Slashdot Mirror
Legal Motion: Hyperlinks Are Protected By the First Amendment
Barrett Brown, a journalist and the former unofficial spokesperson for Anonymous, was arrested in 2012 and charged with sharing a hyperlink that pointed to information downloaded during the Stratfor hack. His trials begin in April and May. An anonymous reader notes that his attorneys have filed a legal brief (PDF) asking for dismissal of the case, saying that Brown's First Amendment right to free speech protects his sharing of a hyperlink. They argue that "Brown did not 'transfer' the stolen information as he arguably would have done had he embedded the link on his web page, but merely created a path to files that had already been published elsewhere that were in the public domain." The brief also says the statute under which Brown is being charged does not make it clear that a link constitutes "republication" of information. They add, "This construction also significantly chills scientific research conducted by private cybersecurity researchers for the same reasons."
Didn't he have this useful disclaimer ?
"All characters and events in this show-â"even those based on real peopleâ"-are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated.....poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone."
A motion filed by lawyers is not a judgement and is nowhere near legal precedent, as the typically sensational /. headline implies. Lawyers regularly file motions claiming the sun rises in the West and sets in the East.
They argue that "Brown did not 'transfer' the stolen information as he arguably would have done had he embedded the link on his web page, but merely created a path to files that had already been published elsewhere that were in the public domain."
Non sequitur. The means by which he shared the link is immaterial. If they meant, "as he arguably would have done had he hosted the linked files on his server", then that's what they should have said.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
As much as I hate the riaa for starting this shenanigan 15 years ago a hyperlink is not the same as pointing to someone.
Reason being is a hyperlink is a verb or action while pointing is an expression. You click it and something happens no different than clicking a .exe. Now what about someone linking to a published flaw? In this case the action is fine as the other user does the action and its legal to hack your own computer. It also is legal to link to a site which talks about it.
But linking an executable is simply an action or command
http://saveie6.com/
If I post a link to a website that which at that moment doesn't host "forbidden" content but later does, am I liable for providing access to said "forbidden" content? Logic would dictate that a person can only be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of another.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
sir pball here!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Maybe a Sudden Outbreak Of Common Sense soon...
Here is a /. collection of Sudden Outbreak Of Common Sense
Didn't he have this useful disclaimer ?
Perhaps I'm kinda dimmed right now, but where did you get that "disclaimer" from ??
Back to that hyperlink that Mr. Brown is charged under ... anyone with a brain which consists of at least two neurons rubbing together will know that a hyperlink is a LINK and can *NEVER* become a re-publication (or a copy of) whatever content the hyperlink points to.
Furthermore, a hyperlink is merely a placeholder to a certain container (folder, site) in which the content may not be static.
For example, this link - /. structure (a discussion thread in this case) and the content (the discussion thread in question) changes as more people adding more comments onto it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... points to a placeholder within the
As an American, I am sadden, very sadden that the government of the United States of America has become so fascist that they even try to charge people over a hyperlink !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Reason being is a hyperlink is a verb or action while pointing is an expression.
Gibberish,
No, your honor, I did not sell drugs to any kids. All I did was encourage them to show up at a party where I knew a bunch of drug dealers were waiting to give them free samples and tell them about how awesome drugs are.
by that reasoning:
- giving instructions how to get someplace is the same as driving you there
- ikea assemlby instructions are the same thing as getting delivered with assembly done
First, Brown didn't post to a website, per se, but to an IIRC channel under his control for the purposes of sharing stolen (hacked) identity data and credit card info with others that were not authorized to have it, either. Certainly, the purpose was criminal in intent. Sharing the hyperlink was a means of providing access to stolen data for trafficking purposes. If nothing else, it's aiding and abetting other criminals in acquiring the data. He's a douche bag, and he'd rob you blind in a heartbeat. He deserves whatever the feds throw at him. Your example would be different, but could still end up with an indictment until someone parsed logs to show times that forbidden content was posted.
A link simply says "Hey! the stuff you are looking for is over there!" Is it illegal to tell someone "Hey! The stolen goods you are looking for are over there!"
I think not. He did not steal the items, had no possession of the items.
It is good to see continuing attempts to assert our freedoms based on the ever more creative and expanded interpretations of the First Amendment. If the book prohibits cooking a lamb in its mother's milk, then pepperoni pizza is not kosher either — alright...
But why is not the Second treated just as creatively? If the same narrow reading, that is being constantly applied to the Second, was applied to the First Amendment, your right to free speech would've been limited solely to petitioning the government — and only for the redress of grievances.
If, as is often asserted in some (highly moderated) /.-posts and elsewhere, the Second Amendment ought to apply only to muzzle-loading muskets and only if carried by "organized militias", why does the First cover the right to sell pornography?
Nothing against porn, but why is it a right, while keeping and bearing arms wherever I please is deemed a mere privilege — which the Executive branch in the States (and even smaller locales) may or may not grant and, even having once granted, may withdraw at any time without bothering with pesky Judiciary?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Good luck with that. A lot of things that used to be protected by the First Amendment are no longer protected by it.
Proverbs 21:19
It's my understanding it's only illegal to stand there and say, "There's a drug house right over there", complete with pricing information, if I am a part of their operation, or trying to promote it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
... and journalists don't seem to recall much history.
Back in the days of the DeCSS controversy, 2600 magazine was one who proudly hosted the code on their site... only to get slapped down by the DVD CCA who accused them of distributing the code in question.
Eventually 2600 relented and stopped hosting the code... but instead had links to places it could be obtained.
The DVD CCA was not impressed... and won again, arguing that such linking was also a form of wilful distribution of the code.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I know this may come as a shock to you, but most people don't think that speech and efficient killing machines are on the same level.
The former is about the ability to spread information, the latter is about being able to kill people quickly and with little effort.
This shouldn't be on slashdot . . . yet. The article merely talks about what his own attorneys are planning on arguing in court. I think he has a solid case, but let me know when a court hands down a real opinion.
When did you stop taking your meds?
I know this may come as a shock to you, but most people don't think that child porn and self-defense are on the same level.
The former is about the ability to abuse children easily, the latter is about being able to protect your own family when seconds count.
FTFY. See how easy it is to misrepresent someone?
"Hyperlinks Are Protected By the First Amendment" If that's the case, then everything on thepiratebay.org is perfectly legal. Torrents and magnetlinks are esentially hyperlinks for the BitTorrent protocal.
while
If a URL is illegal by pointing to illegal content, then isn't the DNS provider also guilty by referring a user to a site with illegal content?
They certainly are, as far the Constitution and other law is concerned.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.