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."
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.
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.
You can't link to his comment; that's copyright infringement. Billly Gates' lawyer is preparing to sue you for millions as we speak!
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
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,
He can't? You may say he may not, but he can. Laws of men are not laws of nature. You can break them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Semantic nonsense.
A hyperlink is a reference. It can be used to show someone something. Essentially it is pointing at something, and if the hyperlink contains some kind of information about the target, it is like pointing and telling the person what he is about to see there.
Allow me to illustrate.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/05/0230207/legal-motion-hyperlinks-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment: That would be pointing and not saying anything. Like pointing at a dope dealer's house without giving you any idea what you will find there. I don't tell you to go there, I don't give you any information about it. I just point at it. Whether you go there or not is not really something I can influence because all I technically did was point my finger at it. I should probably inform the police about it, but if you go there and get robbed, or your dope, that's your own business.
Hyperlinks are protected speech: That would be pointing while telling you what to see there. Like pointing at said dope house and telling you about it. Depending on what I say it may be legal or illegal. "That's where a lot of people go to get dope" could be either. "Go in there, you get good weed in there" is most likely illegal because I'd actually try to make you do something illegal. "Don't go there, it's dangerous!" would probably actually be legal. It depends on context, my intention and what I say to you. If I warn you about it and you go in regardless, how am I responsible for it? I pointed it out not to tell you to go there but to warn you to NOT go there.
PORN!!!: That would be pointing at the dope hut while telling you it's something different. I.e. lure you in. That is most certainly not legal in most countries. That would probably be an example of pointing to a malware exe while telling you something different (because few people are actually stupid enough to install malware deliberately on their computer). It's not unlike the incitement example in the previous paragraph, but with a twist, I also lie to you about the contents of the dope hut, telling you it's something you will probably want (money, girls, fame...) in case I'd assume you don't want dope.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Did you encourage them or did you inform them that there are these people? It's a hell of a difference. To pull the ever popular car analogy, when I see an unlocked car standing on the sidewalk it's a huge difference, legal-wise, whether I ask around the bystanders whether it's their car because it's unlocked or whether I tell everyone that there's an unlocked car and that they can take it.
What you say is that we must not inform kids about drugs because that alone would already count as "aiding and abetting", because we told them that these drugs existed and that they can get them on the street from dealers. That we told them not to do it would not matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> Reason being is a hyperlink is a verb or action while pointing is an expression. You click it and .exe.
> something happens no different than clicking a
No. A hyperlink is a pointer to something else. A hyperlink contains no instruction as to what to do with what is on the other end of that link, the action is entirely locally defined by the web browser. A hyperlink is functionally no different from a bibliographic entry in a book...it is a named pointer; which you may or may not look up if you so choose. I don't see how the ease of doing changes the situation fundamentally.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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
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.
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
They certainly are, as far the Constitution and other law is concerned.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.