Indymedia Server Raided by FBI

jaromil writes "Today at about 18:00 CET FBI raided the indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace both in US and England. At present, the italian indymedia and numerous other local IMC websites are obscured, while the reasons why the hard drives were taken are still unknown."

Comments

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[mfh]

... Nobody's exactly sure why or how the FBI got warrants to take Indymedia's HDs, but their speculation tends to center around the fact that the Feds were spooked by the fact that Indymedia was able to publish RNC delegate names.

Yeah that freedom of speech thing is a real pain, isn't it?

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[eliza_effect]

Because when anti-abortion groups post that information, the implication is that it is to be used for less-than-legal activities (including murder). Posting the address and phone number of someone, without advocating harm to them isn't a problem in most cases (because if it were, the companies who mantain your local Phone Book would be in some serious trouble).

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[Temsi]

When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
Hmmm... I'm gonna go out on a limb here.
Perhaps it has something to do with the reasoning behind the publication, and the history of those who publish this information.

Let's look at the history first.

Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican), and are more often than not pigeonholed as hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and even cowards by the more militant right wing.

Anti-abortion groups on the other hand have a long history of stalking the doctors who perform abortions, which very often leads to physical violence. Many abortion doctors have been murdered for doing their jobs. I don't think a delegate has ever been given so much as a black eye.

Next, let's consider what the reasoning is for the publication in each instance?

When an anti-abortion group publishes the names and addresses of private citizens (doctors), they usually follow it up with "make sure they get the message" or "do what you have to to help save another fetus".
For the most radical of those groups, that can be a very dangerous proposition.

When activists publish the names of delegates which are pledged to their opponent, who are constitutionally not supposed to be secret anyway, they're doing so in order to make sure their supporters use letters and phonecalls to put pressure on them to do what the activists consider to be the right thing, whatever it is.

Now, if you keep these two things in mind:
1) the identities of delegates are not secrets and in an open government that information must remain in the public domain.
2) the intent of the activists is not violence, but peaceful communication.

Compare that with:
1) the identities of doctors are private, although they can be found if you take the time to look for them.
2) the intent of the activists is not peaceful communication, but prevention at all costs.

With those things in mind, I see plenty of reasons as to why publishing the names of delegates should NOT be considered a threat of any kind. In fact, I believe it is protected by the first amendment.

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[snark42]

The definition of libertarian is one who is for minimal government intrusion in both personal and economic life. A person for personal freedom and more government programs is a liberal. A person for minimal government intrusion in economic life and more intruusion in personal life is a conservative. Of course the dems and repubs here in the U.S. don't fit those definitions. The repubs used to be libertarians before the Christian "Right" got so involved.

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[sg_oneill]

And then some....

In australia, a typically pro-us country, my grandfather told me that he cant remember a less liked us president. Nixon was kinda up there tho.

Not to put too fine a point on it. George bush is ONLY loved by about half the us population and almost none of the worlds population.

But you get that when your foreign policy is "Fuck the earth".

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[Jelloman]

It is entirely possible these attacks were staged as part of an effort to generate sympathy for GOP candidates.

Given the demonstrated electioneering competency of the Democrats and Republicans in recent years, I would say that the above is actually the most likely explanation.

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[FredFnord]

I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. The anti-Bush crowd is foaming at the mouth. Have you all had your shots?

That's SO funny to hear.

You know, I don't assume, when I hear of another abortion doctor being killed execution-style, that 'Republicans' in general are responsible. It's a lunatic fringe, who have as much right to call themselves Republicans as I have to call myself a martian. When I talk about Republicans did this and Republicans did that, I don't include things that the Republicans can't be proven to have done, and that most Republicans would be deeply ashamed of.

And, amusingly, neither do most other Democrats that I know of. They accept that mainstream Republicanism isn't all about shooting abortion doctors. But then, when some whacko drives by a RNC HQ and shoots at it, not only do the Republicans start yelling at the Democrats about it, as if Kerry somehow planned it, but you actually start hearing Democrats apologizing, as if they thought they were actually responsible!

Puh-leeze. Catch the bastards and get on with life, and don't tell me I'm responsible for their stupidity. (Well, actually, I'm not a Democrat. I just agree with a whole lot more of their platform than I do with the Republicans'.)

-fred

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[aminorex]

Idea that people who have positions of *public responsibility* are the ruling class and therefore exempt from the norms and standards that apply to us *little people*, such as being tracked by our enemies in databases containing private information, is pernicious, antipathetic to democracy, and morally absurd.

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press!

[Alsee]

Try learing what seperation of chuck and state ACTUALLY means, rather than the straw man you've been feed that it is some attempt to exterminate religion.

I suppose we should quite legislating anything in the Bible right, I mean thats what Fallwell is going off of for what he wants.

No, we should quit legislating things on the grounds of one random bible. Under the constitution your choice of bible has no more and no less standing than the Torah, the Koran, or even the Satanic Bible.

So, alright, yay! Murder, theft, rape, incest, etc. are all back in. The entire criminal code is legislated morality stupid.

No, you're the one failing to realize that you can establish the foundation for our entire legal system (at least for the legitimate laws) without refering to religion at all. If you steal my stuff, or stab me, you have violated my constitutionally guaranteed rights. I can use force to protect my rights. The government can also use force in the form of armed policement to capture and imprison you in defense of my rights. It can do so on my behalf. On the other hand you have dumb-ass laws like prohibiting the sale of beer on Sunday. That is a purely religiously motivated law (to promote/protect church attendance), and constitutionally prohibited. It is no more valid than a Jewish or Islamic law prohibiting certain things only on Friday or Saturday.

You gotta remember there was no such thing as separation of church and state until this century. Read the 1st amendment it says: CONGRESS shall pass no law. So that means anything not performed by congress or that isn't a law is legal. 10 commandments in a courthouse is not congress passing a law.

Ah, a Constitutional scholar! Not!
If you want to talk about their original intent I suggest you read James Madison's own writings on the subject. He was the one who wrote it so he damn well ought to know it's intended meaning.

The intent of the first amendment is that the government is prohibited from showing favoritism of any religious belief over any other. As a government empolyee you are welcome to include the 10 commandments amongst the personal knick-nacks on your desk, but you cannot put up an official ten-foot engraving of the ten commandments on the government building itself. If you COULD do that, then all religions also get that same freedom. The principal of your children's school would have every right engrave a Satanic prayer on the school entrance.

You are welcome to engage in personal prayer as you please. However you may not abuse your offical position to impose your prayer and religious beliefs on others while acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government. As a government employee you can take personal time to pray, but you cannot abuse your official government powers as teacher or principal to subject students to your prayer. If you attempt to claim you do have the right to do so then I merely need point out that the govenrment cannot grant that right exclusively to your religion - some other teacher would then have the exact same right to subject your children to his Satanic prayer.

Individuals have religious freedom. The government itself has no religion. The government itself has no religious beliefs. The government itself has no religious freedom. Note that saying the government has no religious freedom is NOT in any way Atheist - the government is equally prohibited from in any way promoting the religious belief that there is no god.

-

Re:Why is this "my rights online"

[thewldisntenuff]

Because it wasn't "some website raided by the FBI". It was an independant media source that was taken down by the FBI for reasons unknown....

The regular media doesn't get taken down so easily...Sounds suspicous....Politically motivated? Possibly...

But kiddy porn ring, no....

due process?

[to_kallon]

Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order before it was acted upon and turned over the hard drives from the nyc imc server
now i'm no legal expert, but i was under the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions like threatening the president, you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
also by law aren't federal agents, any agents for that matter, required to show the warrant? so *some*body must know what's going on, right?

Huge mistake by the feds.

[mcc]

This event will legitimize IndyMedia in a way that none of their reporting ever has.

"They hate us for our freedom!"

[Cryofan]

Umm....can someone please remind me how this is the greatest and most free country in the world?
(No fair modding me down based on your warped "political" leanings...).

Re:About time!

[Huge Pi Removal]

There comes a time when +5, Funny isn't good enough any more. We need +5 shit, this is actually happening.