Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Drops Link Sharing Charges Against Barrett Brown

Posted by samzenpus on from the on-second-thought dept.

In a followup to our story yesterday, Bismillah writes "It seems US prosecutors agree that just publishing a link doesn't amount to transmitting actual files. Brown is not out of the legal woods yet though, and still faces further charges. The EFF released this statement about the decision: 'We are relieved that federal prosecutors have decided to drop these charges against Barrett Brown. In prosecuting Brown, the government sought to criminalize a routine practice of journalism—linking to external sources—which is a textbook violation of free speech protected by the First Amendment. Although this motion is good news for Brown, the unnecessary and unwarranted prosecution has already done much damage; not only has it harmed Brown, the prosecution—and the threat of prosecution it raised for all journalists—has chilled speech on the Internet. We hope that this dismissal of charges indicates a change in the Department of Justice priorities. If not, we will be ready to step in and defend free speech.'"

19 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. duh. by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

    Obvious move is obvious.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  2. Too Bad. by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    A precedent might have been set had the case been heard and tried.

    IANAL, but I doubt the dismissal will become case law.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Too Bad. by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer either, but FYI even if the judge had agreed to dismiss the charges, that would not be binding on other courts either. It would not have become binding unless one side or the other appealed and the circuit court and got a decision there. That decision would then become binding on *only* that circuit.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    2. Re:Too Bad. by SpankiMonki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A precedent might have been set had the case been heard and tried. IANAL, but I doubt the dismissal will become case law.

      Well, if the judge actually had the time to rule on Brown's attorney's motion for dismissal, the ruling would've made it into case law. As it happened, the US prosecutors *dismissed* the eleven counts related to the linking charge before the ink on Brown's motion was dry.

      I wonder why the US prosecutors would do such a thing? [rolleyes]

    3. Re:Too Bad. by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      "TIN FOILLL!!!!!"!!!!!!""

      In all seriousness...you hit the nail on the head. But what do you expect from those who would perpetuate such an egregious lawsuit in the first place? That our rights are being tested and eliminated so flagrantly is in and of itself absurd.

    4. Re:Too Bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NOTHING that happens at the District Court level can be considered "Case Law".

      Only decisions at the Appeals Court (or higher) can be considered Case Law and only then if the decision is "published" by the court (most decisions are not).

    5. Re:Too Bad. by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected. Mods, hit me with "Overrated".

    6. Re:Too Bad. by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      ...oh yeah, mod AC up!

  3. Re:2600 vindicated? by stox · · Score: 1

    One can only H.O.P.E. http://www.hope.net/

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  4. Re:Then move to Russia if you think that is bad by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 2

    1965 called and wants its catchphrase back, citizen.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  5. Re:not good news... now there isn't a precedent by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    What's the point?

    If nobody is ever charged with anything like this again, then the EFF have won.

    If someone is charged for the same circumstances, then the EFF can fight the battle in that case.

  6. What more could you ask for? by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    I know I'm probably gonna get seriously hammered for this, but what more could we ask for?
    Do we want them to "take it back" and apologize, with a promise never to do something like that again?
    Seriously, the prosecutors bit off way more than they could chew here. Maybe they realized failure would be bad for their careers and success would have huge negative ramifications on the Internet (at least in the US) so they decided the prudent course of action was an advance to the rear...

    1. Re:What more could you ask for? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with them taking it back and apologizing?

    2. Re:What more could you ask for? by mmell · · Score: 1

      Nothing. And as soon as Brown counter-sues for having to answer a frivolous lawsuit, the courts will have the responsibility of determining what apology is appropriate and ensuring that it is implemented.

    3. Re:What more could you ask for? by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

      Yup - a promise about future behaviour would be good.
      Perhaps formal guidance to prosecutors that posting an http link should not generally be seen as 'republishing'

      In the UK, there has been controversy around various twitter cases (particularly the bomb joke case).
      The end result is that the director of public prosecutions has issued new guidance on how and when to charge people with crimes based on what they say on Twitter.

      new guidelines:
      https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a...

      relevant section:

      ---
      "... [they are] like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

      Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:
      Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
      Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
      The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
      If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

      --
      VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
    4. Re:What more could you ask for? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with them taking it back and apologizing?

      If it was a real apology they'll never file similar charges against anybody else. I wouldn't take that bet.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. Re:not good news... now there isn't a precedent by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    As long as the government just keeps dropping it, then the EFF can just keep spending time and money sending in motions!

    And that's the sort of thing that Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent. If you live somewhere that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws, I strongly recommend never doing anything that might piss off someone with money, whether government or private.

  8. Re:Sounds like... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    No, that would be misprison of a felony. What it means is that if your security camera picked up someone being raped and killed, i can link to the footage if it became availible somehow. There might be harrasment if i did though

  9. The chilling has already begun by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    Witness the dearth of comments to this post. This administration is assaulting free speech more severely than Mao.