Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Police Arrest Teen for "Obscene" Web Site 356

Posted by michael from the parody-this dept.
Brian Ristuccia writes "The Boston Globe's Boston.com web site reports that Christopher Hemmah, 19, of Salem, NH, was arrested by Salem Police who claim he created several obscene web sites that mocked their department. It sounds like the Salem police department is going to get themselves into some trouble here. Without seeing the sites in question, I can't say whether or not they are actually obscene. However, in order for a court to rule that speech is obscene, it must meet a three part test defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California in 1973 [ed. note: criteria are below]." Ristuccia is right: it's pretty doubtful that mocking the police department is going to be found legally obscene.

Ristuccia continues:

"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;

"(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and

"(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

"Note that test (c) is very hard to pass. Even nudie magazines like Playboy are not considered obscene because they have at least some (however miniscule) literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Political speech, including speech critical of police or government officials, is protected in the highest degree.

"I did a little digging with Google, but I couldn't find any of the web pages described in the AP article. The actual web site of the Salem Police Benevolent Association, one of the sites Hemmah is accused of parodying, is at http://www.salempolice.org."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Arrest Teen for "Obscene" Web Site More

Police Arrest Teen for "Obscene" Web Site

Comments Filter:
  • Which of these categories doesn't Hooters fit under?

    Well, there's plenty of silicon there...

  • Actually, they can only legally keep the equipment if he they deem the equipment was used to commit a felony. Which is slightly bogus; even if you plea bargain your way to a misdemeanor, they still keep it.

    I suspect they'll delay the court hearings as long as possible so that by the time he is cleared and the red tape involved to get his computers bact is done, they will be useful only as novelty paperweights. Just to be sure, they'll drop them a few times carrying them to storage.

  • (I never actually saw him commit any violent act, not even uttering a cuss word - to this day, though, those images remain disturbing).

    He's probably pulling in a nice paycheck doing makeup/effects for hooror movies now.

  • The problem here is that person with the proper training to understand ISP logs probably is just a qualified system administrator. Why would such a person work in the police? Sysadminning would pay much more. That's the basic problem for police - they are expected to be experts in every field, but the real expert would never go work as a cop.
    In fact, they just have to hire a couple of highly qualified programmers/sysadmins as the part of their criminal research labs - as they have people who match fingerprints, determine that the month-old body was dead from suffocation, etc. That's the only, even if costy, solution - traning cops won't do you good, you cannot make cop to be an university professor - if he was, he'd work in university anyway. Cops should know criminal law and due legal procedures (warrants, etc.), and technical points should go to the exerts.
  • Remember, he said they didn't care to follow the rules when they went after criminals- "they were criminals, right?" What is to say they would follow the rules when dealing with him if they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he ratted on them? Nothing. While I'm going to take what he's saing with more than a grain of salt, I'm not going to question the anyominity- it's valid, I'm afraid.
  • You can't go around calling saying the local police kill small children (unless of course they do).

    AFAIK, you can say lies... well, as long as you believe they are true. If you truly believe the local police to be killing babies, you are protected by free speach, AFAIK.

  • It looks to me like the police thought this would be a nice thing to publicize even though it has no bearing on the case, because it makes the suspect look bad.

    Anyone wanna bet those seven books included Firewalls and Internet Security? Surely anyone who has that must be a "hacker"!
    --

  • Parody = humor = legal, but if this kid used the names of actual officers, pasted heads on naked bodies, etc etc, we are talking SLANDER.

    Actually, I think it would be libel, not slander. Making fun of someone is not necessarily libel. Libel is usually a matter of civil law, which does not empower the police to arrest someone.

  • For example, he could be mocking specific police officers and their families for all we know.

    So what if he did?

    It might be rude or in bad taste, but it isn't a criminal act.

  • Here is a great page of zero-tolerance horror stories [thisistrue.com], courtesy of Randy Cassingham, editor of the This Is True email newsletter. Randy doesn't like Zero Tolerance much, either. (I passed on the links to the stories about the Canadian boy to him.)
    --
  • From the article:
    "One of the obscene Web sites took information from the Salem Police Benevolent Association site and parodied it by changing words and downloading pictures from the site"

    Remember the parody translation engine problems of late where companies sue people for providing jive and Sweedish Chef translations through screen-scraping? This is probably the same. Of course, the police site has no TOS that excludes screenscraping, but it does claim "all right reserved", so using (ahem) 'copyrighted' material is probably the tact they're taking--he's being charged for "misuse of computer system information," not slander or libel.

    If he gets a half-assed decent attorny, 1A and fair use of information for purposed of parody should apply, nevertheless, especially since the article implys that he did not download the images from the website, just pointed to them.

    It'd be a damn shame if an archive or wget extract of the offending sites got out to the general public. ;) Anyone in salem wanna dig around? The only Hemmah's WHOIS [geektools.com] turns up aren't in salem (on'e in fargo...)
  • I just got off the phone with Chris Hemmah (who is very excited to be on Slashdot, despite the circumstances). He says that all he did was post a website at http://www.salemnhpolice.org [salemnhpolice.org] that criticized the police. He didn't do any hacking.

    Chris is a sophomore majoring in CS and is interested in security. He told me the "hacking materials" sized from his house were seven computers and computer parts, a Linux manual, some security books, and a GPS. He was officially charged with a NH law regarding electronic copyright infringement, not with hacking, and has not been accused of libel.

    I'm in direct contact with the family. Please e-mail me at morgan@druids.org [mailto] if you'd like to help. I won't tell anyone else your name or e-mail, just e-mail you back when the family has requests for ways we can support them.

    -magic

  • > I can't figure out why the cops don't just get the kid back by nailing him for copyright violations.

    I'm surprised that they didn't "find" a baggie under his bed, and pack him off to the pen for 20 years.

    --
  • ...things like the phone book, a dictionary, and a bible, but no one ever comments on those books being there.

    Since I'm betting at least two of those would be found in the homes of most criminals, we should put all of those on the list of subversive literature, and promptly jail anyone who has more than one in their posession.
  • Will this be 2600's next bumper-sticker campaign?
  • As a matter of fact, it hit kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] six minutes before I hit "submit" on my submission. Followed the story for about a day beforehand; I forget how I first ran across it. Drudge Report, perhaps. Had a good argument with a SlashNET regular about whether the kid deserved jail or not.

    I'm tempted to write letters.
  • I'm embarrassed that this is happening is Canada. But I think the kid will get off, and the cops and crown will have a lot of questions to answer.

    It's inconceivable that this kid had to spend a month -- his birthday, Christmas and New Year's -- in jail for something that he wrote.

    You know what really rips my ass about this? Over a month ago, the police didn't give a flying shit about the bullies, even though the kid came home bloody. Now that the story's in the open, suddenly they say they're going to "investigate." Excuse my francais here, but what a pile of fucking bullshit. I guess the poor kid should have just gone and smacked a grade 10 with a limp around; he'd have gotten in less trouble for doing worse. I mean, come on here! Eleven - eleven! - children (and that's exactly what the cowards are) beat a guy bloody, and get off scot-free as long as no one outside of town hears about it. Kid writes a story born out of that incident, and he goes to jail????? Can you say "fucked-up priorities"? Not only do I hope the kid gets off, but I also hope the school, police, and Crown attorney get an embarassing, expensive civil suit slapped against them. The kid could surely win.

    People who complain about society "being in trouble" and kids "getting worse" should look no farther than schools and authorities that let "a bit of boys being boys" get by, while a kid who writes about his frustration rather than acting on it gets locked away for fear he might "go postal." What bullshit.

  • Of course, police love to do things like this to people they know won't be convicted because the police know that his equipment will be seized.

    A bit tricky to "call the cops" to arrest police. Also the likes of the FBI probably wouldn't be interested in handling a case of simple theft.
  • The problem here is that person with the proper training to understand ISP logs probably is just a qualified system administrator.

    So how do police usually get hold of forensic experts?
  • Won't happen, but legally it should. Cops are the "sacred cows" of America.

    More likely that they are some of the American "sacred cows".
  • There is a difference. Police have to make up something to charge you with. Big corporations don't.

    Maybe it's possible to arrange for the BSA to be sent after the police department in question. After all they would be in breach of the software licences if they made any use of the 7 computers they had "aquired".
  • But who do you send to arrest police? Who will prosecute a corrupt local judge? In fact, in most smaller states and areas, what lawyer will even DEFEND you from such?

    That's one of the problems you run up against with a written constitution and no-one who's job is to enforce it.
  • (which would generally include giving legal advice of any kind)

    You mean giving legal advice when paid to do so. Anyone can give anyone free advice. Of course, anything free is worth what you pay for it.

  • In my 2 bedroom apartmenrt I have 17 computers, 3 routers (more if you count the chassis's that have control modules in them), 1 12+2 port concentrator hub, and 8 port 10/100 switch, a 12+2 port hub, two 24 port hubs, a 24 port 10/100 hub, a 12+1 port switch, 1 4 port hub, 1 8+1 port hub, 1 84 port Asante hub, multiple chassis come of which can have up to 200 ports each, 3 printers, a scanner, 3 DAT drives, and not nearly enough monitors. Hell I ran fiber to my living room couch! I also have a buttload of computer books, some of which have "Hacking" in the title the the kick ass book "Hacking Exposed". Does that mean I'm a hacker? I have a CDRW. Does that mean I'm guilty of software piracy just by its possesion? I have Quake 1, 2, 3, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, and Starcraft. Does the possesion of those items mean I'm guilty of training for mass murder and the strategic planning of horrific crimes? What about all the networking hardware I have? I must be guilty of something there. I must be reselling Internet access to the town at large. That would mean I'm guilty of tax evasion! Oh yeah, I have a VCR and X10 camera. I must be into making kiddie pron too. Oh and with the CDRW I can create copies in quantity. Let's see, what else have I got? Oh, I have two lava lamps. I must be a born-again-hippie so I must be a drug addict. Wait, since I have two lava lamps I must be a dealer too! I have tools, a soldering iron, and some Motorola parts books, including "FAST and LS TTL Data". I must be a bomb maker too. I have beer in the fridge and hard stuff in the cubboard above the sink. That must mean I buy for minors. I have VHS pronos. Hell I even have a few pronos on CD. I also have the largest pron collection in the MidWest (nothing better to do here). Couple that with the kiddie pron I apparently make, the alcohol, computers (which I must have stolen cause who would ever legitimately own that many?), networking hardware, CDRW, printers, and my bomb making skills and you come to one conclusion: "Law enforcement officers are idiots!" I'm serioud. I contract with an ISP that had a couple of machines hacked days after being put on the network. On one of the machines I had more than enough evidence to identify the person that broke in. I mean hell he used that box for weeks as his personal box (the box was put on the network to have some services moved to it but I was never told about it's existence and the machine was forgotten about for a month or so.). He had IRC session coming off of it. He did personal web surfing from it. He even broke into more machines from it. Once I noticed the machine was up I started logging all network I/O from that machine and knew exactly who the person was within a few hours. The Law was contacted and we told them exactly what we had. "Hell I can barely use an ATM. What the hell am I supposed to do about this?" was the response. I give up.

    --

  • This was about 10 years ago - I remember a kid in my English class who would sit in the back, and basically draw. He tended to get good grades in the class, even though he didn't take notes and such. I once asked him what he was drawing (I could see he was drawing something, but that was it).

    Big mistake.

    He handed the paper to me, and on it was a cartoon character of his own design, of basically a guy hanging from a noose in a tree, but only the head in the noose. Below the head was a lifeless body, and a chainsaw nearby. Everything was "covered" in blood (he used a red pen for this). He pulled out other pages, and they were all variations on this theme...

    I guess if then was today, he would be locked away in a padded room (I never actually saw him commit any violent act, not even uttering a cuss word - to this day, though, those images remain disturbing).

    Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
  • If I read this correctly, it seems as if you have never actually sat down and read an actual Playboy in your life! Had you actually done so you would have found:

    * Interviews (with many interesting people)
    * Advice Columns (where people ask and receive answers for a variety of things, such as sex advice, dating advice, advice on electronics purchases, etc)
    * General articles on a variety of topics: Literacy, freedom, rights, current events, and many other items of interest
    * And oh yeah, in the middle, about 20 pages of very tactful, and artfully done, nude imagery (no sex, very tastful)

    This is Playboy! I constantly hear and see women scoffing about it, saying it is all porn, and that is all the men look at, but over 90 percent of the magazine has nothing to do with nude imagery. I would venture 80 percent has nothing to do with sex, either! There really is a lot of worthwhile reading in Playboy...

    Had you have mentioned Hustler, or Club, or one of those other, lesser known magazine, I would be more inclined to agree (but hey, even Hustler has good articles). I am certain there are magazines out there that would shock the hell out of you (a trip to an adult "bookstore" can be a very enlightening thing), but Playboy should not fall into this category...

    Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
  • With Playboy, they covered themselves for years by offering articles, political commentary, in depth interviews, news and lifestyle trends, in addition to the pr0n. It saved them in a number of cases that made it to the supreme court.

    Maxim, on the other hand, doesn't even come close. Lingerie shots and toys-for-boys advert^W reviews. They are just riding on the coattails of Playboy's long legal battle, but they haven't the cojones to do it right. (This also covers FHM and a dozen other lads mags in the UK)

    the AC
  • When they came to my house they said they had to take all computer equipment. My response was "I hope you've got a truck." After 4 hours they gave up when they got to the third cupboard and found 40 IBM RLL harddrives. "Anything on these?" "Yer there's all sorts of incriminating.. errm, I mean, no, no there isn't." There was no "dont be smart son", they were too tired. When they opened a draw on my flatmate's desk and saw over 800 5 1/4 inch floppies they were ready to tear up their search warrent. After they finally left we put together a PC from parts in 25 minutes and grabbed the 14k4 modem that they hadn't taken because it was sitting near the c64's and didn't look like a modern modem. It took 8 months to get my computer back and 12 months to get all the computers back.
  • Admitably I am not in the US, I'm in Australia, but they took my computers for over 12 months and I wasnt even arrested. I wasn't even being investigated for a crime! They were gathering evidence on someone else. Why they had to take all my computers, modems, mice and monitors to copy my harddrive I don't know. If they ever show up at my door again I will pull out a few cd's and burn them an image of my harddrive. If they demand to take the computers I will eject them from my home and see them in court.
  • Surely the police had a warrent to raid his property, who issued the warrent? Is there anything you can do about judges who issue unjust search and siezure warrents in your country? I know there is nothing you can do in my country (Australia).
  • Has Slashdot's population aged so much that a 19 year old is refered to as a "kid". Sheesh, you're making me feel old, I'm only 23.
  • His property has been confiscated and he hasn't had a fair trial, sounds like a police state to me. The site should remain up until such time as a court order is produced to take it down. If he was a corporation this is what would happen, there would be no kicking down of doors and burly guys looting equipment. Corporations have more rights than your own individual citizens.
  • we dont have to educate them about shit. What we have to do is get rid of these stupid ass laws that serve no purpose but to put the boot on people's faces.
  • If you steal an apple from the grocery store, does that apple now become an "illegal apple"?
  • Maybe the wiccan community should be suing their police department for that "mocking" logo.
  • For the record: joking.
  • Pretty soon you're going to have to get licensed by the state to own multiple computers. The program will be sponsored by Microsoft, and will double as the "Home Computing Security Bureau" (read: Anti-Piracy division). Poor people, students and minorities need not apply unless you're willing to submit to background checks and keyboard logging.

    It's fascinating how the FBI or local police can arrest anyone, and publish that they had "multiple computers" and it sounds like bona fide evidence that they commited a computer crime--when in fact the they arrested them because they knew the person had multiple computers, and thought they could squeeze a confession or a new suspect out of the poor sucker. Correlation does not imply causation.

    Kinda takes all the fun out of showing your geek friends your phat new in-home wireless/wired broadband multimedia network when you're just creating character witnesses for your future prosecution. "Yeah, I was at his place once. 100Mbps switched network, mp3s... He probably did it."
  • Isn't that the state motto in New Hampshire?
  • He is charged with misuse of computer system information, a felony.

    Once he's gotten that killed (which should be easy, since it appears they mistook downloading the site's HTML code for breaking in and stealing it), he should have a FINE and very lucrative civil rights suit.

    "Denial of civil rights under color of law." In this case, his right to protected free speech, in the form of a parody of the public pronouncements of a government organization.

    Sounds to me like EXACTLY what the federal civil rights law is about.

    Soverign immunity won't protect the cops from a federal civil rights suit.
  • No, this is not the original site, or a mirror - this is procyon101's own parody page. It was created *after* the story hit slashdot, and it even links back to this slashdot story.

    Again, this isn't what the original site looked like.

    [gay sex cures acne!]
  • You'd be surprised.. Back as recently as the 90's, one of my local departments worked that way. If they seized a stolen bike they couldn't easily find owner for, the bike went home with the officer with the kid who needed one. Caught some high school kids with a 12 pack of Budweiser? Your fridge is stocked! Small amount of pot you're not going to charge over? Hmm, I wonder.. In their defense, they barely had the resources to keep two cars and a dispatcher going at a time, let alone hire the personel or space to inventory, store and sell the stuff, so I suppose it worked out for the underpaid cops.
  • But keep in mind that the police probably did SOME homework before suing this kid
    Please, please at least read the article before posting. The police did not sue the boy, they arrested him. There is a world of difference between the two.


    The rest of your points are so equally ill-informed that it doesn't even warrant the time to contest them point by point. Perhaps I am being trolled? One can only hope...

  • My instinctive reaction of this is that the fuzz is going to have some problems making this stick, but perhaps that wasn't the goal. Maybe it was just to roust the kid and force him and his parents to spend thousands defending themselves as punishment.

    Perhaps this is true - if so, it is abuse of discretion, and ethically wrong. In order to arrest and charge an individual, a police officer must possess "facts and circumstance sufficient to convince a person of reasonable caution that an offense has been committed." If the officer knew or had good reason to believe that, in fact, no actual crime had been committed, the arrest was not lawful.

    Further, if the intent was to harrass the individual, the arrest may actually be criminal.

  • Also parody protects this. Libel and slander laws are strange (the standards are based on civil law not criminal law mostly). Different from perjury or fraud which are criminal. I don't know how the police can sue under these statutes. Doubtful they can.

    Furthermore, public figures or organizations may be parodied. This is upheld by lots of case law. Remember the pope screwing his mother or something like that in a cartoon in Hustler? Larry Flynt's right to print that was upheld because no reasonable person would perceive it as anything other than parody (i.e. not the actual truth). The exact standard is a bit tricky, but the basic intention is pretty clear in the law. I don't care how vile or obscene this guy's website was, it was probably protected. Even copyright "infringement" doesn't exist in parody-land. Only if the guy was actively trying to deceive people about who he was could he actually face any consequences, but definitely not under the law they charged him with.

  • Thanks for the perspective and references, but don't get too heavy-handed about pretending to be lawyers on /. - how many of us really would want to be lawyers?

    Slashdot comments section is IMO mostly for airing opinions, like "All lawyers should be shot." This is obviously not to be taken seriously, but has some merit...

    However, it is best that we continue to remind each other IANAL, if appropriate. Point taken about journalistic integrity tho (now to dig up that Hooters link I missed...)

  • or it has to be true
  • Easy - cops don't sue you; they screw with you directly. They have way too much discretion to do whatever they want without facing consequences, apparently.
  • I hope that we won't start using Kaplan as a synonym for bad judges or bad judging. I read most of the transcripts and Kaplan was quite intelligent and had a much better grasp of the case than the lawyers for either side.
    Kaplan was impressed by Turetsky's demonstration that code could be speech. In the end, Kaplan enforced the DMCA as written because the defenses Congress had allowed in the DMCA simply aren't usable in the real world.
    The blame for Kaplan's judgement rests on Congress, which passed a terrible law. Kaplan did his job as a judge in interpreting the law.
  • They're not going after him on an obcenity charge. They're going after him for misusing IS equipment (or something like that). One guess is that they're not so stupid as to think that they can nail him directly for making fun of them, so they spent a month putting together enough proof to nail him on another charge.

    As long as the charge was computer related, they've got an excuse to sieze his computers. With his computers in lockup, there's nothing to run his web sites. Job done.

    Rule 47: If you're going to harass the Police, pick your nose clean before they do.
    `ø,,ø!

  • Did he have an off-site backup of his websites? We could definitely do a mirror of the sites if he does. That would be someplace to start. (I presume you have his phone#?).
    `ø,,ø!
  • Great -- so the kid'll beat the rap. In the meantime, he'll be spending a couple of years (and lots of lawyer fees) defending himeself from the charges.

    By the time he's cleared, he'll rue the day when he tried to mess with the Salem Witch-Hunters (er, um, Police Department).

    OOOOH, and salem-witch-hunters.{com,org,net} is available, too!
    `ø,,ø!

  • Does anyone else find it disturbing that one of their role model "Hollywood Heroes" [salempolice.org] is Dirty Harry?
  • In many jurisdictions, giving false legal advice is itself a crime.

    Say what? I'm not aware of any US jurisdiction in which this is the case. In most, if not all, of them, it is a crime to practice law (which would generally include giving legal advice of any kind) without a license, but no distinction is made as to whether the advice is correct. I can't imagine, though, that a general discussion of legal principles, as happened here, would rise to the level of legal advice. Heck, just look at Nolo Press.

    If you are a licensed attorney, you're not likely to encounter criminal prosecution for giving bad advice, but you may well be sued.

    OBTW, I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.

  • Yeah sure, he'll get off. But how nicely will he be treated if he is held in jail? Just him and the cops, alone together--with them angry with him for mocking them. And it will be the cops's word against his if he complains about it after.

    The purpose might just be pure intimidation.

  • That's only if they could not drown the witches. If they could drown the witches, they would not be witches.

  • The police didn't like it and they thought they'd bust him. Rip apart his equiptment, call him a hacker, that would teach him a lesson.

    This would warn other people about messging with them.

    Large Corporations do it, why not some police?

  • Why not? After all this is the year where the candidate with the majority of the votes got into power in Serbia and the candidate with a minority got into power in the US :)

  • How about we just mirror the site about 20x or 100x times over? And draw as much publicity to this as possible? Oh wait...we are already doing that :)

    Seriously, though, I might be interested in mirroring this site on my webpage...besides the pr0n.

  • I am a little disappointed that there hasn't been as great of a reaction to this article. Have we all become so cynical in the United States that we accept politcal arrests by the police? I was expecting that this article would have at least as many responses as the WAVE program, or the MS vs. Slashdot articles (>1000).

    Come on now people!!! Even if most of the Americans reading this are cynical fscks who care more about partying then about their freedoms, isn't their some people who really love their freedom, Serbians maybe, who are willing to raise some shit about this?

  • Besides the obvious witch hunt jokes, it should be noted that, as we haven't seen these sites yet, they could contain stuff that actually is obscene.
    For example, he could be mocking specific police officers and their families for all we know. The artical mentions there was porn on some of the pages, that used info off their site.
    Even though it was a parody, what sort of copyright issues are there in this case.
    It's stated he had "how-to books on computer hacking". Can you get one of those for the linux kernel?:)
  • Here [geocities.com] is how I believe things happened. ;)

    Uh oh ... I'm goin ta jail -- Do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200.00

    .ph0x

  • "Dirty" Harry Callahan was a great cop. Sure, he blew a lot of guys away -- but if you watch the movies they all deserved it. There was no grey area. It was black and white. They were bad, and they paid the price.

    If Dirty Harry ever made a non-righteous shoot, please post and I will eat my proverbial hat.

    It is a simplistic view of the world, but I can sure see why a cop would like it.
  • You NEARLY caught me, before I realised the link had been posted by some Anon. coward loser, and so was going to be some other lame link instead.

  • Further, if the intent was to harrass the individual, the arrest may actually be criminal.

    True, but it happens anyway. A friend just got thru a trial. A cop arrested him for masterbating in public at a nude beach with his pants around his ankles. There were no other witnesses on a beach full of people. On the stand, the defense asked the cop, who claimed to have been standing 10 feet away, if he had seen anything unusual about my friend. He said no. My friend had to drop his pants and show the court his large snake tattoo that winds from his pubic area around to his back. Even so, the jury still hung 6-6; some people can't believe that a cop would lie. The judge later called the prosecutor into chambers and chewed him out for wasting the court's time by bringing the case and for basing it on a single witness who perjured himself. I would add that, had it not been for my friend's saving tatoo, he'd have been convicted and would now be having to register as a sex offender. There are some bad apples out there in the police force.

  • The web pages at http://www.salempolice.org-- while purporting to represent the official Salem, New Hampshire, Police Dept.--actually are entitled, "Salem Police Benevolent Association," but with no postal or email address or telephone number for contact listed. Not only would it be difficult to understand how the pages or "computer system information" could be misused, it appears to be impossible to reach anyone who could give permission for any use whatsoever, even if that request were concluded legally necessary.

    Some of the pages contain the bogus footer, "Copywrite 2000, Salem Police Benevolent Association. All Rights Reserved." If this is intended as a copyright notice, then it is invalid--"copyright" is not spelled correctly. (Although no notice and registration are required under current U.S. copyright law, notice and registration are required to collect damages and attorney fees for copyright infringement.)

    Even if the notice were valid, much if not all of the content is clearly not copyrightable by this private police body. This page invites "free downloads" of music from the "Salempalooza CD"--no notice that copyright is owned by "The Skeptics" is given, in likely violation of this band's copyright generated at time of creation.

    Furthermore, the page "Hollywood Heroes" is obviously itself in violation of numerous copyright claims by various owners of the photographs and trademarked names, as well as protected by the strong California publicity rights laws. Another page, "Police News" (said to be of 1999!) prints news purporting to be from the official Salem, N.H., Police Department, but lists no permission for this publication from the official body. The photographs and legends and pages at this site appear to be in violation of multiple laws. Depicting "heroes" in civilian clothes pointing guns is very much today in poor taste (especially considering the shootings recently just south, in Wakefield, Mass.!). But, also, for a group that claims to wish to reduce violence, it ignores the considerable local problem for police of profitable trade conducted by "legitimate" New Hampshire businesses selling such firearms to shoppers who then use the firearms on non-"Live Free or Die" citizens.

    As far as the "obscenity" charge goes, the Salem, N.H. politicos and police have for many years tried to close down Moonlite Video, an "adult video" store--for "violation of community standards"--so far unsuccessfully. Apparently they feel a prosecution against a parody publication by a "hacker" will be more successful today. No doubt notorious rightwinger Rep. Sununu and his dad, the ex-N.H. governor and presidential aide from Salem, will have to weigh into this moral rights crusade, along with the largest area newspaper, the arch-conservative Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle-Tribune, and defend the righteous police against "hackers".

    BTW, this "Salem" is the one in New Hampshire just north of the Massachusetts border, not the more famous Massachusetts town that was the scene of the witchcraft trials (while the alleged witchcraft activities in the 1600s took place in modern Danvers, north of Salem, Mass.).

    Please, if anyone has saved the content of the offending web pages, let us know of links for mirrors--also, how to help in the defense.

  • I'm going to try to get a hold of some email addresses and regular addresses on this one. I want the administrators and police involved to hear my opinion.

    -
    -Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.

  • HOW YOU CAN HELP (Score:3)

    by magic ( 19621 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @04:14PM (#509379) Homepage
    Please read this post if you want to do something about this.

    In the wake of Columbine and the anti-geek teen backlash that followed, Slashdot rose to a high level of journalistic integrity by carrying the story the regular media would not.

    Many of the posts in this thread are detailed, technical arguments of the type we are good at. But we're arguing with ourselves. A discussion at an online site about whether the Salem police's actions are legal is not helping a 19 year old who's just scored a black mark on his permanent legal record, lost his personal property, and possibly facing jail time (not to mention being pissed off and scared out of his mind, probably).

    It's time to do something about the way our constitutional rights are ignored because of the public's fears of "hackers."

    I talked to Chris Hemmah's family tonight. They aren't sure how we can help yet, but when they are ready for it, let's be there for them. It takes initiative and it's scary to stand up for what we believe in... but somebody's got to make sure that Chris Hemmah's rights are respected in what will come. His family will need moral support, donations to a legal fund, advice, and possibly court witnesses.

    If you are willing to help ensure that the laws of the United States are respected in this case, e-mail me at morgan@druids.org [mailto] with Chris Hemmah in the subject line. I'll continue to talk to the family and e-mail out when they have decided how we can help. I will not give your e-mail address to anyone else, I won't spam you, etc. I'm not a lawyer or a cop, and I'm not related to the Hemmahs or involved in the case. I'm just a nerd who's had enough... and I hope you are too.

    -magic

  • Re:Again, legal advice from non lawyers (Score:3)

    by SpinyNorman ( 33776 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @03:50PM (#509380)
    Please, stop pretending to be lawyers on slashdot. Slashdot barely has any journalistic credibility in the wake of that hooters link that got on the front page yesterday.

    Yeah, up until then /. was up for a Pulitzer.

    What about "News for nerds, stuff that matters"?

    Which of these categories doesn't Hooters [hooters.com] fit under?

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @03:03PM (#509381)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Re:Umm, why not join in on the fun ourselves?? (Score:3)

    by Procyon101 ( 61366 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @08:41PM (#509382) Journal
    Here it is. [geocities.com]

  • Re:Now I'm scared (Score:3)

    by apg ( 66778 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:23PM (#509383) Homepage

    Of course, police love to do things like this to people they know won't be convicted because the police know that his equipment will be seized. He will likely never see any of his 7 computers or "hacking books" ever again no matter what happens because it will be filed as evidence.

    The Salem PD apparently has something of a known history of questionable search and seizure while squeaking out of the consequences, too. See this excerpt from an Eagle-Tribune article [eagletribune.com] back in October:

    Charging that Salem police officers engaged in actions that "should shock any citizen of the United States," a federal magistrate has recommended that police be barred from seizing items from a local pawn shop unless they secure a search warrant.

    However, the judge denied a request by Rockingham Trading Post and its owners, Michael Kalil and Victor Giaimo, to prevent the town from prosecuting them in state court.

  • Then what is he charged with?

    Yes, the charge reads misuse of computer system information. But what information? How did he illegally misuse it? The only clue given is that the Salem police said he created "several obscene Web sites that mocked the Salem police department" (quoting the AP's paraphrase, not the Salem police directly.)

    Admittedly, we cannot assume that the AP reported this story perfectly; it is possible that they left out vital information such as that he cracked the police department's computers and stole information.

    But we must not assume that the Salem police must have had some real justification for arresting him, simply because they did it. Why?? Because that's exactly what police departments everywhere are prone to believing, that they as professionals know who the law-abiders are and who the criminals are -- and that to arrest an 'obvious' wrong-doer like this kid, they shouldn't have to wait for a technicality such as him actually committing an arrestable offense.

    Don't think, in a nation where police officers regularly perjure themselves in court to make charges stick, in a nation where police scientists falsify lab tests, reporting impossible results from the lab to win court cases, don't think that a police department must have evidence of actual illegal computer activity when all they're showing that they have is a disliked use of the First Amendment.

  • Re:Yeesh! (Score:3)

    by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) <slebrunNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:48PM (#509385) Journal
    The article claims that the police found several "how-to books on computer hacking." Foo in a Nutshell perhaps?
    ROFL. In related news, a local man charged police with the robbery of his house. "Who else," the man said to reporters, "would have the ability, the training, the alabi, to do this? Nobody suspects the police, it's the perfect cover." As proof, the man points out rooms in the police precinct which are full of stolen goods. The police claim that these are 'evidence lockers', which causes the man to scoff. "Sure, and I'm *really* only buying these CD-Rs to make backups of my own data. Right." :-)

  • More complete information (Score:3)

    by EricEldred ( 175470 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @06:49PM (#509386) Homepage

    A fuller report was in the Eagle-Tribune (Lawrence, Mass.), on Friday, January 12, 2001. Go to http://www.eagletribune.com and do News Search for "Hemmah"--it was under "NH News." For your convenience, it is quoted below:

    SALEM -- Police have arrested a Salem man they said created obscene Web sites that mocked the department.

    Christopher Hemmah, 19, of Robert Avenue, was arrested last night after a month-long investigation, said police Capt. Alan S. Gould.

    Mr. Hemmah is charged with misuse of computer system information, a felony. He is free on $5,000 personal recognizance bail.

    Capt. Gould said police obtained search and arrest warrants and went to Mr. Hemmah's home last night. Capt. Gould said they found seven computers, all networked together, two laptops, a Palm Pilot, several hard drives, a large quantity of CDs and a lot of literature and how-to books on computer hacking. He said an article from the Dec. 6 Eagle-Tribune describing the parody Web site search was on top of one of the computers.

    "It's a fairly new type of crime,'' Capt. Gould said. He said Officer Ronald Peddle, who knows a lot about computers, was assigned the case. He investigated with detectives to identify the hacker.

    Capt. Gould said they shut down two illegal Web sites that put forward a very negative image of the Salem Police Department, some of which was obscene or pornographic in nature.

    He said the Salem Police Benevolent Association uses its Web site to keep the community updated on various safety tips and programs.

    "The big problem we saw was that you could very well get onto this Web site, put in Salem, N.H. Police and read the obscenities and profanity,'' Capt. Gould said.

    He said all of Mr. Hemmah's material was collected and will be checked by the state police lab in Concord and FBI lab.

    Capt. Gould said Mr. Hammah will be Salem District Court in March.

    Also, here is the earlier, Dec. 6, 2000 article referred to above:

    SALEM -- Salem police became the focus of some unwanted publicity when someone created obscene Web sites that mocked the department, police Capt. Alan S. Gould said.

    Police shut the sites down, and are now looking for its creators.

    One Web site took information from the Salem Police Benevolent Association Web site and made a parody of it by changing words and downloading pictures from the site. A second Web site mentioned the department and had random pornographic pictures attached to it, Capt. Gould said.

    "A couple of weeks ago it was brought to our attention two illegal Web sites were out there that were putting forward a very negative image of the Salem Police Department, some of which was obscene or pornographic in nature," Capt. Gould said. "When I saw it, it almost made me sick, and it really upset a lot of officers here."

    Officers were able to track down the company that hosted the sites and discovered the people who produced them did so with a fraudulent application. Because of that, the sites were shut down Friday, Capt. Gould said. He would not say which Internet organization hosted the sites.

    "Number one, we didn't want that image going out there. Number two, if someone was doing research and wanted information on the police department they would trip on those and be thoroughly disgusted," Capt. Gould said.

    Capt. Gould said police are investigating what civil or criminal action the department can take against the Web site creators if they are found.

  • Same things happen in Canada (Score:3)

    by trolebus ( 234192 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:22PM (#509387) Homepage
    A kid in Canada got arrested for uttering death threats. What he did was write a monolouge for class where a fustrated student blows up the school to get back a bullies.

    These two articles from CBC have more information This one [cbc.ca]

    And here [cbc.ca]

  • Re:Now I'm scared (Score:3)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <blair@@@NOwcmifm...comSPAM> on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:53PM (#509388) Homepage
    "Actually, they can only legally keep the equipment if he they deem the equipment was used to commit a felony"

    Which they won't be able to in this case. Their "felony" charge is the most laughably stupid charge I've ever seen. In fact, he can't even be convicted of a misdemeanor.

    BTW, in NH, does someone have to be indicted to be charged with a felony? That is the case in many states. I dont see that happening. In fact, I don't even see a court ACCEPTING this case at all unless:

    1. The judge is extremely corrupt or stupid.
    2. The judge is extremely power mad.
    3. The judge is an ex-cop
    4. The judge takes the case basically so that he can get the police in question in his courtroom, collect the evidence, sanction them so that THEY can be prosecuted.
  • Correct. Anyone who conspired to wrongfully arrest this kid and maliciously prosecute him should face felony charges.

    Won't happen, but legally it should. Cops are the "sacred cows" of America. Though they DO perform a noble service (sometimes) their MOST illegal and offesnive acts are often excused.

    I hope he gets a good shark and sues their ass off.
  • What the hell IS this? The police have no authority to define obscenity.. There is no possible way a website mocking them could pass the Supreme Court's obscenity standard.

    For one thing, mocking the police department is POLITICAL speech, which will clearly fall under the first amendment.

    What is chilling, is what others have brought up. The damage to this person has already been done, having already been arrested and thrown in jail. What I hope happens is that he gets himself a tank of lawyer sharks and go after the police department with lawsuits asking for damages in the $500 million range.

    The police department has clearly abused it's authority to comitt an illegal act. All involved in the arrest and incarceration need to do serious prison time.

  • Re:Parody? (Score:3)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <blair@@@NOwcmifm...comSPAM> on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:36PM (#509391) Homepage
    Yes there are. In this case it's in the Constitution itself. A police department is a government agency, and thus, the right of petition, and the first amendment, just to name two, clearly cover this.

    Because such a parody is POLITICAL speech, there isn't even any way that he could have libeled or slandered them. There is no truth in advertising laws for political speech, otherwise lots of candidates would be doing prison time.

    A crime and major felonies have been comitted here... by the POLICE.

  • Witchhunt (Score:3)

    by prothid ( 302906 ) <slashdot@@@unfit...org> on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:17PM (#509392) Homepage
    "He is charged with misuse of computer system information, a felony." How is making a website misuse of computer systems information? I might be able to understand this if he was using this information to do something illegal. So, he has some mock website up with some porn scattered around. I don't think this case will get very far. Just my 2 cents.

  • Destroying computers (Score:4)

    by Eric Green ( 627 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @05:25PM (#509393) Homepage
    This is of course what they did in the case of Steve Jackson Games. SJ never got back their computers. Several years after the Secret Service seized their computers, a fed-up judge finally ordered the SS to either turn over the computers or he was going to start throwing people in jail for contempt of court. The SS turned over a bunch of broken-up circuit boards, smashed cases, and busted hard drives.

    Note: "SS" in the above stands for "Secret Service". Any similarity between that abbreviation and the Nazi stormtrooper service's abbreviation is intentional.

    In general, if the cops seize your computers, assume that you're going to need a new computer. I suggest purchasing a lightweight laptop (AFTER the SS seizes your computers -- otherwise they might come after you for "concealing evidence"). I also suggest that you retain off-site backups, perhaps with co-workers that the cops won't think of immediately as friends, perhaps in some other semi-anonymous fashion, so that you won't lose 20 years of your writings just because some Nazi stormtrooper wannabe with a police uniform got peeved that you called him by name.

    -E

  • All too familiar - it could have happened to me. (Score:4)

    by Splat ( 9175 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @08:27PM (#509394)
    I know this situation ALL too well. This could have happened to me.

    I have recently encountered a similar situation with my local school district (which I am not a student at).

    My local school districts website address is "school-district".org. In late October I registered "school-district".com and "School-district".net.

    I setup both sites to forward to page I had setup where I had a parody of a fundraiser they were currently running. Everyone who saw it thought it thought it was funny. You'd have to be an idiot to mistake it for the real website.

    The result? Near Christmas I received a cease and desist letter demanding I take down my "libelous and unfounded attacks" against the district .

    "If you do not cease and desist your activities within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, the District will pursue any and all legal remedies available to my client in a Court of competent jurisdiction for injuctive relief as well as money damages."

    Money damages. Yeah what money damages? It's a FUNDRAISER in question. What, of the 76 unique visitors my page had I damaged your fundraising ability? What the hell?!

    "You are in violation of both [my state] and Federal law; including but not limited to the anticybersquatting provisions of the Lanham Act and [my states] Unfair Trade Practices Act."

    Pretty amazing how I can be guilty of cybersquatting when I never tried to sell the domain, never represented myself as them and for the past oh what.. FIVE YEARS they never had enough brains to register it themselves. Aren't such laws designed to protect the rights of corporations being taken advantage of my domain speculators?

    I'm also apparently guilty of the PA Trade Act. How can I be guilty of a trade act when there's no TRADE INVOLVED?! Once again, I can't figure it out ..

    They also had a "proposal" that I transfer the domain name to them "in exchange for the District's forberance in bringing any claims against you."

    Having no other choice then well, get sued, I took down the content and notified them I did that. The domain name however, I have kept, and said nothing about it to them.

    Individuals can't afford to throw money at a lawyer to fight against the bottomless pockets of orginizations and corporations hellbent on destroying our freedom.

    Freedom of speech is slowly dying as rabid packs of lawyers and policemen attack our first amendment rights of fair use and parody. I am disgusted at the actions my local district took, and I am disgusted at the police in that case.

  • Re:In other censorship news... (Score:4)

    by Restil ( 31903 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @04:10PM (#509395) Homepage
    When I was in 6th grade (about 15 years ago), for Halloween everyone in class was to write a "scary story" with illustrations, and some of us would read those stories out loud to either a 1st or 2nd grade class on Halloween. Our teacher, apparently not quite expecting the average student's exposure to horror movies of the day, told us to write anything we wanted, no matter how bad it was.

    Well, we did. She was not amused. Half the class (mostly the male students) had written stories revolving around axe murderers and the like, complete with gory descriptions. We never got around to the illustrations.....

    Anyways. Guess what the consequences of writing these horrific stories were?

    *shocker* We were told to rewrite them and leave out the excessive gore. */shocker* Nobody got in trouble. Nobody went to jail. Nobody was sent in for psychiatric evaluation. We just had to redo the assignment. The stories were recognized for what they were. Harmless creative works in poor taste, not setting the stage for a group of lunatics.

    All of this was pre-columbine however. We had bullies, cheating, bad grades, talking in class, and the occasional indescretion among some of the students. Every once in a while, some reckless and heartless bastard would throw pencils into the ceiling tiles. But nobody even fathomed the idea that someone might bring a gun to school and start shooting at random because he was distressed. Now everyone is overreacting and jumping on any even potential danger and eliminating them. Its unfortunate, and it has to change. SOON.

    Its stuff like this that makes me want to be a parent, just so I can participate in the educational system and tell some those idiots to get their head out of their ass. Of course, I could just social engineer my way to become a school administrator and accomplish the same goals. Judging from what I've seen, I probably exceed the qualifications for the job.

    -Restil

  • Missuse of Computer System Information (Score:4)

    by DzugZug ( 52149 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:45PM (#509396) Journal
    Here is what he was actualy charged with:

    IV. A person is guilty of the computer crime of misuse of computer system information when:

    (a) As a result of his accessing or causing to be accessed a computer system, he knowingly makes or causes to be made an unauthorized display, use, disclosure, or copy, in any form, of data residing in, communicated by, or produced by a computer system; or

    (b) He knowingly or recklessly and without authorization:

    (1) Alters, deletes, tampers with, damages, destroys, or takes data intended for use by a computer system, whether residing within or external to a computer system; or

    (2) Intercepts or adds to data residing within a computer system; or

    (c) He knowingly receives or retains data obtained in violation of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph; or

    (d) He knowingly uses or discloses any data he knows or believes was obtained in violation of subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph.

    -------------
    is it possible his downloading code from the website was making an unauthorized copy? If so people should be really concerned about copyright, fair use, etc.

  • Re:Now I'm scared (Score:4)

    by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:28PM (#509397) Homepage Journal
    Unless he is slandering the police, posting false information that he claims is true that damages the image of the police he will not be convicted of any crime (if he does I'm moving).

    ianal, but afaik, slander is not a crime. It is a tort, meaning that it can be used as the basis for a civil suit. That is assuming he is slandering an individual. If he is accused of slandering an organization or institution, especially a government body, I don't even know if it can be litigated at all, at least in the US the First Amendment generally protects anything that might normally be considered slander if it was said against a private citizen. The exception would be advocating violence, which can reach a level that can be prosecuted criminally.

  • Umm, why not join in on the fun ourselves?? (Score:4)

    by ovapositor ( 79434 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:21PM (#509398) Journal
    I don't know about you all, but I might just have some spare web space to post my own "obscene" website about said police department.

    Just a thought.

    And I don't live within the confines of their little juristiction... tee hee hee

  • Re:Slow down. (Score:4)

    by jerdenn ( 86993 ) <jerdenn@dennany.org> on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:30PM (#509399)
    Even though it was a parody, what sort of copyright issues are there in this case.

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that parody is exempt from copyright infringement. See Eldred v. Reno [harvard.edu]

  • Re:Parody is Protected, Anyway... (Score:4)

    by John Murdoch ( 102085 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:19PM (#509400) Homepage Journal
    "They must be getting bored in Salem, with all those witches extinct now...."

    Especially since those witches were tried and burned in Salem, Massachusetts--not Salem, New Hampshire.

    (Yeesh.)

  • The Irony Is Just Too Rich... (Score:4)

    by John Murdoch ( 102085 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:47PM (#509401) Homepage Journal

    Okay. The cops in Salem, New Hampshire--after a month-long investigation--determined that this kid had copied the text from several web sites related to the police department, modified the text, and had replaced photos on one site with rotating porn pictures.

    This is clear, and compelling, proof of two things:

    • The Salem, New Hampshire police are idiots. They evidently can't read simple documents like, say, the U.S. Constitution.
    • The Salem, New Hampshire police evidently aren't just stupid--they're incompetent, too. Think about it: it took them a month to figure out that the guy had parodied their site. An entire month of investigation. Kinda makes you think these bozos might just deserve some parody, wouldn't you think?

    But something stuck in my mind about "police" and "New Hampshire"...

    Of course! The ultra-Libertarian legislator who got elected in November, before anybody noticed the outrageous comments he'd posted on the Web about cops. I looked up the article, figuring I'd post a link to it here. Here's the MSNBC article [msnbc.com]. But the article includes a neat little point right at the bottom--it turns out that the cop-killer wannabe isn't the only state legislator in trouble. It seems that while the Salem cops were busy with their month-long investigation of a parody web site ("Uh, sarge--how do you spell 'freedom of the press'?"), the town elected an ex-con living under an assumed name to be their legislator:

    In a separate case, state Rep. Ron "Tony" Giordano has revealed a criminal past he didn't disclose to New Hampshire voters. The Republican from Salem said this week that he did two stints in jail in Massachusetts during the early 1980s for five check-forging convictions and one handcuff-stealing incident. He was known as Ron Gordon at the time.

    "We all make mistakes. I've turned my life around," Giordano said.

    Giordano, who moved to Salem six years ago after changing his name, said he would step down only if his 6,000 constituents demanded he quit.

    Whatever parody this kid put up had better be hilarious--because the officials clowns are pretty funny all by themselves....

  • Here's how they spent their month... (Score:4)

    by Arcanix ( 140337 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @03:20PM (#509402)
    Christopher Hemmah, 19, was arrested Thursday night after a month-long investigation.""

    From the logs of the Salem Police:
    Day 1 - Website making fun of us still up.
    Day 2 - Website making fun of us still up.
    ....
    Day 28 - Website making fun of us still up.
    Day 29 - Website making fun of us still up.
    Day 30 - Arrested Christopher Hemmah.

  • Re:HOW YOU CAN HELP (Score:4)

    by IronChef ( 164482 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @05:59PM (#509403)

    I would like to help.

    But, with the information available to us at this time, I can't stick my neck out on this guy's behalf.

    IF everything is as it APPEARS to be then yes, this is an unjust bust, and the guy should sue the pants off everyone involved. It would be wonderful to see. And my gut says that there's nothing fishy going on here.

    But the fact is, dear slashdotters, that we can't be sure we know the REAL story. For example, maybe the porno images the kid used were the vilest, most stomach-churning kind. Any of you willing to mirror that? Any of you guys SURE that his site would fail an obscenity test?

    I think we should support the guy, but be cautious about your approach until all the facts are in. When the facts ARE in, if things stack up, I'll contribute to his legal fun myself, and I encourage you to also.

  • Go here [geocities.com]

    Many thanks to slashdot user Procyon101 for this link I found buried in some replys to an earlier thread. Just thought I'd post it with a +2 initial score.

  • Judge Kaplin as a verb! :-) (Score:4)

    by -Harlequin- ( 169395 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @03:14PM (#509405)
    This of course, is possible, as there are many Judge Kaplans out there

    Hey, that's a neat (if tired) way to protest - try to start using "JudgeKaplin" as a verb (to mean "to misjudge / to prejudice / to sell one's values, etc") and see if we can get it to catch on in /.
    (Today /. - tommorow the WORLD!)

    Or perhaps just "Kaplin" for short.
    "I see the Salem Police JudgeKaplined free speech today"

    Ok ok, but it could make for some nice in-jokes :)

  • Re:In other censorship news... (Score:4)

    by BluedemonX ( 198949 ) on Sunday January 14, 2001 @11:01AM (#509406)
    RE: I'm embarrassed that this is happening is Canada

    Why? Canada does not have free speech, it hates nonconformists, and as for bullying and kicking the unpopular, it's part of the political landscape as much as it is the classroom.

    Read the newspaper, or watch the National with Peter "I'm in the employ of King Jean" Mansbridge. Gun owners are responsible for crime, not criminals. Westerners are evil, holocaust-denying hicks and racist homophobic rednecks. According to Westerners, it's all the fault of the Quebecois, and the welfare leeches in the Atlantic provinces. The Quebecois think they're being held down by the "g*ddamn*d J*ws in West Montreal", unquote (not my view!), don't forget Parizeau's comments on live TV about "thanks to the J*ws and Ethn*cs for screwing up the referendum on soverignty for the REAL people of Quebec". (I was horrified to hear any of this, and I left Quebec over the last statement, never to return.)

    Canada's just signed laws that allow the cops to come into your house without a warrant, strip the drywall off your interior walls, destroy your home, take away your right to remain silent, charge you with a reverse-onus crime (you have to prove your innocence) etc etc etc just because they might have some cause to believe that perhaps you might have access to a firearm.

    I never believed the propaganda of that little socialist collective that it was a Disney-esque scene from Bambi where evreryone is loving and friendly and whistles that irritating song on the way to work when I was born and raised there, and I don't believe it now.

    Canada's got REAL problems, don't be surprised at the kid going to jail over threatening his school. The Prime Minister can strangle you on live TV and smash your face into the ground, or send SWAT teams in to pepper spray your teenage daughter and club her half to death just because she was peacefully demonstrating against a murdering socialist dictator coming in from Indonesia, and noone says "boo" about it. They can rob you of half your income for "health care" while simultaneously taking all the money out of health care to fund hotels in the P.M.'s riding. You can mod this one down for all I care, but it's the truth and must be told. Canada is slowly becoming more and more of a police state, and now they want to confiscate all the guns to make that a total reality. Don't protest the symptoms, protest the cause.

  • Now I'm scared (Score:4)

    by rveety ( 223650 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:21PM (#509407) Homepage
    In Hemmah's home, police say they found seven computers and how-to books on computer hacking.

    I have lots of computers and hacking books, am I breaking the law? Unless he is slandering the police, posting false information that he claims is true that damages the image of the police he will not be convicted of any crime (if he does I'm moving). You can't go around calling saying the local police kill small children (unless of course they do). If he posts information of reasons he dislikes the police, then thats what the 1st ammendment is all about and he shouldn't be touched.

    Of course, police love to do things like this to people they know won't be convicted because the police know that his equipment will be seized. He will likely never see any of his 7 computers or "hacking books" ever again no matter what happens because it will be filed as evidence. Read "the hacker crackdown". Of course, that book would be "evidence" if you are ever raided.

  • Re:Now I'm scared (Score:4)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <blair@@@NOwcmifm...comSPAM> on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:57PM (#509408) Homepage
    Actually, you can go around saying the police kill small children and perform public sexual acts with donuts all you want. They are a part of the government, and it's not possible to slander the government. It's political speech.

    Now, if you said officer so-and-so killed small children and performed public sexual acts with a donut, you can be liable for slander...

    Also, Slander and libel in the United States are NOT criminal acts... The injured person can sue you CIVILLY for money damages, but you cannot be jailed for libel or slander.

  • Re:Witchhunt (Score:5)

    by KoReE ( 4358 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:49PM (#509409) Homepage
    Unfortunately, police departments on the whole do not understand how to deal with this stuff yet. I personally was involved in a case where a kid was stealing service from the ISP I run. I had proof of it, but the police had no idea how to read the logs that I had, but just went along with what I said. Now, I was telling the truth, and after more qualified police personnel looked through the logs, they made the same decision I had made and it held up in court. But, the original search warrant was written on information that they didn't understand at all, and really didn't know if the search should have been warranted. Now, turn this case into a case where someone is badmouthing the police. As with many people (and especially those with executive power), they don't like it when they're being made fun of. So, what do you do? You use the same lack of knowledge to go on a cyber-witchhunt. The cops probably wrote up a search warrant based on the thought that they were mad, and then thought naked pictures == obscenity, so there's our probable cause. What they don't/didn't realize is that, unlike my case which was true, their case will probably be thrown out as unconstitutional. The bottom line is that one of two things is going to happen. We're either going to have to achieve proper education for those with executive power (state's attornies, police officers, etc) or we're going to turn into a Communist police state. I don't know about you, but given most of the news headlines I see these days, I have a feeling I know which one is going to happen...

  • In other censorship news... (Score:5)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @02:35PM (#509410) Journal
    ...a Ottawa-area 16-year-old got bail after spending a month in the can for reading a story in drama class. I shit you not.

    On the one hand, it was a story about a student who blows up his school after years of abuse from bullies and ignorance from teachers. On the other hand, it was written for a drama assignment after years of abuse from bullies and ignorance from teachers, including an incident about a week before where he was pushed to the ground, kicked in the head several times, and went home bloody. His parents contacted the school and police about the incident, but got no help. No schools or students were directly named in the story. Despite a police search of the school and his home finding no weapons, bombs, or "plans", he was arrested anyway on the charge of "uttering death threats".

    More details in these Ottawa Citizen stories:

    A teen's "Twisted" cry for help [ottawacitizen.com] - this article also has the story that started it all.

    Writer jailed for his 'imagination' [ottawacitizen.com]

    Prominent lawyer to defend teen writer [ottawacitizen.com]


  • He's not charged with obscene publication! (Score:5)

    by KNicolson ( 147698 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:34PM (#509411) Homepage
    *sigh* I wish people, especially the Slashdot editors, would actually read the linked web site before posting. It says:

    He is charged with misuse of computer system information, a felony.

    As IANAL, I won't comment on whether or not the charge will stick.

  • Again, legal advice from non lawyers (Score:5)

    by Chuck Flynn ( 265247 ) on Saturday January 13, 2001 @01:54PM (#509412)
    Note that test (c) is very hard to pass. Even nudie magazines like Playboy are not considered obscene because they have at least some (however miniscule) literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Political speech, including speech critical of police or government officials, is protected in the highest degree.

    Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. The standard is not "lacks any [adjective] value"; it's whether it lacks serious value. There's an enormous difference. Remember, Miller was a decision by the Burger court during the seventies. Do you really think they'd let you get away with anything as long as it had any value whatsoever? Miller was specifically decided so as to avoid the situation where a work of complete filth could be saved by inserting a single page of Shakespeare.

    Miller was a compromise that ended a decade of legal wrangling over the subject of obscenity. It affirmed that legal obscenity must be sexual in nature (which this website likely is) and must violate community standards of propriety. Playboy isn't relevant, because playboy is a national magazine which may or may not violate community norms in New Hampshire.

    (Incidentally, in R.A.V. v. Saint Paul, White's concurring opinion would have given governments plenary power over what sorts of obscene speech to declare illegal (instead of our present broad bans). Thankfully, that opinion wasn't signed by four other justices. Unfortunately, it won't help you here, since the obscenity ban in question bans far more than just political obscenity.)

    Please, stop pretending to be lawyers on slashdot. Slashdot barely has any journalistic credibility in the wake of that hooters link that got on the front page yesterday. Don't undermine it even more by giving people false and misleading legal advice. In many jurisdictions, giving false legal advice is itself a crime. If you must wallow in your own ignorance, then don't drag others into the morass with you. Please.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Close