11.
Remember: Al-Quada is the agressor in this conflict. By any historical standard of win/loss, the west is easily succeeding in its "war on terrorism." The enemy's home is under siege, our home is all but immune to attack, and the enemy's reasons for fighting are slowly but surely disappearing.
That does it. I'm moving to New Zealand.
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? Major: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action
b) participate in a demonstration against government policy in which hundreds are arrested
Every demonstration against government policy ends up with hundreds being arrested these days. Who starts throwing things first? Police with teargas or protesters with bricks? From what I observed at the WTO protests in Seattle it was the police, but who knows.
Don't be too sure about the answer to either of those ... it may well turn out that supporting Bush's foreign policies will have been to support policies that result in far more American deaths than Al Q'aeda could ever achieve in its most ambitious dreams.
Last I looked, the US bodycount for the entire Iraq conflict is less than, for example, the Maine accident of 1898.
Having a strong military and the spine to use it has kept our country independent and prosperous for several centuries. If you think that being weak and wimpy will stop our nation's enemies, I think you'll be joining Nevil Chamberlin in getting "peace for our time."
-- $G
And then the new aristocracy figured out how to change things back, despite the existence of elections. Big whooping deal, you are just another country, ruled by just another government, get off your high horse and look around -- you are not better than the rest of the world, and your government has political inbreeding going on, at the scale not seen since 17-18th century Europe.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that a comment about censorship gets modded to 0,flamebait? (Laughs quietly in the corner)
This scariest this:
(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.)
Does that mean he can't join a political party?
More than any other liberty, Americans probably exercise their right to freedom of expression the most. But this right cannot be used to justify saying any thing, at any time, in any place. The Supreme Court has established some reasonable restrictions on free speech. The clear and present danger test from Schenck v. U.S. (1919) restricted speech that provokes a "clear and present danger" to public order. The bad-tendency rule from Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925) limited speech that might lead to some evil.
Source
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Yeah, better to let the Dems have control so we can totally disband the military and outlaw firearms. That way we can have foreign invaders rob us of our freedoms and really not be able to do anything about it.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Lets say, a few months ago, you were on one of those trams at an international airport, and you see some guy standing close to you who happened to look Oriental (or is the PC term Asian?), with luggage tags from Beijing on his luggage. This guy is coughing up a storm and not caring about who's around him. Would you suspect him of having SARS or would that be "racist"?
No, I wouldn't, because I would think logically and realize that SARS, even at its peak, was several hundred or thousand times less common than the common cold in Asia. It's called the "common cold" for a reason. The same reason why SARS was not called "common SARS".
You see two Middle-eastern fellows with a rented U-haul truck pulling up to a farming store and buying dozens of bags of fertilizer. Would you call the FBI, or would that be "racist"?
Why would I call the FBI? Two brown guys buying fertilizer, as well as having easy access to fertilizer, is a daily occurrence. The vast majority of the lawn care guys in my entire state are either dark Hispanics (usually Mexicans), Arabs (which, from my perspective, look a lot like dark Hispanics), or some other form of immigrant trying to find cheap work to support their families. Do you call the FBI every time you see a Middle Eastern man at a gas station, because he has access to large amounts of flammable materials that could be used to set fires all over town? I hope not.
SARS and terrorism are both very rare things that don't happen nearly as often as an Asian man having a cold or a Arab buying some fertilizer. Only through the eyes of media hype, racism, or stupidity does a man buying some fertilizer become an act of terrorism. I also find it somewhat suspect that you assume that two Middle-Eastern men buying dozens of bags of fertilizer is suspect, since the last man to commit a terrorist act in the United States using fertilizer was Timothy McVeigh, a white man who was assisted by other whites. Should we worry whenever ANYONE buys fertilizer, or just calm down and understand that ordinary occurrences like people buying fertilizer don't suddenly become abnormal or terroristic acts just because of September 11th?
Nowadays, everyone is so worried about political correctness and not hurting anyones feelings that they are putting themselves and their country in danger. Teachers are being told what words they can and cannot say because they might "offend" someone.
Instead of being told not to say it, did you ever consider that maybe they just think differently from you? I know that some people would like to think that they're in some sort of oppressed, secret majority that thinks that racism is alright and that the racist answer is always a more logical one than an Asian man just having a cold, but a lot of us really don't think that way. We don't jump to race as the first answer, and instead of not wanting to offend anybody by saying it, we just don't even think about it in the first place.
Attackers of many positions say "if this, then the slippery slope"; or "if this, then where do you draw the line"; and connect the position to be attacked with an absurd extremity.
I agree that it is fallacy to argue in this way. It is simply a lack of maturity. Growing up means learning to draw lines. It often means clutching to vague and shifting handholds to keep from sliding down slipperly slopes. It means exercising judgement.
There is a real position between extremes. Nobody should be allowed complete freedom to go off on his own and destroy the workings of our government; even if we mean to bring it down, we should do so together. And nobody should be arrested and imprisoned for speaking unwisely and recklessly.
The trouble is that we demand absolutes. Shades of gray are intolerable. Since we have so broadened the public discourse, we find we cannot any longer locate a standard of moderation.
An action today is either legal or illegal, nothing in between. We deny the right of family, clergy, or anyone else to put pressure on us to modify our behaviors. We think we have become more free, but instead, we see our freedoms eroded.
Social sanctions are important in every society. Indeed, most people, even Americans, are still controlled by social sanctions. The trouble is that we generally do not think of ourselves as members of society at large, subject to general authorities, such as the bygone parish priest or high school principal. We are only subject to the dictates of our little group, and if we don't like them, we are free to change groups. And, if we choose to belong to no group at all, we can still manage our daily lives. There is no legal requirement that one belong to a church, or even a bridge club.
Without the soft, ambiguous control of social sanctions, nothing is left between the individual and the State. This is seen as being to the individual's benefit, but the State is powerful. It must assume the burden of social arbitration -- bickering neighbors, feuding authors, careless drivers, all call 911. And although we now expect the State to intervene in every human disagreement, we cannot tolerate a humanized Justice. We demand that every ruling and action be scrupulously impartial.
Perhaps we were, on the average, better served by the small-time corrupt officials of old, who in their petty way at least allowed some sort of humanity to sway their edicts. Now we have forced the most corrupt to rewrite the laws so as to legitimize their corruption, meanwhile placing its price out of reach of the common man.
The poor fellow at the heart of this matter should never have been allowed to go so far off the deep end -- but that is not to say any branch of the government should ever have taken a hand. His friends, family, co-workers, poker buddies, clergy -- they are the ones who, in other societies, would have exerted pressure, outside of the criminal justice system, to get him to moderate his actions. He might well continue to protest the system, but more wisely.
Where do you draw the line? Where age, wisdom, and experience teaches you to draw it. And you often draw the line loosely, in a shade of gray. But you do draw it somewhere -- between totalitarianism and anarchy.
Modern society is like a machine without any oil. We believe, in our arrogance, that if the machine is perfectly built, there will be no friction, hence no need for lubrication or loose fit. Meanwhile, slaves to Progress, we drive the machine harder and faster, and cannot understand the meaning of the howling noises from within, nor extinguish the gouts of black smoke issuing from the cracks.
Unfortunately, we do live in the age of terrorism. When you are talking about freedom of speech, there are boundaries and when you endanger someone else, you have gone over the boundary. Government does not need to know my personal life - that is the freedom of speech. I can dislike the goverment. But information about killing the president - that is a bit too much. I think the guy is pretty lucky he got only one year, don't you?
There is a huge difference between opposing certain policies of a government and attempting to overthrow it.
That certainly depends on the way this opposition is manifested!
If you do it by writing readers letters to newspapers or directly to your congressman, or participate in a peaceful demonstration that respects law and order - the diffence is huge and clear.
If you do it through 'civil disobedience' (another word for rampant lawbreaking usually including violence), I don't see any difference at all.
The use of lawbreaking by a violent mob is a major threat to any society and the reaction by the society must be equally major and severe in order to defend itself. This sentence is IMHO too lean.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
I am sorry but revolution *NEVER* ameliorate the social status of people as a whole. Revolution only brutaly move the people up and down in the social pyramid (stealing/confiscating/murder/rape/execution) for some, but the rest "the paysant" the serf and so on, (particulary in the case of french revolution, anyone outside Paris) never changed anything. Note that I am speaking on the WHOLE. On a small scale you can observe social progress for some, but onlyx at the detriment of other. Why is that there is no progress ? Because of two facts :
1) even if the worst dictature the base of the pyramide (the people making up the most basic workforce), as long as thery fit in, usually only wants her/his next meal and some fun and that is it. Yeah call me elitiste , but if you think most people think of freedom of speech and not their next meal/sex time/alcohol then you are delusionnal. They pay more tax, and fit in even in the worst law, as long as they are left in peace. Only a few Intellectual, or powermonger which are not at the top usually wish the changes. The French revolution wasn't a "people" revolution, you just have to look at its leader beyond the first day.
2) Social revolution perturbate the economic of a country deeply. It doesn't help it. But only *ECONOMIC* help people raise their status in a social scale. You do not live on air and politic. You live on "Food". But while you are on the barricade fighting the goivernement those stuff , like in every war, either aren't supplied regulary or are plainly not grown.
What really change the live of people is economic revolution. not social one. Out of 3 revolution (Russian, French, US) I know that 2 brought more pain than ease for the people, and one (the US) I can't really speak of, but had the extrem advantage to be 1000's of kilometer away from the governement, and wasn't a revolution anyway , but a cut from a colony from its origin, and one can argue this is far easier on the evconomic of stuff.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Of course it would be racist, are you a retard or something. Do brown people not need fertiliser?
:-)
As for liberal bias in the US media all I can say as a Briton is ROFL, you will never (want to) understand but fellow Britons who have watched a few US news channels will probably know what I mean
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
We evidently havent toppled their biggest support government: Saudi Arabia is still standing. The taliban are being offered a place in the Afghani Government on the provision that they hand over Mullah Omar. And we haven't really destroyed Al-queda, they have made more attacks, you assume we are their only, or even their biggest target. We aren't, traditionally most of their targets have been corrupt Muslim Regimes and their supporters, or suppressors of muslim movements and religion. We're a relatively new target, they'll get us again. Mostly however, they're counting on fallout from us over-reacting from their attacks and thus shooting ourselves in the foot, which our government seems to be doing nicely. Which means that the enemy's reasons for fighting are *increasing*. The Taliban are still in power in parts of Afghanistan by the way, along with various fueding warlords, and they could regain power (indeed they have much popular support, compared to the Northern Alliance, they seem not-half-bad to many people) at any moment. Thus, currently: Al Queda is winning, they've carried off a sucession of spectacular attacks (conventional terrorist attacks) since then. They'll learn how to deal with our new methods soon, and they'll recover from their structural losses soon.
Looks like a pretty standard ideaologically-confused anarchist/commie hissyfit thing. Upside-down US flag, red star, and a black flag. Overlapping each other, no less. The bomb links are just par. He doesn't even put those up until late '02. Probably just responding to how tough it is to pull off that "crazy Jew from Cryptonomicon" vibe without some of that these days. This kid's even a little behind the curve as far as the capital @ clique goes. I know trendy anarchist/vegitarian/communists that had most of that shit in their AIM profiles before Bush had even settled in.
I have him at slightly less dangerous than a camgirl, probably a big fan of Propaghandi. B+ for style though. Excellent use of Clash-tshirt-white on the splash page.
I noticed you didn't discuss your lower education system (wow a two-fer on that), your financial crisis that the rest of the states need to bail you out of, the pollution, or your crime. Yeah - great place.
Eat recycled food - it's good for the environment, and OK for you.
Your argument isn't that great. America did have a degree of representation, just not the kind that we wanted. Virtual representation? Remember? Representation isn't binary, if at some point you feel that you have a plan that would better represent you than the current system, "taxation without representation" would work just as well for you as it did then. Which is to say, not at all, other than to get your side fired up.
<18th-century Brit>It's called the shared interest between property owners and society as a whole.</18th-century Brit>
A foreigner could express his views of overthrowing a govt and yet nothing happens; but when a local citizen does it, it's jail time :(
If you think this has nothing to do with his anti-government views, you have no fucking clue what is going on.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
So what bush did to illegaly bomb and take over iraq was 100% legal? Yeah right... its just so Haliburten and his buddies and oil mates get fat/juicy rich out of it and control the planet before the american economy falls and the US$ is worth-less than toilet paper.
Is describing how to gut/kill a sheep dangerous? because that same info can be used to kill a human.
Hiding HOW to do something will not PREVENT it, people are smart and will figure it out, I mean if nobel did 150 years ago , any one can now.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
So is this link illegal - http://mt.sopris.net/mpc/military/mike.html :)
Im sure the library at MIT has info on how to develop TNT from scratch.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Yeah, though when bush calls on citizens of other countries to overthrow their leaders its ok? but if americans want to do that to the Fed then its bad?
Ha Ha
america - the real dictatorship with fake democracy.
No person outside the elite can ever become a president.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Considering that his life will be fucked from now on- imagine trying to find a job after his sentence, he would be better served in fleeing the USA to mexico or canada and requesting political asylum in Brazil, France, Sweden or any country that will respect the fact that he has been heavily sentenced for youthful idiocy.
> > We don't jump to race as the first answer, and instead of not wanting to offend anybody by saying it, we just don't even think about it in the first place.
Someone's point got lost somewhere. If there's a higher percentage of incidents against one race than another then you're more likely to associate that race with the incident. Simple.
It also works with stereotypes. Of all the women I meet the ones who wear large hoop earings, too much makeup and wear sports clothes when clubbing also tend to come from low income households and have a poor education. They're also very likely to end up single moms in their teens.
So if I see a girl fitting that description then I make assumptions about her background. Simple dimple pimple.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
lit crit folks get major mileage from the notion of a "speech act", in which a power dynamic within a group ensures that the words of one are automatically realized by others. think of a king in his court saying how great it'd be if X just dropped dead - the nature of the power dynamic in the court is such that someone will surely kill X. point is, the king knows that engaging in speech is tantamount to action (it's good to be the king), making him responsible for the action.
18 USC 842 seems, IMHO, to be aimed at people who engage in violent acts through speech acts, eg the masterminds behind attacks or killings or whatnot. say lou reed takes a completely devoted tribe of mutant piglets and teaches them how to light a fire and play guitar, and then mentions that it'd be great if a particular barn burned down. when it does, is he responsible, even though the piglets set the fire? sure he is! and we need a law to that effect.
but you can engage in a speach act only when you know that someone who is listening will turn your words into actions. to be a mastermind, there must be a plot, and plotters to carry out your wishes.
Austin was no mastermind. no prestige in any group afforded him the power to engage in action by speech alone.
there seem to me to be two readings (remember, IANAL!):
* 18 USC 842 is meant to apply to speech acts, eg masterminds, in which case Austin has not broken this law
* 18 USC 842 applies to speech with no predictable connection to any particular act, in which case it sounds wildly unconstitutional.
thoughts?
(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc
Rememeber kids, you must not attempt to change the government. Your government loves you.
Someone has the sig 'I'm interested in the future because that's where I'll be spending my time.
You'd do well to take note of the maxim 'Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it'
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Not the first, though. You had real concentration camps already during the WWII, for the Japanese and others of Asian heritage.
______________
OTTERS RULE.
The apocalypse will come indeed, then that 'little' pile of 36 trillion dollars of debt collapses by its own weight and mortage rates skyrockets. It will create a living hell on earth for many americans, and its all Greenspans fault.
So how does this situation really differ from the one with the present day US government? As it certainly ain't a good one, my son.
______________
OTTERS RULE.
And what about the sites he linked to? Will the Feds be going after them?
There are very different means of protest. Some choose violence, some choose non-violence or pasive resistance. I chose not to use violence of any sort, this included physical and verbal violence. Your post is actually more violent than my actions.
Protest against REAL injustice, you petty little powderpuff!
The malasian airways protest was protesting about malasians wholescale clearence of rain forrests and the desplacement of the tribes people there. The action was done in solidarity with 30 malasian tribes people who were being held by their govenment. Read the archive of raisethefist. Every item them is about an injustice.
This is why, from 1930-2003 not ONE problem has been solved by student activists.
But so much has been changed by law breaking protest.
Suffrigetts - Womans right to vote, Ganhdi - independence for india. Swords into ploughshare brought the whole East Timor situation too the public eye. Earth First protest in the UK caused the govenment to re think roads program (some roads were halted). GM activists - changed the publics perception of GM food.
Yes direct action is not the only tool for the job. That is why are now prefer to work by spreading information see Plants For A Future.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
Ok, so nobody is being tortured or killed in the USA (that's what happens in Cuba at Guantanamo
Um, you're thinking of the portion of Cuba outside of Guantanamo Bay.
That's OK; easy mistake to make! :)
Yeah, and defacing a website is really the equivolent of beating someone senseless. It is wrong to vandalize websites, just as it is wrong to vandalize a wall, but it certainly not deserving of a year behind bars.
Really? If you vandalize the wall of my house, a year in prison is less painful than what you'll feel if I get to you first.
Congratulations,
You have shown conclusively that there is news material from the point of view of the left, I think having info from both sides is necessary to have a balanced view, don't you?
My take on this whole issue, is that you are on the right, I am to the left. To me the news looks too far right, to you it looks too far left... I think that means it is likely in the center...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I suppose that in order to prevent crime it is /essential/ to pre-empt?
If the infomation is distributed that is no proof of motive that is required for any prosecution right?
People shouldn't be silenced from speech so,
a breech of privacy is the next option.
So how do you feel about this one?
If you post on slashdot about bomb making and government is it ok for the authorities to tap your phone line and intercept your mail.
At a push I am prepared to give up my privacy but only if there is no other option. Even then I'm not so sure as the infomation is so often not relevent to the reason for scrutiny.
A blog I run for the wealth
Liberal tech industry? You seen the kind of opinions that crop up whenever someone mentions the letters H1-B around here? Not being american, I'm not always sure which political opnions you guys think of as 'liberal' or 'conservative', but I'm pretty sure liberal thinking doesn't generally encompass moaning about foreigners coming and stealing your jobs (although I could certainly see proper socialists taking that view, I think that species has pretty much died out in the US, hasn't it?)...
I think you'll find the tech industry has just the same spread of opinion as society in general. What I have noticed is that politically-inclined Americans (few though they are) all tend to see the world around them as a conspiracy of the political wing they oppose - so to lefties, everything they see is a neo-con plot, and right-wingers see liberal PC bias in everything.
I think you guys all need to chill out a little; complaints about media bias are really just thinly disguised patronising assertions that the average joe is too dumb to make up his own mind and see propaganda for what it is.
You are measuring at the present time. But you don't know what the future will bring, which was the point he was making.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm not saying that sometimes cops are on the defenive, sometimes they are. As far as cops being the trouble makers I think that depends on the situation. Sometimes cops jobs are to just keep the peace, and make sure a footbal game doesn't get to out of hand. Sometimes the cops are there to protea ct certain target. Sometimes the cops are there to disrupt the protest. Just like an army police have different objectives.
Protesters have a right to fight back against agression, and some do. Can some dig up that tape of police rubber bulleting, a group of nuns who are running from the police. Not everyone is as peacefull as nuns.
Yes, because there are plenty of Al-Queda members that are multi-frickin-millionairs.
I'm not really scared of someone half a world away if they're only making $20 a year.
look at his website, dumbass..
No, it doesn't make me mad, You're an anonymous coward, not just in name but in action. You're, put simply, acting like an idiot. Your example is invalid, and not at all what I'm talking about. In fact you don't believe in free speech, either. You want to censor me, or else you would have phrased your argument differently. You're no different than me, you just like to feel good about yourself for being better than me. You're pathetic.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Obviously, no government is ever going to truly have your best interest at heart, no matter how much they try to convince you that they do.
The only person that can reliably protect you is YOU. The police will not protect you. The government will not protect you. Hell, often your parents won't even protect you. It's you against the world, baby.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
No, I am not what you call a moron throwing bricks through store windows, and yes they're still after me. No I won't put a foil hat on my head, but yes, I'm still paranoid, because it just happens that the paranoids are the one that don't get caught.
I happen to be an independant media reporter and the police have already arrested me on bullshit charges of "Illegal assembly". So yes, they are after me, and for good reasons: I have a voice and actually speak up! I guess I wasn't paranoid enough and thought the police wouldn't bust a peaceful demo.
In other news, recent demonstrations in downtown montreal produced the arrests of 21 street medics and a few more journalists. 240 persons were arrested on charges of "illegal assembly" (again) *after* the demo was over, and *after* the cops had already arrested 4 of the "throwing bricks morons" (as you call them).
It's pretty easy to dismiss other people suffering by saying "you looked for it, you deserve it". But once the cops come busting down your door, no one will care for you either.
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
Censorship is a lot like alcohol prohibition--it buries the problem in a place where no one sees it, and creates an underground that no one knows about until it's too late. If you think that censorship works, keep in mind that publishers used to go to great lengths to piss off the prudes in Boston so that they could put "Banned in Boston" on the cover of their books. And Alcoholics Anonymous was formed at the height of prohibition.
Just because someone never tells anyone he's wants to kill the president doesn't mean he's not going to do it. Let them talk in the open where others can hear them and have a chance of correcting their views, instead of stewing in the basement like Raskalnikov before skulking off to do the deed. We do have laws against hate literature in Canada, and they're a mixed bag--they often give the racists a national pulpit (in court) to spout their venom, where everyone can hear them.
America, by the way, does not have laws against hate literature. There is actually no legal way to shut down Neo-Nazis, and the government seems strangely blase about right wing extremists, even though they have a long history of terrorism and have committed more acts on terrorism on American soil than any other faction (uh huh, that's what burning a cross on your neighbour's lawn is.) The law being applied here is a rather vague, anti-terrorist law which can be applied to any dissident group. The choice of who it gets aimed at is discretionary. The question, and the danger, is: at whose discretion?
I don't care if its how to make a 9mm submachine gun, or a rocket motor, or a chocolate pie.
Free speech dictates that you are allowed to disseminate this information.
Its how its USED that is wrong. The information isn't at fault here.
With your thinking, I guess we must also ban chemistry class in high school, or the chemical abstracts.. or physics... Its all about basic knowledge just being applied. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but properly extrapolated it does mean this ( and has been happening, I've noticed many books are now missing from my child's schools library that I had access too 20 years ago, and I've not gone and blown anyone up lately. )
It must be absolute freedom of information.
Too bad you posted anonymous.. you will never see this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The problem with revolution is that those who revolt either a) think they have "THE" answer, or b) have no answer and are basically just trying to destroy they old. Both of these positions are inherently irresponsible and typically lead to greater atrocities than were committed under the prior regime in the short-run.
This is not to say that revolts CAN have positive effects. They can, but we tend to romanticize these few exceptions.
-Stu
What do you do if you're in a crowded theatre and notice a fire?
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Woo hoo and cheers! I'd just like to second your opinion, and let you know I'd mod you up if I had mod points. :)
We(the US) aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and the quest for improvement should continue endlessly, but we seem to be doing alright comparitively so far.
Hrm, this is my second "good job" posting in as many days. Some people on here actually do think(I was beginning to wonder). I'm not usually this effusive, but I don't think I've ever seen what I would just blow off and ignore as a regular /. troll responded to better, especially in this context. :)
Only 3rd world dictatorships and military dominated governments suffer under them.
Actually, it's the citizens who suffer the most uner WTO agreements, and not only those who live under oppressive governments.
The WTO forbids restrictions of trade based on envirionmental and health policty risks, such as banning the importation of produce that was treated with known toxic insecticides (think DDT) and weed killers, or the requirement that usage of such products be clearly and truthfully labled on such produce.
The enforcement clauses for WTO regulations (yes, the WTO is an org that regulates trade, not one that eliminates regulation) are the international equivalent to civil lawsuits with the only penalty being that the wronged country is granted 5the right to enforce tarrifs and embargoes on the agreement violator. This means that the only countries that have effective enforcement power are those with the largest markets and the strongest economies, such as the U.S.
WTO supporters like to present the WTO as eliminating unecessary and unfair regulation, but the reality is that it only serves to ensure that the currently dominant economies can enforce thier own regulations against smaller nations and the smaller nations have no power to enter the world markets at a pace that ensures that thier own economies and local industries can remain competative.
Read, L
I still remain convinced of two points, regardless of your argument.
1. This asshat was arrested because he chained himself to a building. 2. Protest in itself is not inherently disruptive of the democratic process. Protest, and the right to petition one's government for redress of grievances is a necessary and healthy part of a thriving democracy. However, intentionally blocking roadways with ones body, blocking access to a building etc. cannot be viewed as a protected right, as it directly conflicts with another's right to movement and access to his or her property and public facilities. No one person's rights (no matter how vocally proclaimed) may take precedence over another person's. I am also quite libertarian but I think the activist mindset is long on talk, short on fix. Instead of simply protesting X injustice, seek to remedy it with work.
Pfafrich was still arrested for chaining his dumb ass to a building. No amount of rationalization will change the simple fact that in America and most parts of Europe, you don't get arrested for just having views contrary to corporate interests. You get arrested when you take action which harms another person or entity. 'Nuff said.
Disagree if you must, that's the beauty of it all. You can.