Linking Dangerously

IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-08-05 08:02 · Score: 2, Funny

"(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.

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by davesill · 2003-08-05 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sherman said it in his narrative on the site:

"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."

The government has basically forbid this guy from criticizing the system. I hope that this sends a message to everyone in the same situation to not plead down, and to raise as much hell as possible.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Cereal+Box · 2003-08-05 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

The government has basically forbid this guy from criticizing the system.

See, I think there's a difference between "criticizing the system" and advocating the violent overthrow of the government and providing instructions on how to create weapons that will help you accomplish that goal. Do you honestly think this guy was locked up for merely saying "I disagree with this administration?"
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by davesill · 2003-08-05 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's a very valid point, but I think everyone has to admit that there is a slippery slope for freedom of speech. Our country has a tradition of civil disobdience, and it wasn't all peaceful. I'm wary of any government which is so worried about being overthrown. Earning the respect of the majority of citizens is the way to stay in power, not locking people up for distributing already widely available information.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by justinbigelow · 2003-08-05 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I hope that this sends a message to everyone in the same situation to not plead down, and to raise as much hell as possible." Easy for the guy not looking at a possible 20 year sentence in a federal "pound-you-in-the-ass"* prison to say. * Let the "Office Space" quotes begin.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-08-05 08:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Last I checked, one of the major reasons Americans claim to value their right to arm bears, bear arms and all things inbetween is that it allows them to form an armed militia to overthrow a represive government.

If someone says "I think your government is repressive/illegal/the result of a military-industrial coup d'etat and I think that you should take up whatever weaponry you have and fire wildly into the air and/or the nearest politician" then he is a) exercising his right to free speech, b) encouraging the use of firearms for the pupose they should be used (especially if the lawyers get in the way of the politicians) and c) making a political statement that may actually be not too far from accurate.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Frymaster · 2003-08-05 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

but if he is advocating the use of bombs and such to overthrow the government then this is not political speech
ah yes. violent revolution has no place in america.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by davesill · 2003-08-05 08:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Good points. I probably started posting before I'd seen enough of the site that got this guy into trouble. Here is an archive.org cache of the site from last year.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020826014358/www.ra is ethefist.com/index1.html
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by jokell82 · 2003-08-05 08:51 · Score: 2, Funny

I think Jimmy from cell block D wants to show him his 'Oh' face.

--
I dunno who it is
but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by dipipanone · 2003-08-05 08:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's all about context. He didn't say "here's how to make bombs, if you're interested", he said "let's overthrow the government, and a good way to do that is if you make your own bombs! Click here!"

I don't see how that isn't protected speech. Lets be clear here. He wasn't plotting with particular individuals to carry out an act of terror or violence. He was saying that this goverment sucks and should be overthrown -- by violent needs if necessary. And should anyone think that's a good idea, then here's some information on how you can forward those aims.

Now I don't think what he's proposing is a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a liberal democrat by persuasion, not a revolutionary anarchist. But the one thing I'd always admired about the USA was the way that political free speech is protected by the constitution and if anything counts as political speech, this guy's website does.

The effect is that he's not providing the information out of general interest but he's intending that the information be used to create tools overthrow the government. Big difference there.

Perhaps that's true, but it isn't a difference that I thought was prohibited by law. Americans in this forum often go on about how you need the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. This case makes it pretty clear that even if you actually *had* a tyrannical government, the right to bear arms would be somewhat pointless because the ability to discuss with others the need to use them would render you liable to arrest and imprisonment.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by commodoresloat · 2003-08-05 08:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

First of all, speech advocating "regime change" is obviously political speech, whatever else you may say about it. Second, the courts have been clear that "incitement to violence" is a pretty high standard; they have made the distinction between advocating violence and instigating it, or between abstract doctrine vs. action. The Supreme Court has said pretty clearly that the danger that is created by the speech has to be likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. It is hard to see how a website could do that, no matter what it advocates. This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Jhon · 2003-08-05 09:04 · Score: 2, Informative

You're right. It doens't:

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by ncc74656 · 2003-08-05 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

If things got so bad in America that the people really had to organize, use the internet (or any other form of speech) to inform eachother on how to overthrow the government and then coordinate their efforts, would it still be right for the government to try to stop them? who would decide?

Whoever wins the war would decide. If things got bad enough (as they did in the late 18th century and again in the middle of the 19th century) that a large-enough group of people start acting together to overthrow the government, they're hardly going to lock themselves up for advocating a violent overthrow of the government. OTOH, the odd crank or two (like the subject of this article) isn't likely to draw anywhere near the numbers of people needed for anything approximating a successful "revolution." He would've been better advised to work within the system. (He probably wouldn't have found adequate support for his radical views even that way, but at least he wouldn't be moldering away at Club Fed for the next year.)

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Yet+Another+Smith · 2003-08-05 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're right that not all civil disobedience was peaceful. Its also true that there was a great deal of civil disobedience that was very noble in aim. There was also a great deal more that was, in the parlance of our Pres, evil.

In most parts of the country it is now illegal to burn a cross. This is because in most cases the burning cross was effectively a death threat. It was speech, and might even be considered protected political speech under some circumstances, but it is also intended to dissuade people from excercising their rights through acts or threats of physical harm.

I have not read his website, but most descriptions in the articles listed here seem to indicate he was advocating the overthrow of the US government, and linking to bomb-making instructions. This could easily be interpreted as exhorting people to plant bombs to disrupt, what? Elections? Courts? I vote in a predominantly Republican area. If his friends, or some ELF or ALF types want to discourage people from voting GOP, would they set off a bomb in my precinct? (probably not, becuase mine is not nearly high-enough income to attract their attention, but its a useful thought experiment)

His motives are 'populist' and 'left-wing' and may be aligned with the motives of many here, but his actions are very similar to those of the folks out in western North Carolina who have just recently had to take down their 'Run Eric Run' signs from their front yards. He's not Eric Rudolph, but his actions are only different from some of Eric's supporters if you think along the lines of 'its OK for US, but not for THEM.'

This guy is in one of those nasty little gray areas that make public policy a difficult thing, but I do think its a bit easier to make these distinctions when you realize that 'those harmless kids who want to make the world a better place' are not so different from 'those neanderthal right-wing reactionary muther-f*$kers'. They use a lot of the same rhetoric that this guy uses. Just the book their quoting to justify their actions has a black cover, not a red one.

Remember, I'm not calling this guy Eric Rudolph. And certainly he shouldn't be given a 20 year terrorist sentence - indeed I think the judge was wrong for superceding the prosecutor's recomendation of 4 months. However, this guy was real close to the boundary between harmless and horrific.

--
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Master+Bait · 2003-08-05 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (unless we say so -- GWB), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

--
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Golias · 2003-08-05 09:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think everyone has to admit that there is a slippery slope for freedom of speech
I am always suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, because they are almost always used to defend radical positions. The "slippery slope" argument usually says "we can not allow these modest, sensible, and moderate restrictions to $FREEDOM, because they will surely lead to fascist, insane, extreme limitations of $FREEDOM," and is applied to gun control ("take away our rocket launchers, and our hunting rifles will be next!"), abortion ("require that abortions be performed by medical doctors, and soon nobody will be allowed to perform them!"), religion ("look, any government with the power to say that I can't perform ritual sex acts on children can turn arround and say you can't drink sacramental wine!"), and speech ("once they are done rounding up all the people trying to incite violent revolt against the government, the publishers of Reason magazine had better watch their ass!")
It is also frequently used by the big-government extremists to hold on to powers they should not have; such as with drug laws, "If we legalize marajuana, then it's just a matter of time before they will have crack cocaine in convenience stores!" environmental protection, "If the people who want to log these 200 acres are allowed to win, soon they will be strip-mining Yellowstone Park!" and again, with abortion, "if you allow abortions in cases of rape and incest, then every woman who wants an abortion will just claim she was raped, so it will be the same as allowing all abortions!" You get the idea.
My point is, you almost never hear the "slippery slope" argument applied to defend a position which can stand on it's own merits, removed from the political ideology for which it was chosen as a battleground.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Mr.+Slippery · 2003-08-05 10:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think there's a difference between "criticizing the system" and advocating the violent overthrow of the government and providing instructions on how to create weapons that will help you accomplish that goal.

I don't recall anything in the First Amendment about "except for information about how to make weapons." (In fact, I think I even recall something a little later on in the Bill of Rights about a right to keep and bear arms, and no "except for weapons you make yourself".)
Do you honestly think this guy was locked up for merely saying "I disagree with this administration?"

Do you honestly think he couldn't be? You apparently haven't been paying attention.
As Austin puts it on the site:
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 .. and how do they prove intent? I think Bush made it clear when he said "you're either with me or against me".

I'd like to think that if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't take the plea, but fight. But then, I've yet to be dragged off in shackles for anything I've said.
But remember, kids: when the stormtroopers come for you, aim for the head.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Hatta · 2003-08-05 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

And what exactly is wrong with violent overthrow of the government? Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be regularly watered by the blood of patriots." (to paraphrase) It is the tendency of government to become entrenched and intractable to the point where only violent revolution can make a difference. The USA was a "great experiment" to construct a series of rules (a constitution) that would hopefully prevent the need for violent revolution. Whether you count this experiment as a success or failure, I don't see how in good conscience you can forbid someone to advocate a solution to a problem they percieve.

Why for instance is it ok for GWB to advocate, and actually accomplish the overthrow of an atrocious government that he is not even a citizen of, whereas this fellow cannot even speak what is in his mind the only solution to repair the very government he lives it? The gov't must not have a monopoly on violence. Of all the groups, politicians are the least worthy to handle it.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by commodoresloat · 2003-08-05 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree - that's why I said "through intimidation." Technically the kid eliminated any chance of his case being taken up when he pleaded guilty, but his options were pretty limited.

All the same, the judge here is f*cked. I've agreed with some of his decisions in the past, he's not a totally loose cannon, but this is ridiculous; more time than the prosecutor agreed to so he could teach the kid a lesson? Does the judge think that if this kid spends more time around hardened criminals he'll learn respect for the law? yeesh.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Ideoscape · 2003-08-05 10:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Sherman originally wanted to. But he's a 21 year old good kid, who's never been charged with any serious crime (although he has been shot once by a plastic bullet for filming a protest, still has a piece of it lodged in his knee, and he's been detained a few times for "Disorderly conduct" and "failure to disperse" at protests.), he's in love, and quite frankly, the thought of spending 20 years in prison scared the fuck out of him. He was originally only going to spend 4 months in prison, so he was like "Allright, big fucking deal."
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 10:55 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree with a previous poster: whoever won would claim legitimacy. However, curiously enough, in the USA there is actually a *legal* way to overthrow the government: seek to convene a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention can be legally convened if enough states call for it and it's not limited to *anything.* It can rewrite laws, add, delete or change Constitutional Amendments, or rewrite the whole darn Constitution for that matter. It can, by doing so, abolish or alter any of the 3 branches of government, or add more if it wants to. Effectively, it can legally do the same things that a revolution would accomplish.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by antiMStroll · 2003-08-05 15:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am always suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, because they are almost always used to defend radical positions.
Past radical ideas like the end of slavery, female sufferage, social equality for non-whites, unionized labour, paid vacation and abortion rights? Good thing we're so much smarter today that ideas we consider radical couldn't possibly become basic rights tomorrow.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Dausha · 2003-08-05 17:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

[C]ertainly he shouldn't be given a 20 year terrorist sentence - indeed I think the judge was wrong for superceding the prosecutor's recomendation of 4 months. However, this guy was real close to the boundary between harmless and horrific.

In an interview with Mike Tyson, he made a rather interesting quote, which I must paraphrase. Prison does not rehabilitate. Prison trains the inmate to be better at what got him in prison. So, will this fellow skew more towards the horrific in the future?

Or, is my quoting M. Tyson horrific? Both?

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by salesgeek · 2003-08-05 17:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

"let's overthrow the government, and a good way to do that is if you make your own bombs! Click here!"
The statement "let's overthrow the government." might be ok by itself. In this context, it would be on the treasonous side of not ok.

--
-- $G
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by whatch+durrin · 2003-08-05 17:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well put.
The US founding fathers recognized that sometimes governments get too powerful, and hoped to avoid internal wars by setting up a system of checks and balances between the branches, and by allowing citizens to vote for their representatives.
We have laws for a reason. If we reach a point where our laws become unreasonably restrictive, our elected officials ignore this fact, and a majority of citizens get tired of it, we'll have another revolution. At that point you can basically throw the laws out the window and start over. Until then, handle it the way the founders intended - peaceably.

--
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Hes+Nikke · 2003-08-05 17:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

and do you think that the current federal government would let the states organize to the point were they call such a convention? i think we are already past the point of no return on that one....

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Dausha · 2003-08-05 17:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't see how that isn't protected speech. Lets be clear here. He wasn't plotting with particular individuals to carry out an act of terror or violence. He was saying that this goverment sucks and should be overthrown -- by violent needs if necessary. And should anyone think that's a good idea, then here's some information on how you can forward those aims.

Well, let us try a different set of circumstances. Imagine a web site where there are details on how to lynch a minority. Or, what if the site discusses how to bomb an abortion clinic or how to kill an abortion doctor? Would they be protected by Free Speech? If they added the purpose was "to overthrow the US Government," would that enter the site into hallowed protection? Whave if they said, "here's how to do it, but we do not advocate?"

There have been sites as I have mentioned above--sorry, no URLs to accompany. The owners of said sites were convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced to prison. This fellow met the same fate (or chose to waive his right to trial by jury and pled out). They all claimed a right, and were found not in the right. If he should go free, than so should they. I think the clause in the Premable "establish justice and secure domestic tranquility" has bearing. Looking at his site, I conclude he meant what he said, and sought to disrupt our tranquility.

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by Yet+Another+Smith · 2003-08-05 18:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Haymaker is unfamiliar to me right off the bat, so I can't respond on that one, and won't discuss it.

Shays' Rebellion was not peaceful protest, but armed protest. They didn't need to make bombs because they had muskets and/or rifles.

At Kent State, if you wanted to change the number of casualties from a handful to a statistic, the fastest way to do that would be to start lobbing bombs at the National Guard types. The ones who really were shooting over the heads of protesters would have started to take aimed shots, and if they didn't have someone holding a bomb in their sights, then they would have aimed at anyone not running away. And seeing a couple of guys down the line take shrapnel from a pipe-bomb, they probably wouldn't be to careful to check if they were running away.

In the modern government age, a better self defense against government brutality is well-drilled non-violence. You want sympathy on your side, and adolescent displays of bravado don't go over well with the American public (unless you're president). Ultimately if you really feel you're in need of armed resistance, you'd need to do that with a large contingent armed with rifles, not a few guys hurling pipe-bombs or molatovs.

Ultimately pipe-bombs, due to their indiscriminant area-of-effect nature, are most effective in instilling fear in the untrained, rather than breaking the ranks of well-trained police/military anti-riot groups. He's more likely to kill his friends than his enemies. Of course, his motives might be to demonize the cops by upping the death-toll at his rallies. If so, then

You have the right to kill a police officer if they are killing your people, shooting at your protest groups

I assume that you mean that the police officer in question is not being threatened with physical harm himself. There haven't been any fatalities in globalization protests since Italy, and in that case the officer in question was being threatened by a guy swinging a fire-extinguisher. When have live rounds been fired at protesters since Kent State?

Ultimately, his desired methods are too reminiscent of Greensboro (you know, when the Klan managed to 'respond to fire' from some black trade unionists) to gain much sympathy from me.

The 2nd Amendment is essentially the codification of the right to armed insurection, but bombs are bad tactics, and too likely to end up in innocent lives lost.

By the way. If there had been casualties among the National Guard types at Kent State, do you think it weigh on the national conscience like it does? Most people would assume that the bombs were thrown first. The Kent State protesters would have lost the moral high ground, and their deaths would have had half the impact. And there'd be a lot more deaths.

Never cede the high ground. You're out for popular opinion, and there's nothing like a ten-to-nothing casualty ratio to prove the cops shot first. If anyone had taken this guy's advice and started tossing bombs, he'd have gotten a bunch of protesters killed, and be seen to have justified the police brutality in the process.

Still not 100% sure he should have gone to jail, but his words are close enough to an exhortation to violence - a punishible act commonly used by the reactionary right (Klan and Operation Rescue et al) - that good people could disagree on his sentence.

--
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... by nanojath · 2003-08-06 03:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Austin said 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. The plea deal had called for him to serve four months.

I have no sympathy for this individual, and this says little about the USA system of justice (please don't infer my feelings about general issues of justice or the direction our nation is heading, I'm only commenting on this case).

The prosecutorial side of the USA justice system seeks to prosecute. This guy copped a plea. He said, I am guilty of this offense. That's that. If he believed he was innocent, that his actions were protected free speech, he should have fought it.

The spectacle of a person who is advocating overthrow of the government by force complaining about his CHOICE to plead guilty to a minor offense because of his fear of what he might be successfully prosecuted for if he choses to defy the charges just makes me laugh. I love a person advocating actions when he is not even willing to RISK the heat for merely advocating them, let alone carrying them out himself.

I consider myself an anarchist: that is, I advocate a system of government that strives for the absolute minimum of hierarchical control necessary to maintain the level of order demanded by individual communities. In practice this is a complex concept with many, many degrees of realization, and I recognize that on a national scale such an ideal could easily degrade into thinly (and ironically) disguised totalitarianism, as did attempts to nationalize Marxism in Communist nations. I have grave reservations about the USA government's actions througout the history of this nation. Despite this, I do not see the wisdom of advocating the violent overthrow of a government in a nation where fair, legal elections are possible (and happen on the community level all the time, though money and the two party system have certainly corrupted national and state level elections to some degree).

Essentially, what this says is, we can't convince the majority of our views by peaceful means, so let's overthrow it by violence and FORCE them to see the truth. This point of view is identical to the ideology that resulted in the catastrophically corrupt system in the Soviet Union, a government unable to maintain order for even a century and thus by any measurement a failure.

Austin told the judge Monday he "wasn't really thinking" when he created the Web site. "I'd be devastated if someone used this information to harm others," he said.

Austin admitted posting links about bombs to enable people to build and use them during demonstrations against interstate and foreign trade.

Sounds pretty clear to me. He admits that he was providing information to enable people to make illegal actions. This is all about this individual's choices. And can I point out, a person chosing to follow the information he provided could very well be facing an eternal sentence of being dead. I think he came out better than he had any right to expect.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

Well duh. by desenz · 2003-08-05 08:02 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought it was common knowledge that you don't disagree with the government.

Re:Well duh. by maxor+snoodge · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 2

Especially now.
Re:Well duh. by jd · 2003-08-05 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

"You're either for us or against us" - President G. W. Bush.

Unfortunately, I think the comment may prove more insightful. Or inciteful. Not sure which.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Well duh. by keester · 2003-08-05 09:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's a biblical reference. A quote from Jesus in one of the synoptic gospels. There is a related quote that goes a little something like this: "If they are not against us, then they are for us."

--
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
Re:Well duh. by Pave+Low · 2003-08-05 09:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately, that's not what he said.
He actually said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (one reference). By "with us", he was meaning with us against the fight against terrorism.
So your subtle changing of his words completely distorts what he actually said and meant. That would qualify as FUD, or just outright fraud. I would have hoped readers and the moderators would have known better.

--
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Re:Well duh. by EinarH · 2003-08-05 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok, your post is so flaimebait, but since some moderator on crack moderated you post as 4, Insightful and I have used my mod.points I will bite just to show that you are a Troll.
He actually said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (one reference). By "with us", he was meaning with us against the fight against terrorism.

I'm not exactly Shakespeare when it comes to the English language but I fail to the political difference between this statement and the original "You're either for us or against us" expression.
The direct consequence is still the same; he still tries to divide the possible positions in the "War Against Terror" into only two possible possitions, either with us(against the terrorist) or with the terrorrist(against us).
I must say that Mr. Bush masters the art of speaking in a medieval rhetoric.
[rant]
But I guess that is not very disappointing, we all knew that this guy is not the brightest person. The really diappointing thing though; is that American voters probablly will elect him this time in the upcomming 2004 election.
[/rant]

--
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

Worries by spamchang · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...!)

If the FBI is reading this... by teamhasnoi · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 4, Funny

I believe a man named Darl McBride is the man behind this terrorist.

You should probably go and shoot him in the head. Quickly!

seriously screwed up action by saskwach · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Says the Constitution of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What the hell?

Re:seriously screwed up action by Gibble · 2003-08-05 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

key word being "peaceably";

"links to bomb-making instructions, the site
caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the
overthrow of the U.S. government"

Last I checked...bombs weren't peaceful.

--
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
Re:seriously screwed up action by kannibal_klown · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think simply advocating the overthowing of the government is under free speech. And if that was all, then I'd be greatly offended at this act. However, if you're advocating the overthrow of a government AND posting links about how to make bombs, then that's another matter. Then you're saying "Let's overthrow the goverment and kill people, here's how...!" Sure, the author might not have been saying "let's blow up a bunch of congressman's houses), but people could have taken it that way. Enciting violence is iffy, but enciting violence and purposely providing the means to do such violence (such as handing out guns or describing how to make bombs to kill people) is another matter.
Re:seriously screwed up action by Phillup · 2003-08-05 08:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

isn't the word "peaceably" referring to the type of assembly?

And... it is saying you can gather in a group to address your government... it doesn't have to be one-on-one.

As long as the assembly is peaceful.

--

--Phillip

Can you say BIRTH TAX
Re:seriously screwed up action by Aadain2001 · 2003-08-05 08:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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).

You could argue that the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theather" refinement the Supreme Court has added would also cover bomb making instructions, but I disagree. You can't shout fire because it would cause direct damage to people (stampeed). But knowing how to make a bomb and posessing instructions on how to make a bomb and even sharing those instructions/knowledge does not cause direct damage to other people. A person would have to choose to make that bomb and then use it to hurt others. Let me highlight that special word: choose. Having knowledge or sharing it is not the same as hurting someone directly.

--
Space for rent, inquire within
Re:seriously screwed up action by DeckardJK · 2003-08-05 08:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Please... RTFA's Quote:
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. In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.
He is cracking websites and trying to log into US Gov't servers. He also ran this website that contained info on how to build bombs. The wording for the /. post is incomplete at best... very misleading.
Re:seriously screwed up action by mrquicknet · 2003-08-05 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

I used to manage a movie theatre and on occasion when I was locking up and no one was there I'd shout "fire" a couple of times.

I'm such the rebel.

Please don't tell on me.

--
--------- Steve Martin once said, "Sex is the most natural, most beautiful, most wonderful thing that money can buy."
Re:seriously screwed up action by djrogers · 2003-08-05 08:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

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).

Well, oddly enough, he WAS arrested for being involved in a violent protest. On top of that:

Austin admitted posting links about bombs to enable people to build and use them during demonstrations against interstate and foreign trade.

He specifically admitted that his purpose for posting the links was a VIOLENT one. Inciting others to riot is an offense any way you look at it...

All that being said, the whole debate about legality, free speech, civil rights, etc. is a moot point - the 'gentleman' in question VOLUNTARILY gave up his right to a trial and plead guilty, so none of those questions could ever be addressed in a court of law. The punishment is based on what he plead guilty to, not the legitimacy of the charges. What did you expect the judge to do, force him in to a trial?

--
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Re:seriously screwed up action by Civil_Disobedient · 2003-08-05 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

All that being said, the whole debate [...] is a moot point - the 'gentleman' in question VOLUNTARILY gave up his right to a trial and plead guilty...

Well, voluntary is a funny word. If I hold a gun to your head and ask for your wallet, and you give it to me, I haven't actually hurt you. You voluntarily gave your wallet to me. Of course, that 'voluntary' action was made under serious duress, hence it's not actually voluntary.

Now, if the FBI decided to charge me with a completely bogus crime, then said, "Plea now, or we'll make sure you get ass-raped by a rotating array of big, angry men every day for the next twenty years" -- well, suffice to say, I'd plea bargain.

When the government's got your nuts in a vice, you don't have very far to run.
Re:seriously screwed up action by Ideoscape · 2003-08-05 12:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is also possible to peacefully assemble, fully armed. As Military Marches do all the time. It is possible to have peacefull assembly while armed, in preparation for police brutality. This is the main point, and what raisethefist advocated.

i wonder.. by GreenCow · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:i wonder.. by jd · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, because they don't espouse. They merely apply. Besides, they only attack windmills - sorry, typo, that should be "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Any change that coincidently occurs is purely, well, coincidental. Besides, if the US gets it wrong, it's all the fault of the [British|French|Germans|Russians]. (Delete as appropriate, but remember to blame Poindexter afterwards.)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:i wonder.. by Wyatt+Earp · 2003-08-05 09:34 · Score: 4, Informative

France, Germany and the Soviet Union also played nice with Iraq, actually the three of them had closer ties than the US did.

The United States backed Iran through the 1970s, then Saddam took over at about the same time the Iranian Revolution happened so the United States started to back Iraq to keep them from falling to the Iranians. The whole goal of the West and Soviets in the Middle East at this time to keep no one from winning the upper hand.

The vast amounts of Soviet and French equipment being poured into Iraq shifted the balance of power and the Iranians/Americans/Israelis and rouge Saudis cut deals to get new Hawk-I missiles and parts for the Iranian UH-1s and F-4 operating then both the Iranians and Iraqis start attacking tankers.

When the Iraqis gased the Kurds there were two little things going on that limited a Western response to the gassing. The Cold War, Iraq is kind of close geographically to the Soviet Union and I'm sure B-52s and F-15s over Tikrit wouldn't fly in Moscow. And there was the Iran-Iraq war coupled with the fact that the Turks don't like the Kurds and they were an important part of the Southern Front NATO had to the Warsaw Pact. In short in the late 1980s international pressures and the Cold War paradigm kept anyone from acting out.

Now the United States and the West does have some dealings with the Iraqis in dual-use chemicals and technologies, but shit, if you ship someone the instructions on how to make Prussian Blue dye you are giving them the ability to make Zyklon-B poison gas. You sell someone some packing peanuts and gasoline and they can make napalm.

You know that in the 1950s the US and French were shipping nuclear reactors all over along with big tomes of stuff like "Atoms for Peace" is what gave Iraq and Pakistan the seed for thier nuclear programs?
Re:i wonder.. by aminorex · 2003-08-05 10:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't advocate sympathy for any
"country". But I do think that failure to
have sympathy for every one of 25,000
dead innocents puts one in a moral class
with every demonized icon of barbarity
in human history.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

From a European viewpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

From a European viewpoint inciting the overthrow of a government is just asking for trouble.

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.

Re:From a European viewpoint by Trigun · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Inciting people into a violent revolt that thretens the stability of the entire society is not responsible.

Nor is inciting people into a passive complacency that threatens the stability of the entire society. Sometimes you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, especially if the little runt is a Hitler-baby.
Re:From a European viewpoint by saskwach · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

But the US isn't European. It broke away from that through a violent overthrow of the current (European) government. The 1st amendment was put there because the people who wrote it knew that systems get stale and governments get corrupt. It's there specifically to protect the ability to criticise the government. While I don't personally advocate the overthrow of the whole system, I'm in favor of electing someone else to run the country right now. If enough people feel oppressed enough, they should be able to advocate that revolution. Meanwhile, this is the kind of oppression that does lead to a revolution.
Re:From a European viewpoint by singularity · 2003-08-05 08:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

I call troll...

Europe has been home of dozens of violent revolutions over the years. Just talk to the French to start with. You can move on to other countries when you are done there.

What is the end result of these revolutions? Social progress. The eventual overthrow of tyrants and the establishment of democracy has generally improved the quality of life.

Yes, people die during violent revolutions. People are jailed. In the long run, though, if enough people believe that a violent overthrow of the government is called for, it almost always means that the people will be better off after the revolution.

The U.S.'s freedom of speech was set up to allow all degrees of discussion, from political commercials to lobbying to advertising to calling for a violent revolution to overthrow the government.

Remember - the same people that wrote the First Amendment just got done with a violent revolution.

This does not mean that the government should stand idly by while people violently revolt. The government has a responsibility for self-preservation. However, talking about a violent overthrow should be completely allowed.

--
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Re:From a European viewpoint by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"From a European viewpoint inciting the overthrow of a government is just asking for trouble."
Isn't the whole point of having the Right to Bear Arms to give the people the ability to overthrow the government should it falter from the Nation's Founding Principles?
Re:From a European viewpoint by Angst+Badger · 2003-08-05 08:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is, however, illegal to urge people to break the law, and advocating the violent overthrow of the government certainly falls in that category. It is not incompatible with freedom of speech in any of the usual ways. Arguably, advocating the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government ought to be deeply, deeply repugnant to a free society in a way that advocating the overthrow of autocratic governments is not. Part of the point of democracy, after all, is the regularly scheduled non-violent overthrow of unpopular governments at the polls.

Had the defendant in this case merely presented bomb-making information, he probably could have gotten off on First Amendment grounds, but by stepping outside of what the First Amendment protects, and being dumb enough to do so during a national panic, one year in prison is not all that outrageous.

If enough people feel oppressed enough, they should be able to advocate that revolution.

As a practical matter, if you are really being severely oppressed, advocating revolution is a great way to be unpersoned. In the event of real oppression, you need to fight a revolution, not cut-and-paste crap from the Anarchists' Cookbook to your website. At present, however, most real oppression being conducted by the US Government is happening outside of its borders.

Meanwhile, this is the kind of oppression that does lead to a revolution.

Piff. This is the kind of routine law enforcement that leads to stupid bumper stickers.

--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Re:From a European viewpoint by Jason+Earl · 2003-08-05 09:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

This kid was demonstrating illegally (not a big deal), and it turned out he was wanted by the FBI for his website (still probably not too big a deal). The kicker came when they searched his parent's house and found bomb making materials.
Once you start caching explosives, the equation changes somewhat.
Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus were all a) right :), and b) decidedly non-violent. This kid was a crackpot, pure and simple.

First amendment... by upplepop · 2003-08-05 08:04 · Score: 2, Troll

If only this damned thing would stop getting in the way of making this country a better and safer place.

you think that's linking dangerously? by Savatte · 2003-08-05 08:04 · Score: 5, Funny

I once updated my web page while driving drunk and blindfolded accross landmines, all the while eating food from arby's.

They can do that? by JakiChan · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

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."

Re:They can do that? by jratcliffe · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Yup. The plea agreement is that the defendant will plead guilty to charge X, and (usually) the DA will recommend a particular sentence, or drop other charges. The judge has the final discretion, and he can (albeit rarely) overrule the plea agreement if he feels that it was unreasonable. In an extreme case, if a DA made a deal with a mass murderer where the murderer would serve 5 days for 100 murders, the judge could reject the deal and assign a different penalty. By the same token, the judge could reject a plea deal that carried a 50 year sentence for a jaywalking conviction. In this case, though, there doesn't really seem to be any reason for the judge to reject the deal.

Ahh the justice system ... by SuperDuG · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

prosecution and fbi recommend 4 months in prison, so the judge sentences him to a year.

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

Re:Ahh the justice system ... by Homology · 2003-08-05 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Glad to see the REAL criminals being put where they belong, hey aren't ALL the Enron executives still free?
Snuffing out pension funds are more than compensated by campaign contributions, in addition to handsomely paid do-nothing retirement consultancy postitions.

Sounds fair to me... by Marx_Mrvelous · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Re:Sounds fair to me... by brooks_talley · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Any other opinions that you think should be illegal? Perhaps anyone who advocates breaking Microsoft up? Or SCO's assertion that Linux includes their IP?

Or is it just people who verbally advocate murder that you'd jail? Like, say, anyone who says we should kill Saddam Houssein if we find him?

Please post a complete list of the opinions that you believe it should be illegal to express.

Cheers
-b
Re:Sounds fair to me... by Xerithane · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

I beleive his website was advocating violent action against innocent people.

He was also a violent protestor, and that was what he was originally arrested for.

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.

I wouldn't. People can spout of everything they want to. If someone uses the knowledge from him, he should be tried as an acomplice and also part of conspiracy to commit a crime.

This kid is a dumbass suburbanite whose parents didn't love him enough so he rebelled against the gubbmint. If we're going to rally behind someone whose rights are trampled on, lets pick a better candidate.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

What's the problem by Stanley+Feinbaum · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Re:What's the problem by Trigun · 2003-08-05 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

And if we armed more students, they could have shot the bastards as they walked in.

Maybe we could have made some laws to make their parents hold them more while they were children, or enroll them in little-league.

How about all those people with websites that are against the current administration? Could we lock them up for crimes that they may commit? Let's lock up the entire democratic party! Or the green party, they're pretty strange. Who knows what they're going to do.

In case you missed the sarcasm, the bill of rights is a blanket bill. Because of this, you have to take the good with the bad. If someone were to have made a bomb and blew up a government building, he could be an accessory, or essentially equally responsible, as in the case of Charles Manson.

20 years is an abuse of power.

Freedom of Speech anymore? by miradu2000 · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? by Twanfox · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 2, Troll

As a highschooler, perhaps you'd actually read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment doesn't say that you have the right to advocate hate crimes, belittle or verbally abuse people, or tell people how and where and when to blow up a major government building/person.
As someone else's post pointed out, the First Amendment gives you the right to peacefully speak your mind, petition the government on grievances, gather in assembly. You cannot entice riot, civil war, or anything else that seeks to start violence.
One would think that the educated Slashdotter could actually read and tell the difference between violence and peaceful assembly. I guess not.
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? by MikeJ9919 · 2003-08-05 08:32 · Score: 2, Informative

While I disagree with the outcome of this particular case, I have to make a comment about your over-general statement regarding civil liberties. Civil liberties are a a God-given part of being human, and as citizens in a free society we have the right to demand them. Chief amongst these are free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. However, many of these rights (though they cannot be taken away by the government acting of its own volition) can be taken away by the people as punishment for actions outside legal and societal norms. For example, if I've been convicted of being involved in a corrupt enterprise (the Mafia, for example), a jury of my peers has found (or I've plead guilty) that my association with these people endangers society. Therefore, as a result of my actions, the people (acting through the state) have the right to restrict my freedom to associate (assemble) with my former conspirators.
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? by Christopher_G_Lewis · 2003-08-05 08:36 · Score: 2, Funny

to hold public office

Unless he moves to Chicago :-)

--
www.christopherlewis.com
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? by Fesh · 2003-08-05 08:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The First Amendment doesn't say that you have the right to advocate hate crimes, belittle or verbally abuse people, or tell people how and where and when to blow up a major government building/person.
No, no, no. You've got it backwards. The First Amendment doesn't allow me to speak, it forbids the government from abridging my speech. It doesn't say a damned thing about what I am or am not allowed to speak about. The Constitution is a restraint on government power, not a list of things we're allowed to do. This view that the Constitution enumerates our rights flies in the face of historical evidence on the intent of the founders of this country, and is only going to worsen the problems we're having.

--
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? by mausmalone · 2003-08-05 08:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Whew! Calm down! Maybe I'm getting too old but I feel I should administer a minor reality check here.

First, I agree. Restrictions on his joining groups devoted to changing any part of government is a total crock and shouldn't be in there. That's knee-jerk reactionary and, considering this man's cooperation with the police, totally unnecessary. His taking a plea-bargain shows that he is a reasonable person with serious grievances, not a psychopath who just likes to blow stuff up.

But, you have to understand that he wasn't arrested for disseminating information. He was arrested because he was trying to incite a violent revolt. There's a fine line... You can tell someone how to make a bomb, as long as it's purely for non-violent pursuits. But, as soon as you package it along with anti-anybody messages and promote violence, you've become an instigator and an enabler, which are both very serious charges. The first ammendment gurantees us the right to "peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances." Listen to the wording. The framers of the constitutuion definitely intended for the ever-evolving government to be an intellectual and continuing revolution. Somehwere, the American public dropped the ball, though, and we forgot the fact that we have any say.

Since you're a high-school kid, which probably puts you left of center, you've probably read at least something about Michael Moore. If you can cheaply get a copy of Stupid White Men, read about the section where he became school superintendent (or something similar) while still in high school. You can make change in government at the local level with little effort. Just get your friends to vote for you. That's how you peacably redress grievences. Or you could march on Washington. At any rate, telling people that they need to use violent force is out of the question.

--
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? by Cytotoxic · 2003-08-05 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Constitution is a restraint on government power, not a list of things we're allowed to do.
This is a brilliant comment that bears repeating. So many seem to have forgotten that the government does not have any rights at all to grant. Our rights are innate, the government gets its power (and its 'rights') from the consent of the governed. The only thing that any government can do with your rights is take them away (or perhaps help protect you from having someone else take them away).

Well, that's just great! by The+Other+Nate · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Linking dangerously, huh?
Slashdot links to webpage in question...
We read the article, now we're all terrorists!

--
The Other Nate

Is it safe to read the article? by whorfin · 2003-08-05 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

What was there? by heli0 · 2003-08-05 08:06 · Score: 5, Informative

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...

Re:This is *no* bullshit by rastakid · 2003-08-05 08:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

It was more than just speech by egg+troll · 2003-08-05 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:It was more than just speech by jbottero · 2003-08-05 08:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Where did you find this information? CNN: "Austin, 20, pleaded guilty in February to distributing information related to explosives."

No place do I see anything about breaking into government computers. But you're probibly a troll anyway.
Re:It was more than just speech by interiot · 2003-08-05 08:46 · Score: 3, Informative
Actually, several websites say that he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. 842(p)(2)(A) which reads:
- Distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction with the intent that such information be used in furtherance of a federal crime of violence.

Revolution, anybody? by grasshoppa · 2003-08-05 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

Thought crime? by Grendol · 2003-08-05 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Thought crime? by Grendol · 2003-08-05 11:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hypothetically, if a person performs a historical analysis of sedition, rebellion, guerilla warfare, populistic uprising, and the like, for the methods used, the effectiveness of the methods, and suggests that certain modern tools might find application based upon the findings of the analysis. And then publishes this as a guide for the defense against tyrranical governments oppressing their citizenry. Where or what threat is this sort of document to a government for by and of a people? My arguement is based in the censorship aspect of this article (not that the subject individual may have wanted to cause problems). Censorship of ideas because a government feels threatened raises fundamental questions about efficient application of laws and justice. The government whose sole task is to serve the citizens can have conflicting interests when it chooses to censor concepts from the citizens it serves. This sets up the general mode that the government is smarter than the citizens who it serves. Often such situations have in the past evolved into controlling and freedom robbing regimes the citizens regret to have created. Again, my arguement is not to justify the said individual's behavior, but to discuss the government's approach and tools. Censorship is a dangerous thing. I just ask for a vigilant citizenry.
Re:Thought crime? by Skye16 · 2003-08-05 23:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

So all information is harmless, and only a harmful action should be punished... after the fact? Rubbish.

Exactly. That's the point he's making. Just because it's dangerous doesn't mean it isn't morally right.

There are certain dangers that you undertake being an American. All of the rights that you are given by the Bill of Rights can be easily turned against you by someone with malicious intent. The Founders knew this, yet they decided it was worth the risk. I, for one, agree with them.

More terrorism "enhancement" by robogun · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Barrment from using computers? by HTH+NE1 · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Austin must also pay a $2,000 fine and is barred for three years from using a computer without approval.

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?

Further recourse / protests? by msuzio · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Further recourse / protests? by CracktownHts · 2003-08-05 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
My thoughts exactly. If anyone else is willing to spearhead the effort, I'd be quite happy to side with whoever wins.
On second thought I'm too lazy to follow up on this, and you can't have my email address because anonymity is an important aspect of democracy. So when the coast is clear, would you please make sure your efforts get posted on Slashdot so I can claim my share of moral triumph?
Re:Further recourse / protests? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you interpolate and take your two points together, they add up to a death threat aimed towards me and every other citizen.

Death threats are not protected speech.

BTW, for all the slashbots overreacting that its 'illegal to know how to make an explosive'. It's not. It's illegal to teach the use of explosives in a context that involves killing or maiming other humans.

If you want to talk about demolition or getting rid of a beaver problem, you aren't going to go to jail.

There's absolutely no critical thought here on slashdot. Sheesh, these guys talk about government brainwashing and shit, can they not see their own idiotic groupthink?

Tough shit by The+Bungi · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting a bit tired of the stupid empathy these stories generate. The poor spoiled kid that wants to overthrow the US government and provides blueprints to build small thermonuclear devices on his website. The poor thing, he got 1 year in jail. Oh my, where is this society going? How can we possibly do something like this to such a nice boy?

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.

Re:Tough shit by ocelotbob · 2003-08-05 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, asshole, 9/11 didn't change the fucking rules. The fucking rules still say that freedom of speech shall not be infringed unless it poses a clear and present danger. Period. Some kid in his bedroom is hardly a fucking clear and present danger to the country, thus the prosecution is a farce. I happen to disagree with what this kid says, but I realise that quashing speech I happen to disagree with is much, much more dangerous than some infinitessimal increase, if any, in security the arrest of this kid has provided. As for your support of racial profiling, what's your response to the paper that shows that it doesn't work?
It's pseudofascist morons like you that are ruining this country, not the kid in his basement. So, I must ask you, if you don't like the laws of this country, such as the first ammendment, why don't you move to a country that has a legal system more to your liking? I hear that Iran doesn't allow any of that pesky questioning of authority, I'm sure you'd fit right in.

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:Tough shit by The+Bungi · 2003-08-05 08:35 · Score: 2, Flamebait

No, asshole, 9/11 didn't change the fucking rules.
Wait - let me guess: you are one of those fucked up leftie extremists that think the constitution is a suicide pact, right?
As for your support of racial profiling, what's your response to the paper that shows that it doesn't work?
I don't understand how "it doesn't work", since it's not supposed to be happening, hmmm?
It's pseudofascist morons like you that are ruining this country, not the kid in his basement.
I'd say the problem is actually fucking liberal hippies like yourself. But that's just me.
why don't you move to a country that has a legal system more to your liking?
Actually, I like it just fine. What was your point again?
Re:Tough shit by The+Bungi · 2003-08-05 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you were a real American, you'd be saying fuck the terrorists, period
I hope you can see the stupidity inherent in your rant - first you claim you believe in liberty and then tell me that I'm evil because I don't conform to your idea of what excercising that liberty means.
Use your brain for once for something other than keeping your skull from caving in.
You show an unfortunate propensity to insult people when they disagree with what you think is The Truth. I wonder if I'm expected to be awed or intimidated by that? Here's a bit of advice: only zealots see the world in black and white. There's a lot of grey out there. So stop being a zealot - and stop being Mr. Big Mouth. I very much doubt you'd use such colorful language if I was sitting in front of your sorry ass.

It's still a free country by l0ungeb0y · 2003-08-05 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as you speak the new speak and waive your flag.

Oh you mean... by MKalus · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

... 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.

One Thing I found Interesting by Unknown+Relic · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:This is bullshit by Salgak1 · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 4, Informative

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 ?

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by Havokmon · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative

This is the problem with censorship.

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)

Re:Free speech is one thing, treason is another by njdj · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Seriously! by JWyner · 2003-08-05 08:13 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Sounds fair by CopperDream · 2003-08-05 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

This is not about freedom of speech... by Alton_Brown · 2003-08-05 08:15 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:It's a healthy reminder, though... by Maul · 2003-08-05 08:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Another mature thing to do would be to ban knives, utensils, cars, cleaning chemicals, scissors, staplers, power tools, airplanes, etc. to preemptively avoid spreding those kind of things so that they don't fall into the hands of idiots.

Guess what? No matter how much you ban or censor, idiots are still going to find a way to kill themselves or others.

--

"You spoony bard!" -Tellah

Re:This is *no* bullshit by saskwach · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Pre-emptive strikes on free speech by sciper · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:This is *no* bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Actually, Doubleplusgood. by BWJones · 2003-08-05 08:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Advocating change - good.
Advocating change through violence - bad.

Beyond advocating change through violence, this kid was also advocating hate and rasicm. Now while I am all for change and advocacy, this kid is a jerk and belongs in jail for a little while for being a script kiddie, being an advocate for violence and racism and hate, and being criminally stupid.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Thomas Jefferson by Jack+Auf · 2003-08-05 08:19 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Freenet by Megaslow · 2003-08-05 08:22 · Score: 2, Troll

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?

Re:One Man's Opinion by DigitalSorceress · 2003-08-05 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even back on 9/11/01, My biggest fear was not "Oh God, they could get me or someone I care about" (yes, that crossed the back of my mind when they were still not sure if there were still more hijacked planes in the air) but that of "Our government is goig to WAY over-react to this and do some incredibly damaging things to our rights and freedoms under the illusion that they need to "Do Something"

Today, I really don't want to fly anywhere... not because I'm worried about hijackings, but because I'm very reluctant to have to spend 2 hours going through security screenings that are more about putting on an appearance of security; because they want people to feel they are "Doing Something"; than about acutally stopping real terrorists.

AlQueda got a lot of milage out of those attacks. One event, one (combined) terrorist incident and 2 years later, our government has held people as "enemy combatants", made taking a flight of less than 2000 miles take longer in the airport than in the air, and given us "total information awareness" and the PATRIOT act.

I submit to you that our own government is (inadvertantly) supporting fear and terror. I haven't been worried about directly being the victim of a terrorist attack, but I DO worry about my rights to privacy, freedom, and the presumption of innocense until proven guilty. /rant

--

The Digital Sorceress

This isn't about freedom of speech or linking... by _bug_ · 2003-08-05 08:23 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Freenet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://eff.org/issues/usapa/

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

USAPA authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. 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.

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!

raisethefist.com archived by mblase · 2003-08-05 08:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by Tungbo · 2003-08-05 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 ).

Prohibiting sedition: A fine American tradition by swb · 2003-08-05 08:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:Prohibiting sedition: A fine American tradition by aminorex · 2003-08-05 09:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

> Our Founding Fathers... passed the Sedition act...

They also found it unconstitutional.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Re:Freenet by Coilgun · 2003-08-05 08:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 police

--
That is all. Carry on. </transmission>

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by c718333 · 2003-08-05 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative

"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. . .

Bzzt! Wrong about sneak and peak by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

"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.

and we should feel sorry for this guy because?? by dh003i · 2003-08-05 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Well by Upright+Joe · 2003-08-05 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Reds under the bed? by NewtonsLaw · 2003-08-05 08:38 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Freenet by TamMan2000 · 2003-08-05 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...

The Founding Fathers on Violent Overthrows by Napalm+Boy · 2003-08-05 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

The thought police are here. You say 'oh well he wants to overtrough the gov't, that's BAD(tm)'.

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:

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

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...

Re:No freedom to harmful speech!! by Marx_Mrvelous · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Nope, your speach is not harmful. If you said "George Bush gave me a hummer and then cheated on his taxes" that would be harmful speach (assuming it were not true). I suggest doing a search on goole for "slander" and "libel" and you'll learn the difference.

--

Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!

For all the people looking for the hacking angle. by bons · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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

See prior Slashdot Stories by JohnDenver · 2003-08-05 08:44 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by Tsunamio · 2003-08-05 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:This isn't about freedom of speech or linking.. by russotto · 2003-08-05 08:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:This is *no* bullshit by Thing+1 · 2003-08-05 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny

If I write a document about how to kill the president, then that's not within the freedom-of-speech.

Here you go:

1. Buy gun.
2. ???
3. Dead president!

Come get me.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Title 18 by dcw3 · 2003-08-05 08:47 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Link to warrant - this was more than just a link by mcwop · 2003-08-05 08:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Link to warrant/affidavit and other info. Here

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

You Have Freedom for All Speach or You have None by FreeUser · 2003-08-05 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

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 ... 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.

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

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by replicant108 · 2003-08-05 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

He was accused of a lot of things... by RationalAnarchist · 2003-08-05 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

...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?

No, no... by Safety+State · 2003-08-05 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:It's a healthy reminder, though... by YrWrstNtmr · 2003-08-05 09:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

eventually result in laws requiring babies being surgicaly modified with helmets pre-attached and sheathed with bubble-wrap.

Getting there - The effectiveness of wearing pedestrian helmet while walking from home to school in elementary school children

I like this... by blunte · 2003-08-05 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I submit this story hours ago, and it's rejected.

Meanwhile there's very little news appearing on /.

Now hours later that same story is approved, and appears. /. 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.

But over the last year I've noticed the rate of new stories has gone down, while at the same time /. is promoting its supremely lame subscription service. Brilliant.

Now, mod me down. Some of the moderators are as useful as the editors.

Enjoy.

--
.sigs are for post^Hers.

Re:Freenet by Megaslow · 2003-08-05 09:06 · Score: 2, Informative

It was really easy for me to forget that they were on the left while they were cheerleading for the war in Iraq.

I'm sorry, just about every time I turned on the TV when the war started (and not just CNN) was:

The war is taking too long
Hi, I'm Geraldo, and we are at x longitude East, y latitude North
Hi, I'm Katie Couric, and I hope Saddam is OK!
This is CNN. Saddam's not so bad!

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by gorbachev · 2003-08-05 09:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Disorderly conduct or unlawful assembly are not felonies.

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 .sig in here now, I could be arrested and convicted to 20 years in prison]

--
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you

This is NOT a free speech issue by moby11 · 2003-08-05 09:11 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

That is FUD by riptalon · 2003-08-05 09:13 · Score: 3, Informative

The conviction is for not deleting links to information on explosives that were posted to his site by someone else:

Raisethefist.com, Sherman Austin will be convicted on Monday, Sept 23rd as he pleads guilty to felony count: 18 U.S.C. 842 (p)(2)(A): Distribuion of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction with the Intent that such Information be used in Furtherance of a Federal Crime of Violence.

All this crap about hacking is obviously fake or they would certainly have convicted him of that too.

Re:Freenet by Wyatt+Earp · 2003-08-05 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

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 .. and how do they prove intent?"

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.

Re:Your America by mOdQuArK! · 2003-08-05 09:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

"A convicted criminal does not have the same rights a citizen, that is the way our justice system works."

only in a narrowly defined way. no voting, no gun ownership, etc...

I can understand why someone who has demonstrated a willingness to abuse weapons (I guess that would be abuse people with weapons) should be denied from having them, but I've never understand why they should be denied a vote. It seems like the right to vote should be one of those "fundamental" rights that cannot be denied to anyone.

To me, being able to deny law-breakers the right to vote seems like a perfect way to disenfranchise a big chunk of the lower "class" of society. You don't want someone to have a voice? Define sets of laws that it is almost impossible for them NOT to break, then take away their right to vote. Justify it as punishing "bad" people.

Why not let convicts vote? If society is healthy, then there shouldn't be too many convicts, and their votes won't make a bit of difference in the first place. If there _are_ so many convicts that their votes regularly make a difference in voting results - well, that indicates more of a problem with society's legal system rather than an "unexplained rash of criminal activity". Requiring that convicts be allowed to vote would provide a form of electoral feedback which would keep legislators from passing ever-restrictive legislation which only benefits a smaller & more well-off part of the society.

Its a search warrant! by riptalon · 2003-08-05 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Its a search warrant! by bagman · 2003-08-05 14:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is not just a search warrant. It is also a guilty plea. When a guilty plea is taken in federal court, the judge is required to determine that there is a factual basis for accepting the plea. The defendant is sworn in and takes the stand. The judge asks the defendant various questions to ensure that he has been competently represented by counsel, understands his rights, and understands the elements of the offense with which he has been charged.

Then, typically, the prosecutor summarizes the evidence that would be presented at trial. The judge then asks the defendant, who is still under oath, if the summary is accurate and if he committed the charged offense.

So, in this case, Sherman Austin swore, under oath, in a court of law, before a federal judge, that he not only told people how to make explosives, but that he did so either (a) intending that his "student(s)" use that information to commit one or more crimes of violence; or (b) knowing that his "student(s)" intended to commit one or more crimes of violence.

So, unless Austin lied, he basically tried to help someone commit a crime of violence with an explosive device.

Explain to me again why this should be protected behavior.

Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA by gantrep · 2003-08-05 09:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Slashdotters judge for yourself whether the content of his webpage was grounds for imprisonment:

archive.org mirrors back to September, 2000.

Simple... by TygerFish · 2003-08-05 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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..."

Wrong by ultraslacker · 2003-08-05 09:56 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Wrong by Pave+Low · 2003-08-05 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Glad to see you just proved my point.
The parent quoted Pres. Bush saying "for us", where I pointed out that he actually said "with us", a subtle but signficant difference. Your comment only reinforced what I said. I could have quoted yours too, but that would have been redundant. I'm sorry some people can't buy a clue.
Next time, read more carefully before so boldly saying somebody is wrong, because it only made you look like a bigger idiot.

--
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.

The Purpose of Government ... by Lucas+Membrane · 2003-08-05 10:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

is to protect the rights of the people. When it does not do that, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish the government. Thomas Jefferson said that. (cf Declaration of Independencs)

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.

Re:The Purpose of Government ... by Armbrust84 · 2003-08-05 18:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government.
It is against the law if you advocate the overthrow by means of violence or assassinations. It is fairly obvious as to why, when you realize that we are based on a democratic system, not a militant pissing match of who has a larger militia so they can bend the laws to their advantage.
The way to change or even overthrow a government is through a gradual democratic movement supported by a majority, not a violent minority.
But I still think that other than the computer law-breaking, what he did is free speech.

Re:This isn't about freedom of speech or linking.. by GooberToo · 2003-08-05 10:20 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

Two things to remember in a raid... by nacturation · 2003-08-05 10:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Two things to remember in a raid... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 10:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Search warrants are not needed now that the 4th ammendment has been abolished, thanks to the Big Brother Act (AKA The Patriot Act)..

They can get the warrant up to THREE DAYS after the search, plenty of time to make sure they fill in the blanks with the correct information.

And they don't sign them anymore, they claim that they can not display the judges signature because of security concerns and because someone may forge it.

Yes, it's a brave new world.

Hey, I remember this from last time it was possted by Rasta+Prefect · 2003-08-05 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Ahh yes, the classic American Revolution reference by sxltrex · 2003-08-05 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

First they came for... by Sanity · 2003-08-05 10:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

... the script kiddie, and I did nothing, because I was not a script kiddie, ...

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.

Re:First they came for... by Sanity · 2003-08-05 12:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are you seriously trying to compare this situation with Nazi Germany?
Deadly serious. Haven't you noticed the first American concentration camp off the cost of Cuba? Haven't you noticed how this camp is being used to subvert the justice system, just as they were in Nazi Germany (this was their original purpose before the wholesale slaughter of their inhabitants). Haven't you noticed the construction of execution chambers at this new American concentration camp?
This guy was a vandal. Maybe defacing the sites was his form of "speech," but most societies prevent their citizens from beating each other senseless (outside the ring) to express themselves as well
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.
Maybe you're another anarchist
Ah yes, demonize those that disagree with you, assign them labels to make it easier to treat them as non-humans, we have seen your type before.

Re:Ahh yes, the classic American Revolution refere by swillden · 2003-08-05 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Being arrested can just be the start of the proces by pfafrich · 2003-08-05 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are many many people who have used court cases, being arrested and prision as a political tool, indeed it can really gell the movement together.

Heres a few examples which spring to mind.

Gandhi two long streatches in jail. Malcome X, Martin Luther King.
Swords into ploughshares three women took hammers to a UK Hawk aircraft, caused several million pounds worth of damage. Did they run, no they just sat down and waited to be arrested.
Mc Libel Trial a very high profile libel case. Through fighting the case the anti Mc Donalds movement became much more high profile.
Earth First direct action (breaking the law) for the environment.

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.

This is what's scariest... by Phil+John · 2003-08-05 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

(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

Re:This is what's scariest... by joonasl · 2003-08-05 18:47 · Score: 2, Informative

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. What? Nobody is killed in USA? Are you sure?
There are 82 juvenile offenders on the death row in US cuurently (other countries that execute juvenile offenders are Iran, Pakistan, Congo,Yemen.. nice company).
From 1976 to 2001, total of 749 people have been executed (256 of those in Texas).
So don't tell me nobody is killed in USA.

--
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"

Mike Hawash by hackrobat · 2003-08-05 12:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Guys, don't forget Mike Hawash.

have you ever been to a protest? by kyadd · 2003-08-05 14:09 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

No Bush then .... by Jeehoba · 2003-08-05 14:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Not about Free Speech by starX · 2003-08-05 15:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Sherman Austin is... by Valar · 2003-08-05 16:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Freenet by DarkZero · 2003-08-05 18:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

the sad thing is... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-08-05 20:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 ;)

And bombing iraq was legal? LOONY by cheekyboy · 2003-08-05 21:11 · Score: 2

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.

From his probation conditions... by perly-king-69 · 2003-08-05 21:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

(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.

175 of 1,185 comments (clear)