![Censorship Censorship](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/censorship_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Linking Dangerously 1185
indole writes "Some /.'ers might remember the story of Sherman Austin, a Californina native who created the "anarchy" website raisethefist.com. Besides posting links to bomb-making instructions, the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Well, approximately 18 months later Sherman Austin, now age 20, has been sentenced to 1 year in federal prison. According to Austin, 'he took a plea bargain because he feared his case was eligible for a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to his sentence.' Doubleplusungood."
Well duh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
He actually said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (one reference) [suntimes.com]. By "with us", he was meaning with us against the fight against terrorism.
So your subtle changing of his words completely distorts what he actually said and meant. That would qualify as FUD, or just outright fraud. I would have hoped readers and the moderators would have known better.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
GWB has used the phrase "with us or against us" several times.
Q Mr. President, does it appear that Iran is flexing its muscles in Western Afghanistan, and does that threaten the U.S. war on terrorism in that region?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror; that our nation and our fight against terror will uphold the doctrine, either you're with us or against us; and any nation that thwarts our ability to rout terror out where it exists will be held to account, one way or the other.
Source - vote-smart.org presidential speeches page [vote-smart.org]Worries (Score:3, Interesting)
(maybe i should have posted as anon. coward...!)
Re:Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
I invite you to read that page.
Here's a quote that defines just how many of your rights have been looted from under your ignorant feet
Fourth Amendment? Who needs it, certainly not the helpful Government. They'll never abuse this power, only use it to fight Terrorists! Oh, and Drugs! Oh, and they'll use it to Save The Children!
Re:Freenet (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I am missing something, but what does that have to do with the left wing?
Oh, I forgot, CNN has a terrible left leaning bias, is that it? It was really easy for me to forget that they were on the left while they were cheerleading for the war in Iraq. If CNN was really left leaning, they would have spent the entire time talking about why what we were doing was wrong.
CNN did show pictures of the injured after 9/11, and they were no where near anti-war.
Cry about the media bias all you want, It will not convince me that it exists until I find the things that they are saying to be to liberal more often than once a month.
Re:Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I wouldn't, because I would think logically and realize that SARS, even at its peak, was several hundred or thousand times less common than the common cold in Asia. It's called the "common cold" for a reason. The same reason why SARS was not called "common SARS".
You see two Middle-eastern fellows with a rented U-haul truck pulling up to a farming store and buying dozens of bags of fertilizer. Would you call the FBI, or would that be "racist"?
Why would I call the FBI? Two brown guys buying fertilizer, as well as having easy access to fertilizer, is a daily occurrence. The vast majority of the lawn care guys in my entire state are either dark Hispanics (usually Mexicans), Arabs (which, from my perspective, look a lot like dark Hispanics), or some other form of immigrant trying to find cheap work to support their families. Do you call the FBI every time you see a Middle Eastern man at a gas station, because he has access to large amounts of flammable materials that could be used to set fires all over town? I hope not.
SARS and terrorism are both very rare things that don't happen nearly as often as an Asian man having a cold or a Arab buying some fertilizer. Only through the eyes of media hype, racism, or stupidity does a man buying some fertilizer become an act of terrorism. I also find it somewhat suspect that you assume that two Middle-Eastern men buying dozens of bags of fertilizer is suspect, since the last man to commit a terrorist act in the United States using fertilizer was Timothy McVeigh, a white man who was assisted by other whites. Should we worry whenever ANYONE buys fertilizer, or just calm down and understand that ordinary occurrences like people buying fertilizer don't suddenly become abnormal or terroristic acts just because of September 11th?
Nowadays, everyone is so worried about political correctness and not hurting anyones feelings that they are putting themselves and their country in danger. Teachers are being told what words they can and cannot say because they might "offend" someone.
Instead of being told not to say it, did you ever consider that maybe they just think differently from you? I know that some people would like to think that they're in some sort of oppressed, secret majority that thinks that racism is alright and that the racist answer is always a more logical one than an Asian man just having a cold, but a lot of us really don't think that way. We don't jump to race as the first answer, and instead of not wanting to offend anybody by saying it, we just don't even think about it in the first place.
If the FBI is reading this... (Score:4, Funny)
You should probably go and shoot him in the head. Quickly!
i wonder.. (Score:5, Insightful)
does that include the US government?
Re:i wonder.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i wonder.. (Score:4, Informative)
The United States backed Iran through the 1970s, then Saddam took over at about the same time the Iranian Revolution happened so the United States started to back Iraq to keep them from falling to the Iranians. The whole goal of the West and Soviets in the Middle East at this time to keep no one from winning the upper hand.
The vast amounts of Soviet and French equipment being poured into Iraq shifted the balance of power and the Iranians/Americans/Israelis and rouge Saudis cut deals to get new Hawk-I missiles and parts for the Iranian UH-1s and F-4 operating then both the Iranians and Iraqis start attacking tankers.
When the Iraqis gased the Kurds there were two little things going on that limited a Western response to the gassing. The Cold War, Iraq is kind of close geographically to the Soviet Union and I'm sure B-52s and F-15s over Tikrit wouldn't fly in Moscow. And there was the Iran-Iraq war coupled with the fact that the Turks don't like the Kurds and they were an important part of the Southern Front NATO had to the Warsaw Pact. In short in the late 1980s international pressures and the Cold War paradigm kept anyone from acting out.
Now the United States and the West does have some dealings with the Iraqis in dual-use chemicals and technologies, but shit, if you ship someone the instructions on how to make Prussian Blue dye you are giving them the ability to make Zyklon-B poison gas. You sell someone some packing peanuts and gasoline and they can make napalm.
You know that in the 1950s the US and French were shipping nuclear reactors all over along with big tomes of stuff like "Atoms for Peace" is what gave Iraq and Pakistan the seed for thier nuclear programs?
Re:i wonder.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"country". But I do think that failure to
have sympathy for every one of 25,000
dead innocents puts one in a moral class
with every demonized icon of barbarity
in human history.
From a European viewpoint (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, there must be a freedom of speech, but with freedom comes also responsibility. That's what you people over there seem to have forgotten. Inciting people into a violent revolt that thretens the stability of the entire society is not responsible. Talk like this should be dealt harshly with.
Re:From a European viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor is inciting people into a passive complacency that threatens the stability of the entire society. Sometimes you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, especially if the little runt is a Hitler-baby.
Re:From a European viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From a European viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Had the defendant in this case merely presented bomb-making information, he probably could have gotten off on First Amendment grounds, but by stepping outside of what the First Amendment protects, and being dumb enough to do so during a national panic, one year in prison is not all that outrageous.
If enough people feel oppressed enough, they should be able to advocate that revolution.
As a practical matter, if you are really being severely oppressed, advocating revolution is a great way to be unpersoned. In the event of real oppression, you need to fight a revolution, not cut-and-paste crap from the Anarchists' Cookbook to your website. At present, however, most real oppression being conducted by the US Government is happening outside of its borders.
Meanwhile, this is the kind of oppression that does lead to a revolution.
Piff. This is the kind of routine law enforcement that leads to stupid bumper stickers.
Re:From a European viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe has been home of dozens of violent revolutions over the years. Just talk to the French to start with. You can move on to other countries when you are done there.
What is the end result of these revolutions? Social progress. The eventual overthrow of tyrants and the establishment of democracy has generally improved the quality of life.
Yes, people die during violent revolutions. People are jailed. In the long run, though, if enough people believe that a violent overthrow of the government is called for, it almost always means that the people will be better off after the revolution.
The U.S.'s freedom of speech was set up to allow all degrees of discussion, from political commercials to lobbying to advertising to calling for a violent revolution to overthrow the government.
Remember - the same people that wrote the First Amendment just got done with a violent revolution.
This does not mean that the government should stand idly by while people violently revolt. The government has a responsibility for self-preservation. However, talking about a violent overthrow should be completely allowed.
Re:From a European viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
This kid was demonstrating illegally (not a big deal), and it turned out he was wanted by the FBI for his website (still probably not too big a deal). The kicker came when they searched his parent's house and found bomb making materials.
Once you start caching explosives, the equation changes somewhat.
Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus were all a) right :), and b) decidedly non-violent. This kid was a crackpot, pure and simple.
you think that's linking dangerously? (Score:5, Funny)
They can do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me while I move to Canada....
Re:They can do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Ahh the justice system ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad to see the REAL criminals being put where they belong, hey aren't ALL the Enron executives still free?
Re:Ahh the justice system ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Snuffing out pension funds are more than compensated by campaign contributions, in addition to handsomely paid do-nothing retirement consultancy postitions.
Freedom of Speech anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
But the most scary thing of all is this qoute from this website: "(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.), "
How can the courts do that? This guy has rights that cannot under any circumstances be taken away. Part of those rights are freedom of speech - expecially political freedom of speech - and policital freedom of speech again AFAIK is only when you want to try to change the government somehow.
This guy got shafted by a horrible judge who shouldn't be allowed to work. If i were president, or governer i would pardon this man becuase he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for such a simple thing as disseminating information.
As a highschooler what am I to think growing up? Do we really have our Bill of Rights anymore? Every day i see more news about parts of it being chipped away - of course all in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. (since free speech, habius corpus, etc are an evil evil thing... ) BULLSHIT!
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? (Score:3, Funny)
Unless he moves to Chicago
Re:Freedom of Speech anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
You Have Freedom for All Speach or You have None (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. Until fairly recently Americans did have the right to speech, harmful or otherwise. The 'fire in the theater' decision did not preclude, nor was it intended to preclude, discussions on setting fire to a crowded theater, or even discussions on how to orchastrate the event for maximum entertainment to bystanders (perhaps by playing a flute?), but to address a particular, very narrowly defined, immediate cause of immediate harm.
Attempting to extend that narrow (and at the time very contraversial) exception to include any speech that might, possibly, incite harm at some point in the future (as has been done here) is not just exceptionally harmful to freedom of speech in general and political discussion and dissent in particular, but absolutely lethal.
Are you engaging in harmful speech when you come out in support of Al Q'aeda?
Are you engaging in harmful speech when you support president Bush's foreign policies?
Don't be too sure about the answer to either of those
Ban 'harmful speech' and you will have essentially banned any and all speech, at the whim of whoever happens to be wielding authority at that point in time. Regardless of who that is (Bush, Chaney, or Howard Dean) you will have completely gutted the freedom the first amendment was intended to protect, in a way that will probably require 'harmful' actions in order to restore (if restoration is ever even a possibility).
What was there? (Score:5, Informative)
The internet archive has the site archived from many dates over the past several years.
It was more than just speech (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the people looking for the hacking angle. (Score:5, Informative)
Pick your own site.
"According to the FBI, Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated."
"Austin has also admitted to hacking into a number of websites to post anti-government messages."
For those claiming this is a free speech issue alone, last I checked freedom of speech didn't include freedom of breaking and entering someone else's computer system in order to speak from their platform.
Re:It was more than just speech (Score:4, Informative)
See prior Slashdot Stories (Score:4, Informative)
The kid was hacking websites (and attempted to hack military computers according to logs on his computer) JUST AFTER congress passed the PATRIOT act which equated:
Politically Motivated Hacking = Terrorism
Stupid kid was asking for trouble.
More terrorism "enhancement" (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, here in San Diego, enviro freaks burned down a $20 million condo project, and the owner is not going to get insurance because the policy didn't cover "terrorism." Probably 400 people out of work.
When gov't or anyone for that matter plays the terrorism card to its advantage, we ALL lose.
Further recourse / protests? (Score:4, Insightful)
If anyone knows of something others can do, please post here. I'm too unorganized in my personal life at the moment to spearhead anything, but I'd like to participate if anyone else has gotten the ball rolling. This whole thing makes me feel unsafe in my own country.
Tough shit (Score:3, Insightful)
PC niceties are fucking killing this country. Racial profiling is evil, so let's submit 90-year old caucasian women to strip searches, just like that nice Saudi gentleman over there. All in the name of social equality.
9/11 changed the rules. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better we'll all be off. Perhaps this kid would have been just another weirdo with a badly designed website in a past life. But this is another world. Our insistence of making believe that everything is OK and should remain exactly the same is pointless and stupid. Let's get with the program. No, it's not nice to send nice youngsters to jail because of what they said in their website. OTOH, if he wants to overthrow the fucking government perhaps he'd like to move to Liberia or Burma. Those governments provide great infrastructure, defense and civil liberties.
Re:Tough shit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pseudofascist morons like you that are ruining this country, not the kid in his basement. So, I must ask you, if you don't like the laws of this country, such as the first ammendment, why don't you move to a country that has a legal system more to your liking? I hear that Iran doesn't allow any of that pesky questioning of authority, I'm sure you'd fit right in.
It's still a free country (Score:5, Insightful)
One Thing I found Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not about freedom of speech... (Score:5, Informative)
As for the scare bit about "an extra 20 years for the terrorism..." that's a troll for getting the story picked up. Even if he had gone to trial, the extra 20 years isn't a mandatory thing - it's a maximum sentence of up to 20 years. In the end he probably would have ended up in the same spot or gotten an extra year. I can't belive this is even worth digging up again, but hey, it's a slow newsday.
First they came for... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you try to convince yourself that you are safe because you are different from this guy in X ways, remember that they always come for the easiest targets first, but if nobody speaks out then, then it will only be a matter of time before they come for the rest of us.
Re:First they came for... (Score:4, Interesting)
Pre-emptive strikes on free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Thomas Jefferson (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers on this nation, had to say about the subject.
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787.
" . . . forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William Stephens Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
This isn't about freedom of speech or linking... (Score:5, Informative)
First take a look at the search warrant [cryptome.org] issued against the home of Austin.
What we see here is that he's being suspected of breaking two specific laws.
18 USC 1030 [cornell.edu] - Computer Fraud
Austin is charged under this because he was suspected of being responsible for several defacements which are detailed in the warrant. Looking at what's in the warrant there seems to be more than enough evidence to support this charge.
18 USC 842(p)(2) [cornell.edu] - Unlawful Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, etc...
In the search warrant are several quotes from raisethefist.com in which information about explosives is provided along side some comments that encourage this knowledge be used against police officers.
Here's the exact quote from 18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A):
to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;
Clearly what Austin did, provide information about explosives within the context of causing harm to others with said knowledge, falls under this law.
From the information that I have available it seems very apparent that Austin did commit crimes under current US law.
Now had Austin removed suggestions for use of this bomb making knowledge and just presented it in a separate, straight-forward format, he could not be charged under 18 USC 842.
However, he still defaced some sites and thus is still in violation of 18 USC 1030.
Remember, IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward to me. No freedom of speech issue here.
Re:This isn't about freedom of speech or linking.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a search warrant! (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you don't realise, this is where the police make up some plausible sounding stuff, go to a friendly judge and get him to rubber stamp it. Then they execute the warrant in an attempt to find some real evidense that will stand up in an actual court. In this case despite removing all the computers, books, and documents in his house they found nothing. Which is why he wasn't immediately charged with anything. In the end they were forced to fall back on the linking to information on explosives (18 USC 842) and scare him with threats of 20 years in jail into pleading so they never had to present any evidense at all. He has only been convicted under 18 USC 842 and therefore I think we can safely assume that the computer fraud stuff was just something they used to pad out their search warrant with. This is purely an issue of free speach (linking to information the US government doesn't like) since that is the only thing he has been convicted of.
raisethefist.com archived (Score:5, Informative)
Prohibiting sedition: A fine American tradition (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't remember the name, but I think there was another act prohibiting advocating the violent overthrow of the government passed during the Red Scare, around 1917.
The Patriot Act is only the latest iteration of this.
Re:Prohibiting sedition: A fine American tradition (Score:4, Interesting)
They also found it unconstitutional.
and we should feel sorry for this guy because?? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, this guy did quite a bit more than that. He hacked into people's computers. He hacked into military computers. This constitutes a clear and obvious case of what is analagous to tresspassing -- violating another person's property (in the case of the military computers, violating the property of the US taxpayers).
This guy is clearly a danger to those around him. If he doesn't like some government policy, or the governmnet itself, fine. He can criticize as harshly as he wants. However, unless his rights are directly threatened, he can't take up force. What if this nutcase reads something one of you wrote, and decide that he doesn't like what you believe in, or doesn't like you, so that -- he thinks -- gives him the right to hack into your computer and fuck up your data?
So, why exactly is it that we're supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Maybe the punishment is a little out of line with the crime. 4 months in prison was recommended; the judge gave 1 year. But justice is an inherently subjective, not objective, matter. Trying to nail down the "just" sentence to within a couple of months -- or maybe even years, in the case of more severe crimes -- is a matter of art, not science.
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Reds under the bed? (Score:3)
The same people also told me however, that they would not go on the record with their comments because they feared being labeled unpatriotic.
It seems that issue of patriotism has been raised to such importance in the USA that the government is now able to use it as an effective tool to silence any anti-government (pro constitution) sentiment by the people.
It's about time US citizens woke up and realised that they've been suffering the "thin end of the wedge" for some time now and if they don't remind the government (in a non violent manner) that they are elected to SERVE and not to rule then a powderkeg situation will result.
Surely the USA can learn from its own history -- doesn't anyone remember (or care to remember) the McCarthy years? Replace "communists" with "terrorists" and you'll find that, 50 years on, there's very little difference.
Link to warrant - this was more than just a link (Score:3, Informative)
He was accused of a lot of things... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you really think that, had they had *real* evidence to link Sherman to some of the other crimes he's been accused of here (vandalising websites, trying to incite racial violence, hacking military computers, etc etc), that the FBI and prosecutors would have only been recommending 4 months in prison, especially in the current political atmosphere? Doubtful, highly doubtful. I've read the complete sentencing recommendation information - if half of what they *thought* he *might* have done had been remotely provable, they would not have accepted a plea bargain.
Its also extremely easy to be charged with "disorderly conduct and failure to disperse" when you're at a political protest, whether you are committing a violent act or merely exercising your *right* to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. It happens all the time, and not just to "unwashed anarchists".
I have to admit, I'm biased - I'm a friend of Sherman's and know him to be not a frothing violent-tendencied lunatic, but one of the most gentle people I've ever known, who advocates self-defense against an increasingly-oppressive government. Considering his beginnings as a political activist (getting shot with rubber-coated steel shot while filming a MayDay parade turned police vs. civilian riot), I can't blame him.
No, I do not advocate violent overthrow of the state. My anarchism is simple idealism, a hope for utopia tempered with the knowledge that utopia means "no place" in Greek. But still - a girl can dream, right?
I like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile there's very little news appearing on
Now hours later that same story is approved, and appears.
But over the last year I've noticed the rate of new stories has gone down, while at the same time
Now, mod me down. Some of the moderators are as useful as the editors.
Enjoy.
This is NOT a free speech issue (Score:3, Informative)
It shall be unlawful for any person-
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
We can teach how to blow each other up OR violently overthrow the government - just not both at the same time.
Simple... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. With few exceptions, all information (speech) is licit under our constitution--including things that would let you blow stuff up or overthrow the government.
2. So long as you do not get together with other and plan to *perform* a set of *actions* like assassinating someone at a given place at a certain time, you can talk about overthrowing the government to your heart's content.
3. Our notion of government is one where the people and the nation are in some sense the property of a ruling body; the ruling body serves the people and not vice versa.
In a population with a diversity of ideas, there will always be a number of people who will want not reform but revolution, and it is one of the functions of government to keep their numbers low by providing a free and prosperous society that is immune to revolutionaries because there are no viable, convincing arguments for a grass-roots revolution in such a society.
With this in mind, what the government did is like a crime against nature and it shows a sickening lack of understanding. In most cases, a few years of working a decent job and getting laid semi-regularly beats the anarchy right out of young men, instead, the government's activist stance here works to demonstrate that the kid's Anarchist, revolutionary philosophy is spot-on correct.
It says that our government can and does punish the dissemination of information it dislikes (mis-)using anti-terror laws to suppress free speech just like every modern dictatorship, from Hitler's Germany to the People's Republic of China. The only difference is one of extent--the placement of the threshold of action--and a prosecution sweetened by judicial blackmail does a lot to lesson the difference.
Another thing to consider is what it's going to do to the kid in the long run. It hard to imagine how much the kid is going to hate the system after spending what should be his sophmore year in college in a federal prison. Before, the kid wanted to talk about throwing bombs, in a year's time, maybe he'll end up wanting to do Timothy McVeigh one better.
You've gotta love it.
The Purpose of Government ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government. REPEAT: It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government.
Two things to remember in a raid... (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, if you're ever in a position where you're being interrogated, the answer to any question is always, "I want my lawyer." Never, under any circumstances, agree to anything unless you have first spoken to your lawyer. Oh, and here's a freebie... even if you have 25 heavily armed agents in riot gear storming your house, remember this piece of advice: right after you shit your pants, always ask to see their search warrant. No warrant, and they'll need to take that double-barrel shotgun elsewhere, thank you very much.
Hey, I remember this from last time it was possted (Score:3, Insightful)
As I recall, last time it was posted there was a great deal of outcry and outrage about how the police had raided him for the content of his website - only it turned out that hey, they raided him for cracking and defacing a number of (government) web sites. And they found explosives. But that wasn't mentioned, in the original story cause that would screw up the image of the government stomping on some poor, innocent anarchist who was only espousing his political beliefs. Lovely how nothings changed.
This is what's scariest... (Score:5, Insightful)
That to me sounds like they're encroaching on rights to freedom of political expression, without fear of reprisal by those in power (going back to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).
It's in the same ballpark as some corrupt african states where people either support the government, live as a political exile or face the prospect of being torured and/or killed.
Ok, so nobody is being tortured or killed in the USA (that's what happens in Cuba at Guantanamo, and a whole other kettle of fish), but this man's right to change the government should still be respected. We all have that right, whether we know it or not, we get to vote in another government if the current one makes a right pig's ear of the job.
The right to political activism and peaceful protest should be a given in any country that truly deems itself "free".
Not about Free Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
And by the way, overthrowing the US Government is one of those ideas that started with the brilliant Ben Franklin, who thought we shuold have a revolution once every 17 years or so.
Re:seriously screwed up action (Score:5, Insightful)
"links to bomb-making instructions, the site
caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the
overthrow of the U.S. government"
Last I checked...bombs weren't peaceful.
Re:seriously screwed up action (Score:5, Informative)
You could argue that the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theather" refinement the Supreme Court has added would also cover bomb making instructions, but I disagree. You can't shout fire because it would cause direct damage to people (stampeed). But knowing how to make a bomb and posessing instructions on how to make a bomb and even sharing those instructions/knowledge does not cause direct damage to other people. A person would have to choose to make that bomb and then use it to hurt others. Let me highlight that special word: choose. Having knowledge or sharing it is not the same as hurting someone directly.
Re:seriously screwed up action (Score:4, Funny)
I'm such the rebel.
Please don't tell on me.
Re:seriously screwed up action (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, oddly enough, he WAS arrested for being involved in a violent protest. On top of that:
He specifically admitted that his purpose for posting the links was a VIOLENT one. Inciting others to riot is an offense any way you look at it...
All that being said, the whole debate about legality, free speech, civil rights, etc. is a moot point - the 'gentleman' in question VOLUNTARILY gave up his right to a trial and plead guilty, so none of those questions could ever be addressed in a court of law. The punishment is based on what he plead guilty to, not the legitimacy of the charges. What did you expect the judge to do, force him in to a trial?
Re:seriously screwed up action (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, voluntary is a funny word. If I hold a gun to your head and ask for your wallet, and you give it to me, I haven't actually hurt you. You voluntarily gave your wallet to me. Of course, that 'voluntary' action was made under serious duress, hence it's not actually voluntary.
Now, if the FBI decided to charge me with a completely bogus crime, then said, "Plea now, or we'll make sure you get ass-raped by a rotating array of big, angry men every day for the next twenty years" -- well, suffice to say, I'd plea bargain.
When the government's got your nuts in a vice, you don't have very far to run.
The Founding Fathers on Violent Overthrows (Score:3, Insightful)
So did your founding fathers. Fucking Americans.
That's actually not true at all. The Founding Fathers were all for violent overthrow of governments, so long as the government in question wasn't a good one. Remember, they actually went and did that. In the Declaration of Independece, they wrote:
Re:seriously screwed up action (Score:5, Informative)
That is FUD (Score:4, Informative)
The conviction is for not deleting links to information on explosives that were posted to his site by someone else:
All this crap about hacking is obviously fake or they would certainly have convicted him of that too.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Remember, fascism and a police state doesn't come all at once, it comes piece by piece. How far will we allow it go until we are all locked up in concentration camps."
The government has basically forbid this guy from criticizing the system. I hope that this sends a message to everyone in the same situation to not plead down, and to raise as much hell as possible.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:3, Insightful)
See, I think there's a difference between "criticizing the system" and advocating the violent overthrow of the government and providing instructions on how to create weapons that will help you accomplish that goal. Do you honestly think this guy was locked up for merely saying "I disagree with this administration?"
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Insightful)
In most parts of the country it is now illegal to burn a cross. This is because in most cases the burning cross was effectively a death threat. It was speech, and might even be considered protected political speech under some circumstances, but it is also intended to dissuade people from excercising their rights through acts or threats of physical harm.
I have not read his website, but most descriptions in the articles listed here seem to indicate he was advocating the overthrow of the US government, and linking to bomb-making instructions. This could easily be interpreted as exhorting people to plant bombs to disrupt, what? Elections? Courts? I vote in a predominantly Republican area. If his friends, or some ELF or ALF types want to discourage people from voting GOP, would they set off a bomb in my precinct? (probably not, becuase mine is not nearly high-enough income to attract their attention, but its a useful thought experiment)
His motives are 'populist' and 'left-wing' and may be aligned with the motives of many here, but his actions are very similar to those of the folks out in western North Carolina who have just recently had to take down their 'Run Eric Run' signs from their front yards. He's not Eric Rudolph, but his actions are only different from some of Eric's supporters if you think along the lines of 'its OK for US, but not for THEM.'
This guy is in one of those nasty little gray areas that make public policy a difficult thing, but I do think its a bit easier to make these distinctions when you realize that 'those harmless kids who want to make the world a better place' are not so different from 'those neanderthal right-wing reactionary muther-f*$kers'. They use a lot of the same rhetoric that this guy uses. Just the book their quoting to justify their actions has a black cover, not a red one.
Remember, I'm not calling this guy Eric Rudolph. And certainly he shouldn't be given a 20 year terrorist sentence - indeed I think the judge was wrong for superceding the prosecutor's recomendation of 4 months. However, this guy was real close to the boundary between harmless and horrific.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shays' Rebellion was not peaceful protest, but armed protest. They didn't need to make bombs because they had muskets and/or rifles.
At Kent State, if you wanted to change the number of casualties from a handful to a statistic, the fastest way to do that would be to start lobbing bombs at the National Guard types. The ones who really were shooting over the heads of protesters would have started to take aimed shots, and if they didn't have someone holding a bomb in their sights, then they would have aimed at anyone not running away. And seeing a couple of guys down the line take shrapnel from a pipe-bomb, they probably wouldn't be to careful to check if they were running away.
In the modern government age, a better self defense against government brutality is well-drilled non-violence. You want sympathy on your side, and adolescent displays of bravado don't go over well with the American public (unless you're president). Ultimately if you really feel you're in need of armed resistance, you'd need to do that with a large contingent armed with rifles, not a few guys hurling pipe-bombs or molatovs.
Ultimately pipe-bombs, due to their indiscriminant area-of-effect nature, are most effective in instilling fear in the untrained, rather than breaking the ranks of well-trained police/military anti-riot groups. He's more likely to kill his friends than his enemies. Of course, his motives might be to demonize the cops by upping the death-toll at his rallies. If so, then
You have the right to kill a police officer if they are killing your people, shooting at your protest groups
I assume that you mean that the police officer in question is not being threatened with physical harm himself. There haven't been any fatalities in globalization protests since Italy, and in that case the officer in question was being threatened by a guy swinging a fire-extinguisher. When have live rounds been fired at protesters since Kent State?
Ultimately, his desired methods are too reminiscent of Greensboro (you know, when the Klan managed to 'respond to fire' from some black trade unionists) to gain much sympathy from me.
The 2nd Amendment is essentially the codification of the right to armed insurection, but bombs are bad tactics, and too likely to end up in innocent lives lost.
By the way. If there had been casualties among the National Guard types at Kent State, do you think it weigh on the national conscience like it does? Most people would assume that the bombs were thrown first. The Kent State protesters would have lost the moral high ground, and their deaths would have had half the impact. And there'd be a lot more deaths.
Never cede the high ground. You're out for popular opinion, and there's nothing like a ten-to-nothing casualty ratio to prove the cops shot first. If anyone had taken this guy's advice and started tossing bombs, he'd have gotten a bunch of protesters killed, and be seen to have justified the police brutality in the process.
Still not 100% sure he should have gone to jail, but his words are close enough to an exhortation to violence - a punishible act commonly used by the reactionary right (Klan and Operation Rescue et al) - that good people could disagree on his sentence.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am always suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, because they are almost always used to defend radical positions. The "slippery slope" argument usually says "we can not allow these modest, sensible, and moderate restrictions to $FREEDOM, because they will surely lead to fascist, insane, extreme limitations of $FREEDOM," and is applied to gun control ("take away our rocket launchers, and our hunting rifles will be next!"), abortion ("require that abortions be performed by medical doctors, and soon nobody will be allowed to perform them!"), religion ("look, any government with the power to say that I can't perform ritual sex acts on children can turn arround and say you can't drink sacramental wine!"), and speech ("once they are done rounding up all the people trying to incite violent revolt against the government, the publishers of Reason magazine had better watch their ass!")
It is also frequently used by the big-government extremists to hold on to powers they should not have; such as with drug laws, "If we legalize marajuana, then it's just a matter of time before they will have crack cocaine in convenience stores!" environmental protection, "If the people who want to log these 200 acres are allowed to win, soon they will be strip-mining Yellowstone Park!" and again, with abortion, "if you allow abortions in cases of rape and incest, then every woman who wants an abortion will just claim she was raped, so it will be the same as allowing all abortions!" You get the idea.
My point is, you almost never hear the "slippery slope" argument applied to defend a position which can stand on it's own merits, removed from the political ideology for which it was chosen as a battleground.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Past radical ideas like the end of slavery, female sufferage, social equality for non-whites, unionized labour, paid vacation and abortion rights? Good thing we're so much smarter today that ideas we consider radical couldn't possibly become basic rights tomorrow.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:3, Insightful)
ah yes. violent revolution has no place in america [historyplace.com].
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:3, Informative)
http://web.archive.org/web/20020826014358/www.r
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:3, Insightful)
All the same, the judge here is f*cked. I've agreed with some of his decisions in the past, he's not a totally loose cannon, but this is ridiculous; more time than the prosecutor agreed to so he could teach the kid a lesson? Does the judge think that if this kid spends more time around hardened criminals he'll learn respect f
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how that isn't protected speech. Lets be clear here. He wasn't plotting with particular individuals to carry out an act of terror or violence. He was saying that this goverment sucks and should be overthrown -- by violent needs if necessary. And should anyone think that's a good idea, then here's some information on how you can forward those aims.
Now I don't think what he's proposing is a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a liberal democrat by persuasion, not a revolutionary anarchist. But the one thing I'd always admired about the USA was the way that political free speech is protected by the constitution and if anything counts as political speech, this guy's website does.
The effect is that he's not providing the information out of general interest but he's intending that the information be used to create tools overthrow the government. Big difference there.
Perhaps that's true, but it isn't a difference that I thought was prohibited by law. Americans in this forum often go on about how you need the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. This case makes it pretty clear that even if you actually *had* a tyrannical government, the right to bear arms would be somewhat pointless because the ability to discuss with others the need to use them would render you liable to arrest and imprisonment.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoever wins the war would decide. If things got bad enough (as they did in the late 18th century and again in the middle of the 19th century) that a large-enough group of people start acting together to overthrow the government, they're hardly going to lock themselves up for advocating a violent overthrow of the government. OTOH, the odd crank or two (like the subject of this article) isn't likely to draw anywhere near the numbers of people needed for anything approximating a successful "revolution." He would've been better advised to work within the system. (He probably wouldn't have found adequate support for his radical views even that way, but at least he wouldn't be moldering away at Club Fed for the next year.)
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why for instance is it ok for GWB to advocate, and actually accomplish the overthrow of an atrocious government that he is not even a citizen of, whereas this fellow cannot even speak what is in his mind the only solution to repair the very government he lives it? The gov't must not have a monopoly on violence. Of all the groups, politicians are the least worthy to handle it.
Thought crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
WTF are you talking about? Oh yeah, you didn't RTFA. I'll summarize:
Not only did he have an anarchist's web site that linked to bomb making sites, AND he advocated overthrowing the goverment, but, and here's the kicker...
"Austin was arrested with other protesters at the World Economic Forum in New York in February 2002 on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. "
He wasn't just preaching.. he was practicing what he preached. Therefore, he posed a RE
Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you believe that the US WEF protesters were trying to commit sedition?
There is a huge difference between opposing certain policies of a government and attempting to overthrow it. ( A ridiculous possibility in the case of the US ).
Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
"Austin was arrested with other protesters at the World Economic Forum in New York in February 2002 on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. "
WTF are you talking about? Oh yeah, you didn't RTFA. [snip] He wasn't just preaching.. he was practicing what he preached. Therefore, he posed a REAL threat, not a virtual one.
It has become increasingly difficult to practice our freedom of peaceful protest, so don't be so quick to write this guy off as a "real threat".
I was at the WEF protest in NYC, too. Cops were turning some people away from the protest, pinning other people behind barricades and not letting them leave the protest, packing hundreds into some pens while leaving other pens with only a handful of people. Numerous people who disagreed were arrested. One cop nearly pushed me over when he hit me in the back with his club when I stopped to ask another cop for directions (politely) as we were leaving. . .
Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
And as for protesting, well, one, it says he was arrested, not convicted, and two, there's a bit of a difference between civil disobedience and throwing bombs.
Re:This is bullshit Huh? RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
He was convicted for a felony.
Nothing I read in the CNN article said he was convicted for anything else but providing links to sites that, among other things, had bomb making instructions.
The CNN article did NOT say he was advocating the use of bombs against the federal government.
Now, in typical hack-journo way, the CNN article might have failed to mention all the facts about this case, but if I have to go with the information provided by the CNN article, he was convicted of expressing unpopular thought.
There's probably more to the story, but if you RTFA, as you instruct, one can only assume John Asscroft is yet again managed to stiffle the freedom of speech in the name of national security.
[I will resist the temptation of putting my usual
Re:Free speech is one thing, treason is another (Score:4, Insightful)
Advocating political change is what freedom of speech is all about. If you haven't got that, then your current government is not worth preserving.
Re:This is *no* bullshit (Score:3, Funny)
Here you go:
1. Buy gun.
2. ???
3. Dead president!
Come get me.
Re:Sounds fair to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or is it just people who verbally advocate murder that you'd jail? Like, say, anyone who says we should kill Saddam Houssein if we find him?
Please post a complete list of the opinions that you believe it should be illegal to express.
Cheers
-b
Re:Sounds fair to me... (Score:3, Interesting)
He was also a violent protestor, and that was what he was originally arrested for.
If his site said "Kill all racial group X" and linked to pages telling people how to make and deliver bombs, I'd want it shut down and the owner in jail, too.
I wouldn't. People can spout of everything they want to. If someone uses the knowledge from him, he should be tried as an acomplice and also part of conspiracy to commit a crime.
This kid
Oh you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a healthy reminder, though... (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess what? No matter how much you ban or censor, idiots are still going to find a way to kill themselves or others.
Re:It's a healthy reminder, though... (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting there - The effectiveness of wearing pedestrian helmet while walking from home to school in elementary school children [magma.ca]
Re:Actually, Doubleplusgood. (Score:3, Interesting)
Advocating change through violence - bad.
Beyond advocating change through violence, this kid was also advocating hate and rasicm. Now while I am all for change and advocacy, this kid is a jerk and belongs in jail for a little while for being a script kiddie, being an advocate for violence and racism and hate, and being criminally stupid.