Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Raisethefist.com Update 467

Posted by michael from the free-as-a-bird dept.
d33l0w3 writes: "It looks like Sherman Austin is off the hook for now. For those of you who missed the previous slashdot posting, Sherman was arrested on Feb. 2 for the contents of his website raisethefist.com. This comes as more of a surprise than the FBI raid on his house." Just a couple of days ago, the government was planning to transfer him to California to face charges there, but now according to Newsbytes, those have been dropped. Read that link I just gave - there's quite a lot of interesting information that came out during the hearing. The attorney's concern about Austin being jacked around in "detention" for an indefinite period of time says a great deal about our judicial system.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Raisethefist.com Update More

Raisethefist.com Update

Comments Filter:

  • Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @05:58PM (#3015385)
    It has to be, or it doesn't work at all. It breaks done and ceases to protect anyone but those with 'popular' speech.

    In this case, it looks like there's a possiblity that he may have committed crimes... real crimes... such as vandalising websites.

    Everything else, posting bomb-making instructions, advocating the overthrow of the government, should be *strictly* protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

    • Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lazlo Nibble ( 32560 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:13PM (#3015461) Homepage

      Per my (IANAL) reading of 18 USC 842(p) they would have to prove his intent and or knowledge in publishing the information; that can be tricky to prove in court and may be part of why they dropped the charges.

      (2) Prohibition. - 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.

      It's always interesting to read the actual law when it gets cited in cases like this -- it really strips away the media bullshit. http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm [house.gov] is a good online resource...

      • http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm [house.gov] is a good online resource...

        This one [cornell.edu] is better because it lets you browse the entire USC and drill down through Titles and Sections as needed. Very helpful if you don't know exactly what you're looking for.

    • Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:21PM (#3015498) Journal
      Everything else, posting bomb-making instructions, advocating the overthrow of the government, should be *strictly* protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

      I agree. And before everyone posts 'It's not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre,' I'll justify your statement. The theatre yell directly harms people by the act itself. The speech aspect is secondary. On the other hand, when dealing with instructions for committing illegal activities, the speech is primary. And we assume the harm will be carried out by readers, who will then go on to commit crimes.

      But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?

      The entire concept of the First Ammendment is that the government will never have the chance to make any of those decisions. The protection works by fencing off a whole area of public life from legislation. Sure, everyone could think of one or two laws that would improve society, but it is not worth tearing down the fence to do it.

      • You're missing the critical point. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kikta ( 200092 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:45PM (#3015590)
        But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?

        The critical point is that somehing that is violent in nature is prohibited. Look at your examples. Civil disobediance instructions are one thing. I'm assuming you're refering to tactics used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi. Those aren't a problem, per se, and I doubt you would see a government agency trying to curb those type of instructions. Encryption is a diffucult issue, and I'm not going to dwell upon it, because that is a large can of worms in itself. Hiding money must be illegal, or you will have half the jackasses in the country not filing tax returns for "political beliefs", or some such bullshit.

        What I really take issue with is when someone implies or says that everything should be protected, due to that fact that the judgement of others may be incorrect or go too far. Well, welcome to a democracy, Bub. It's easy to sit there like an armchair quarterback and cry "foul" whenever the line is crossed. Yes, there will be mistakes and problems. Laws written by people and enforced by people always will be, by definition, imperfect. But to suggest that teaching people to engage in patently illegal, and especially dangerous, activites should be protected is BS. What if the government did nothing to stop it? Morons who want to build bombs or chemical weapons because they don't like the government ought to have easy access to this information? Is that really what you're suggesting? Think about it: That information is provided for a reason. This idiot kid wasn't putting up bomb instructions because he thought it would be a good thing for someone to know if the question ever came up in Trivial Pursuit. He wants to see the violent overthrow of the government. I know, hell, let's let them. Let the overthrow the government, and if we don't like it, then we can overthrow that one. And so on and so forth, until we plunge into total anarchy.

        Don't get me wrong, I think free speach is one of the most vital of our rights. But don't sit there and say that hard judgements and tough calls shouldn't be made, simply beacuse you fear the results. If you're really worried about it, join the FBI or the Justice Department and then someday you can be the one making the tough calls. Although, I suspect you'd end up explaining to a roomfull of reporters why a 6th-grader made mustard gas and unleashed it at his school with instrutions he downloaded from a website you didn't want to shut down. Your arguments are good ones, but you're not thinking to the next step: consequences. Thanks.
        • If you're really worried about it, join the FBI or the Justice Department and then someday you can be the one making the tough calls.

          As much as I'd like to be in control of a police state...

          American democracy is sucessful because it is not a pure democracy. (And I'll avoid repeating Goldwater's now cliched statement because it annoys me to hear people misuse it, even if it is true.) Our constitution limits democracy incredibly. One of the limitations is the First Ammendment. We, the People, cannot, even through our elected representatives make laws to limit speech. (Well, 3/4 of the states could by ammending the constitution, but we couldn't by simple majority.) That violent speech distinction that you spoke of is not in the constitution. And once we feel free to ammend or ignore parts of the First Ammendment whenever we feel like it, it isn't much of a guarantee anymore. Re-read the last paragraph of my post to which you replied.

        • tactics used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi. Those aren't a problem, per se, and I doubt you would see a government agency trying to curb those type of instructions.


          October l9, l960... Martin Luther King is jailed after being arrested at a sit-in at a lunch counter in Atlanta.


          April l2, l963... Martin Luther King is arrested and jailed (for the thirteenth time) during a march in Birmingham, Alabama.


          March, l965... Martin Luther King and the SCLC begin a voter registration campaign in Alabama. Civil rights protesters attempting to march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama, are beaten by state patrolmen.

          As for Ghandi

          November 1913 Third satyagraha campaign begun by leading great march of 2,000 Indian miners from Newcastle across Transvaal border in Natal. Arrested three times in four days (at Palmford, Standerton, and Teakworth) and sentenced at Dundee to nine months imprisonment; tried at Volksrust in second trial and sentenced to three months imprisonment with his European co-workers, Polak and Kallenbach. Imprisoned in Volksrust jail for a few days and then taken to Bloemfontein in Orange Free State.

          Amongst others...

      • still not right. (Score:2, Informative)

        by ctimes2 ( 38940 )
        If you promise to car-jack the first black SUV on 5th ave and main street with a 9 mm handgun at noon, and are then caught standing on 5th ave and main at noon with a 9 mm handgun, your freedom of speech is kind of secondary to the fact that you're a dangerous moron with a gun.

        The moron had a molotov cocktail in his car, along with a gas mask and shield, after he stated pretty clearly on his website what he intended to do with it.

        The fact is, he promised or at the very least inferred that he was going to commit a violent act. The website is just testimony to that fact, it's not a freedom of speech issue.

        Ctimes2
      • Is it really illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and if so, why?

        Aren't theatres subject to fire codes? What is the point of the signs that say "Maximum Occupancy X People"? I suppose that a theatre should be able to take civil action against someone who disrupts their operations if it costs them money. However, if yelling "Fire" would actually cause people to get hurt then the local fire marshall isn't doing his/her job.

        Public buildings are supposed to have adequate exits such that everyone can get out safely in the event of a real fire. I don't see why someone yelling fire falsely would provoke more panic than a real fire. I've always thought this "yelling fire in a theatre" line was a red herring in the whole free speech discussion.
    • The statement in the subject line is so absurd that it probably doesn't deserve a reply. Anyway...

      It has to be, or it doesn't work at all.

      Try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Report back to us what happens when you do.

      Probably the only thing that's absolute is that there are no absolutes. For instance, just because I'm an advocate of the individual right to keep and bear arms as provided in the Second Amendment, that doesn't mean that I think convicted felons or the mentally incompetent should be able to possess firearms. Likewise, if you put up a website that advocates violence or armed revolt, you can expect to be bitchslapped by the authorities. Hard.

    • Freedom of speech is an absolute, eh? So, that means that if someone gets your credit card number and prints it in the newspaper, it's OK with you?

      -jon

  • The attorney's concern about Austin being jacked around in "detention" for an indefinite period of time says a great deal about our judicial system.

    What does it say about our judicial system, exactly? And how is the following (from the government's lawyer) 'jacking around'?

    What Your Honor can and should in this case order is that the defendant be removed expeditiously and that the marshals bring Mr. Austin home to face the charges pending in the Central District of California, and permit that court, who knows him best, where the evidence is located, and where Mr. Sherman Austin's family is located, to make the ultimate determination about whether he should be detained pending trial. Thank you, Your Honor.


    • It can take up to six weeks to get a detainee from NY to LA. Usually there's a stop in Oklahoma City on the way. Not a pleasant place to be if the FBI are claiming you had fertilizer in your car (he didn't).

      • Right, which is why before they could do it they had to get a court order with lawyers from both parties present. I'm not really sure how the system could work better in these cases--there are some prisoners who present enough of a public danager that they need to be kept in detention while they are transported to a different jurisdiction. On the other hand, in many judicial systems you can be shuttled back and forth indefinetly awaiting trial (or, under the glorious reign of Ashcroft, if you aren't a US citizen you can apparently be thrown in an oubliette awaiting an immigration hearing).
    • You've cited the defense attorney

      to which the prosecution, Mr. Hou, replies (in part):


      HOU: The conjecture that somehow this defendant will end up in Oklahoma City in a county jail where those folks there have obviously
      suffered great harm is ridiculous, quite frankly.

      THE COURT: Mr. Hou, I believe that the practice used to be, when a -- that the marshals on Rule 40 cases and on removal cases,
      that inmates -- or that detainees were brought to a hub, that all of them throughout the country were brought to a hub, and then from
      that hub sent to their respective destinations. Is that still the case, do you know?

      MR. HOU: That's my understanding, Your Honor.

      THE COURT: And do you know where that hub is?

      UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (m): It's El Reno, Your Honor.

      MR. HOU: I have no information about that.

      MS. TIPOGRAPH: El Reno is in Oklahoma, Judge.

      MR. HOU: I have no information.

      MR. HOU: But, Your Honor, we could make special arrangements --

      THE COURT: No, that's all right.

      MR. HOU: -- for this defendant to be shipped forthwith to California. I don't believe -- I believe that there are direct flights, non-stop
      flights, between New York and California.


      But of course later on, we read in the Newsbyte story that he was in custody for almost 2 weeks now, and he did, in fact, go to Oklahoma, and will only be realeased in the "near future".

      Now, unlike his treatment in New York (no calls, no heating, no clothes for 4 days) he didn't report any mistreatment in OK, but you have to treat the govt's assertions as disingenous. Please read the transcript on cryptome.

  • Free Speech my ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Count ( 107594 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:00PM (#3015395)
    He admitted to hacking websites

    "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.

    In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. " -newsbytes

    book him! He was not busted for his anti-american website he was raided cause he's a stupid script kidde. I love how they throw some guy who lives in another country, with a wife and a family living under rules that makes what he does NOT illegal, giving a speech in America in jail and makes him an example but lets this little punk off.

    • Re:Free Speech my ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rupert ( 28001 )
      Too bad he got off. I think he deserves some punishment. 9 days in an unheated cell wearing only a tshirt seems like punishment enough. Too bad they didn't try his case before punishing him. At least it's warm in Guantanamo.

      If the FBI really had found fertilizer in his car and Molotov cocktails in his apartment, as they claimed, do you think they'd be letting him go?
      • It seems they let self described innocents walk. Most likely, they are building the case against him and will visit him about six months from now. You'd be surprised at how obsessed criminals are with their passion. Only to be arrested again...but for good:

        That's what they did to my uncle who used his chemistry degree to make "the finest drug lab" according to the state marshals. He declared his right to make drugs was religious freedom and that he was a "scientist." Uh huh. Well, the EPA, FBI, and the DEA made the trip again several months later and it looked pretty sad that he had set up his glassware shop and fresh drugs again. He now practices religion with his court ordered gold membership in the Leavenworth Country Club. Society doesn't miss him.
  • He admitted to hacking sites, the government can get him on that. Don't know why they haven't though. Would like to read more, but you bastards already /.ed it.

    *growl*

    someone please paste article...

  • Is this a Michael story? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by legoboy ( 39651 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:04PM (#3015413)
    I just checked, and of course it is...

    Raisethefist was an idiot anarchist website advocating the violent overthrowing of the US Gov't. Therefore, defending this punk is foolish. However, he wasn't raided because of the website. Freedom of expression rights remain intact.

    He was raided because he hacked into a number of US government webpages, replacing their front pages with a pointer to his own website. The government agents were heavily armed due to his presented stance on raisethefist. Hell, if it takes assault rifles to retrieve little Elian, it obviously takes a LOT of assault rifles to raid a soi-disant violent anarchist.

    Really, now. Are probable 18 year old script kiddies really worth our time?

    • Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chuut-Riit ( 48419 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:17PM (#3015481) Homepage
      I agree, this guy is probably a script kiddie, and in this particular instance, he may deserve to be prosecuted. But you paint with a broad brush.
      For one thing, not all anarchists are out building bombs and assassinating archdukes. Anarchism is not idiocy. It may not be viable, because it presumes that people will act as mature adults. But it does provide a useful counterpoint to the totalitarian police state that the U.S. is becoming.

      Why is it foolish to defend someone's right to advocate violent overthrow of the government? Isn't that exactly what was advocated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence? Is the current government of the U.S., led by a President whose election was of questionable legitimacy, any more overbearing, unresponsive, and corrupt than that of George III?

      • Re:Is this a Michael story? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No, the issue is that this fuckwit cracked web sites and left his fingerprints all over them. The only reason not to arrest him would be that he is obviously too stupid to learn from a correctional system. What he really needs is a damn good beating (but he probably got that - and now he knows what "bitch" in the jail sense really means).

        Anarchism is not idiocy

        Well, it is. And it's also the privilege of the middle class to pretend (a) that they know what it is and (b) that they would like it if they lived in one. It's something that most people grow out of.
    • Really, now. Are probable 18 year old script kiddies really worth our time?

      IMO, yes, they are worth our time because if we don't influence them now while they are young, they will grow up to cause even more damage.

      If parents would try harder to properly raise their children, a lot of our social problems would go away. Until then, we, as society, must strive to properly influence the "bad" kids.

  • What petroleum products, specifically? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:05PM (#3015420)
    > THE COURT: Were there completed Molotov cocktails found?
    >
    >12 MR. HOU: There were two Molotov cocktails that were in various states of finality. There was one which actually had the wick in it, I understand, from the FBI agent, and it was tested. The materials were tested to determine what was inside, and it was later determined -- the FBI determined that it did contain petroleum products.

    Note that they don't specify which petroleum products were used.

    With a name like "raisethefist", it could have been "petroleum jelly". Exactly what that petroleum product would be doing on a bottle is left as an exercise for the goatse.cx guy.

    So he (ahem :) got off. He's still a skr1pt k1dd13. A lucky skr1pt k1dd13, probably the luckiest skr1pt k1dd13 on the planet, and a hell of a lot luckier than he has any right to be. But a skr1pt k1dd13 nonetheless.

    • I have a canister of 87 gas in my garage? Can that be considered a unlicensed ultra sized molotov cocktail?

      What about Special Edition crown royal that is wrapped in cloth, can that be considered unlicensed molotov cocktail in late stage of development since alcohol is flamable?

      Biggest Molotov cocktail to date: Boeing 737 and the people that used it are still at large :(

  • Freedom of Speech, and threats against Olympics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by strredwolf ( 532 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:07PM (#3015429) Homepage Journal
    Has anyone read through the article? The FBI's confiscated the computers, and they contain letters plotting to take on the Olympics, maybe in a form of domestic terrorism. They also confiscated some items they say were bomb-making materials. Free Speech doesn't cover making your point with explosives!

    • There are ten ammendments in the Bill of Rights (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:24PM (#3015515)
      True, that is covered by the right to bear arms, also a constitutional right, covered in the second ammendment.

      Please note that 'arms' is a generically unlimited term. The current focus on guns is a bit of legal slight of hand. Here in NY state I can walk down Main Street with a rifle and I am in within my legal rights, but the *possesion* of a wrist braced *slingshot* is a felony. This is unconstitutional, but who has the 10 years and $50K to fight it?

      One also might wonder just how one goes about 'regeistering' a Molotov cocktail with the
      FBI.

      Comes to that, my local supermarket is crammed full of petroleum products and explosive devices.

      What are they going to do next, ban exothermic chemical reactions?

      KFG

    • They also confiscated some items they say were bomb-making materials
      all of which was in question by the defendants attorny, and from reading it, I doubt they existed.

      Oh, and If I was going to a protest, I'd bring a gas mask.
      It seems to me YOU didn't read the court report.

  • Why this again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chrisw15 ( 230370 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:09PM (#3015444)
    If you go back and read the previous discussion on this, most of the posts were in favor of this guy getting slammed. Why try and bring up support for this guy again? It's obvious it didn't work the first time and that most people here think he should be punished.

    • This guy should be slammed. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:41PM (#3015571)
      for what he *did,* not what he said.

      There is a distinct difference.

      If everyone who ever said "I'll kill you" was guilty of murder we'd all be on death row.

      Possesion of petroleum products would also see most of us behind bars.

      Most of us have never defaced a website with malice aforethought.

      He ought to get bitchslapped for that. Yes. And hard. Like. . .$100 fine and 40 hrs. community service.

      KFG

    • Re:Why this again? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Angst Badger ( 8636 )
      It's obvious it didn't work the first time and that most people here think he should be punished.

      The kid should get whatever he deserves under the law, within the limits of what's left of the Constitution -- I don't think anyone can make a serious argument against that. However, it would be equally difficult to make a serious argument that this isn't just grandstanding on the part of the Federal government, taking advantage of the public's bin Laden-induced cerebral paralysis to persecute anyone they can get away with while no one's too concerned about civil liberties. A parallel could be drawn to the John Walker Lindh case, where an individual who is arguably pledged allegiance to and is a citizen of Afghanistan is being tried for treason as an American citizen.

      It's actually fascinating to see Americans, who have for fifty years chafed under political movements aimed at suppressing all forms of public hatred, suddenly unleash all that pent up nastiness on Moslems, Arabs, random nutballs (like this guy), and legitimate domestic dissidents as soon as something like 9/11 makes them feel like they have an excuse to behave like inbred, semiliterate rednecks with a cross to burn. I don't suppose it should be any great surprise to see the beast that lies under the thin veneer of civilization, but I always thought it would take a deeper scratch.

      I wonder how long before we have something like Orwell's "Five Minutes Hate" for Goldsteinism. Oh wait -- that's CNN.

  • Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nesneros ( 214571 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:09PM (#3015445) Homepage
    Poor Sherman has no reading materials, perhaps they should give him a copy of Atlas Shrugged or Eat the Rich.

    Fortunately, they're only dropping the charge of posting explosives information (which is a crock, and definately a violation of his free speech rights), but hopefully they'll still send him up the river for his defacement of corporate websites. If I spray paint "Flander's sucks" on my neighbors house, I'm either going to pay a fine or go to jail. Same goes for someone's website. Of course, I wouldn't expect a "self-described" anarchist to give a damn about individual property rights.

  • May I suggest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SamBeckett ( 96685 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:12PM (#3015456)
    That instead of reading the articles, you read the court hearing instead. It provides *both* sides of the story, as well as the Judge's comments.
    • I agree. I read the court transcript (and not the stories).

      Seems to me this script kiddie is an idiot and should be tried and convicted of defacing the property of others.

      Seems to me also, that the prosecutor and FBI agent in this court hearing are not all that concerned with his real crimes. They want to whip everyone into a frenzy about his intentions to blow up stuff, even though, as near as I can tell from the transcript, most of it they presented was wildly exaggerated or outright fabricated.

      Typical. If they really thought he was as dangerous as they now are claiming, why wasn't he arrested when the executed their search warrant?

      Don't misunderstand. I have no desire to defend the tripe on his website. But I don't see an idiot-exclusion clause in the First Amendment.

  • Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JonKatzIsAnIdiot ( 303978 ) <a4261_2000&yahoo,com> on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:13PM (#3015464)
    Anyone who willfully destroys the work of another (commonly called vandalism) deserves to spend some quality time with Bubba at your local criminal processing facility. The fact that this infantile punk is back on the street says more about the justice system than anything else in this case.

    Does anyone else find it just a little ironic that this loser is using the Internet (created by government, propagated by corporations), to spew anti-government and anti-corporate rhetoric?

    • deserves to spend some quality time with Bubba

      Who mods this crap up?

      Web defacement is NOT justification for prison rape. Prison rape is an unconscionable atrocity.

      You may not like the guy, but even in an eye for an eye system you don't rape someone for defacing a web site. Get a soul.

    • Irony? Irony is advocating anal rape as a fit punishment for virtual vandalism.

  • Radical anarchists (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zoombah ( 447772 )
    I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike.

    On February 3rd of this year, the New York Times had a picture of a teen with grungy clothes and long hair being arrested for inciting an out-of-control protest at the WEF. That teen, Chris Villanella, used to attend my middle school. Back in 8th grade, he was your everyday dirty hippie in the making. Because of his poor grades and general misdemeanor, he was to leave the school in 9th grade. Eventually, he became a habitual drug user, was kicked out of his home, and somehow ended up as the leader of an anarchist 'black block' protesting at the WEF.

    Though he says that the protest was completely peaceful and lawful, he marched his 'block' (mob?) with 20 riot shields, obviously disturbing the police forces there. After his block was broken up and he after he was placed under arrest, he was detained with his comrades in a filthy bus. After about 24 hours, they started rocking the bus, breaking windows, and causing general havoc. He was later moved to jail, and was eventually rescued by his parents (after they saw him on the front cover of the newspaper).

    Of course, now he thinks that he's some sort of fucking hero who endured the oppression of our totalitarian government. He and his cell-mates are going to write a collective essay on their experiences. Considering that they haven't had one full year of high school combined, I can only imagine what kind of tripe they'll be pushing.

    I see the Raisethefist guy in the same light. Fine, he's some guy running a webserver with anarchist material directing against the Feds. Now that he's been detained for 'absolutely no reason', he'll try to put all the blame on the Big Bad Government. Anyone else see why this is *really* lame?

    I don't like anarchism, but anarchists are even fucking worse.

    • Mod this Moron Down! (Score:5, Informative)

      by mr_don't ( 311416 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:49PM (#3015610)

      Are radical anarchists all alike?

      Surely you are too busy poking fun at your former high school classmates to attempt to understand where anarchist ideas of society are comming from. Try reading Chomsky [spunk.org], Emma Goldman [tripod.com], or Anarchist People of Color [illegalvoices.org]. These voices will probably expand your view of anarchy more than the image of your classmate. (By the way, what the hell were you doing in 9th grade cool guy? Were you the like Emilio Estevez in the Breakfast Club? Maybe you were like the Fonz? Naw, you were probably pimply and obnoxious, like everybody else that age!)

      I attended the WEF protests and I can say (with much video to back this up) that it in no way was it out-of-control. In fact the police were acting in a completely unconstitutional manner, harassing the peaceful demonstrators (check out a Village Voice story about it here [villagevoice.com]). Those people who were arrested at the Saturday were arrested because they were carrying toy police equipment, not because they were doing anything illegal. I think the police thought that the plastic Toys-R-Us batons were going to be used for terrorism or something.

      By the way, if you knew anything about the WEF I am sure you would think twice about attending a protest against this unregulated group of businessmen. WEF members include BP Amoco, Exxon and Nike.

      Here is a blurb I found about BP Amoco:
      In addition to economically destroying the social structure of this once agriculture based society, BP financially supports the Colombian military which is notorious for its human rights abuses. Since 1987, 35,000 noncombatants have been murdered or 'disappeared' primarily by the BP backed military and its paramilitary allies. In 1997, BP admitted that it has provided the Colombian Ministry of Defense with $8 million.

      And Nike?:
      Nike pays workers less than $2 per day - an amount which is often significantly below a living wage.

      Get a clue dude. Who cares if your friend was dirty in 9th grade. You were probably picked on too. Fight some real battles, against jerk-offs like the WEF members. For more info about the WEF read this article [anotherwor...ssible.com].

      • Are radical anarchists all alike? [...snip...] Try reading Chomsky

        Yes. You are all alike. You all read fucking Chomsky.

        God, are you all so desperate for acceptance that you'd subscribe to a lunatic's ravings just to belong to a group?

        The only thing worse than Chomsky fanboys will be the Chomsky fanboys after he goes Tango Uniform. You addled idiots will never believe he choked on a fish bone, or whatever happens to make him assume room temperature. He'll be martyred in abstentia of facts. You'll be fucking insufferable then.

    • Re:Radical anarchists (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Wesley Everest ( 446824 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @07:16PM (#3015764)
      I hate to make generalizations, but these fascist "good citizens" are all alike. Back in the good old days, the Nazis liked to talk about how Jews were dirty and disgusting -- just look at how dirty their ghettos were.

      You ever stop to think why the bus was filthy, given that it was filled with dozens of protestors that were not allowed to use a toilet for at least 24 hours, never mind how many hours since before they were arrested.

      As for rocking the bus and breaking windows. Here in Seattle during the WTO protests, at least one bus full of bound protestors got the pepper-spray and tear-gas treatment. If you were in that situation, you'd be trying to kick some windows out pretty fast.

      I notice nowhere in your post did you say that this guy was ever convicted of anything. As for him claiming about being detained for "absolutely no reason", did they ever even file charges against him? Here in Seattle, most of the hundreds of people arrested never had charges filed against them. You might say if you are arrested, that the charge against you is the "reason" you were arrested. If there is no charge, then, legally, there isn't much a reason, is there?

      Some would say being a dirty hippy and disagreeing with the government is reason enough to arrest someone, I'd hate to jump to conclusions about your particular political ideology, though.

    • I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike.

      But you do it so well. Really, you have no idea what you're talking about. What, one guy you know from middle school? Give me a break. I know about six or seven people who went to the WEF; three were arrested.

      One of my friends that was arrested was for unlawful conduct, loitering (yes, loitering), and unlawful assembley--at a permitted march. I will rephrase that for clarity: he was arrested for unlawful assembley at a permitted march. The cops targeted the group of people he was with--anarchists. They weren't doing anything, just marching.

      This friend was actually in jail with Sherman, who was released without any charges--and was promptly picked up by the Feds.

      Oh, and this friend of mine has a masters in Geology, and is working on his doctorate in history of science and technology.

      But hey, they're all the same, so it doesn't matter.
      • doctorate in history of science and technology

        Which means he can what, write encyclopedia articles? Having a doctorate in a bullshit topic isn't proof of anything other than there being too much money available for college scholarships.

        -jon


    • "I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike. "

      Yeah like the radical anarchists who founded the united states of america. You hate to make generalizations yet you do so because you know ONE person who you have some beef with.

      You know, protesting, and preparing for being assaulted because of the protesting (carrying shields) is not illegal nor is it a sign of anything more then wanting to have your voice heard despite the physical danger inherent in speaking up.

      I dont know enough about this kid or his intentions but I do know that from the court record of this particular hearing, he was being held based on his practicing his first ammendmant rights. The judge used the statements on his web page to make that decision, not any of the evidence presented by the fbi. Of course, I don't think that the first ammendmant exactly applies in this hearing since it was not a trial, it was simply a hearing to determine this fitness of the accused to abide by a court order. And his statements made on the web page are decidedly against this.

      However do not judge a person based on some stereotype you have in your head based on VERY limited experience in this matter. If it weren't for people doing similar things to what you find so abhorant, we'd still be a british colony.

  • Evidence of government incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pyramid termite ( 458232 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @06:22PM (#3015511)
    1. They don't know fertilizer from potting soil.
    2. They can't tell wires, a gas can and duct tape from implements of mass destruction.
    3. They can't transport a suspect across the country in less than six weeks - not only could he beat that with a car, he could beat it with a bicycle for Pete's sake.
    4. They can't arrange a change of clothes or a shower for a prisoner in four days.
    5. They can't tell a snotty mouthy kid from a terrorist.
    But don't worry - we're safe because these people are protecting us. Hah. And don't worry about them violating your civil liberties - these clowns couldn't organize a drunken party in a beer factory.

    Your tax dollars at work. Sheeesh.
  • After reading that court transcript in full, it's scary how much weight his website writings had in regards to the way the judge percieved his character as a "flight risk". I'm certainly not saying he wasn't guilty of other things but it seems that the defending attorney definately had a point when she said that he hadn't acted in violence at all.
    Every time one of these web site related cases arises it's as if the ideas of free speech and first amendment rights are evolving into nothing more than an illusion which, when extrapolated further, could also describe American democracy itself.
    I'm not anti-american by any means, i'm just saying people need to give these kinds of issues more attention.
  • Here is a copy of the site if anyone is interested:
    [archive.org]
    http://web.archive.org/web/20011218062013/www.ra is ethefist.com/index1.html

  • C'mon slashdot, this guy cracked into computer systems. He's in an unfairly prosecuted fringe group, but he also broke into other people's computers, that makes him a criminal.

    Of course, the FBI probably overdid it, and we absolutely NEED anarchists and the like to make sure the first amendment remains in effect, especially now after Sept.11. I hope his site was mirrored someplace, and ten new versions popped up for the one they took down.

    But I can't feel sorry for him. And I really don't know why /. thinks this is news, either way.

  • No censorship on Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sanity ( 1431 )
    I really don't think that Slashdot can hold the moral high-ground any more in issues of censorship given the increasingly well documented [slashdot.org] cases of Slashdot editors repeatedly "bitchslapping" comments which they claim are "off-topic" (often they are comments which are critical of the editors themselves - this one being a prime candidate for such a bitchslap).

    Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring [sethf.com] that website because people questioned his authority and he happened to control the domain (which he still does, censorware have been forced to set up shop at censorware.net because Sims is still squatting on censorware.org).

    The Slashdot editors seem to believe that they are justified in censoring comments which users clearly want to see (as shown by positive user moderation), and if anyone doesn't like it, they should go somewhere else.

    Of course, they are right, but their attitude suggests that they believe they are what are valuable about this website, not the users who share their knowledge and opinions in these forums.

    Is this comment "off topic"? I challenge the editors to let the readers of this website decide.

    • Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring ...
      Small clarification: I'm careful never to use the word censoring in connection with What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

      You'll note the word censoring isn't in the essay. In this context, it makes for too easy a target, for a distracting high-noise side-argument of getting into a definition-of-censorship debate.

      I talk about the corruptions and temptations of the power of journalism, and similar issues. Note I'm not the only person who has such a view of Michael Sims' actions. For example, Jonathan Wallace's account [yahoo.com] corroborates mine.

      But there is a deep irony here (and my message is not completely off-topic). The destruction of censorware.org did (and still does) a lot of harm to the cause of promoting freedom of expression. More personally, I was just musing that were I to find myself in legal trouble for free-speech work, as other programmers have [eff.org], I sure hope I'd get as much favorable press as has been given to the raisethefist guy. It is one of my biggest worries that Michael Sims, yes that Michael Sims, the poster of the story, would further abuse his editorial position at Slashdot, behave in a spiteful manner similar to how he has done in the past with censorware.org, and make my legal position worse, out of score-settling revenge.

      Given how Michael Sims behaves, I think it's an extremely reasonable worry.

      And there is the irony for you.

  • And should be treated as such, even if he didn't do the popular thing and smash Starbucks windows. That he got away with it is the injustice here.
  • This guy gives a bad name to good Anarchists, I mean the way to do it isnt violent direct action, even Che reckognized in the US thats not the way to go. It is I belive through the massive expansion ov goverment services to no particular end, they will suffocate under their own bloat and meanwhile create a pressure within the population that cannot be contained. Lead thm on wild goose chases whilst doing nothing illegal, pass large amounts of heavily encrypted data of say teletubbie pictures to iranian or iraqui email address, this would be fun, tie the iraquis up doing nothing particularly usefull and at the same time make the NSA and the FBI and CIA spend X amount of man hours to no avail, youvedone nothing illegal, but given enough useless crap when it comes time fro budget review I can see it now. 'Senator X to the Director FBI' >>
    Did you sir spend 40 million dollars decrypting certain encrytped communications ?

    'FBI:Uhhhh Yes sir,'

    'Senator; WHat was in those documents'

    'FBI: Uhhhh Digital imagrey of a highly contreversial nature'

    'Senator X, You mean sir pornagraphic depictions of teletubbies dont you'

    'FBI: Uhuh'

    But seriously did you read the transcript and feel like you were reading a lost Laurel and Hardy script.

    Ms. TIPOGRAPH (sounds like typograph, a neccesity in any legal document:)

    Agent Kuhn (Agent Coon, cousin to secret squirrel)

    Mr Hou (Hows who on first)

    This kid broke the law directly, molotov cocktails, hacking an defacment. Too bad he couldnt just stick to information he'da been a martyr, well maybe but at worst a malcontent.
  • It's clear the government was completely full of shit about the bomb-making materials and simply used them to concoct a reason to arrest this guy and hold him. Sitting here at my desk thinking about it for a moment I realized that in my house alone are enough "bomb-making" materials to blow an entire apartment building to hell, if constructed properly.

    (If you have a solid background in basic chemistry, then you know just how easy it is to brew up something deadly.)

    I suppose if I ever get arrested for saying something the government doesn't like they'll scream to the high heavens about all those nasty "terrorist tools" I had tucked away. You know: empty beer bottles that need to be recycled, bags of fertilizer for the back lawn and garden, various economy-sized jugs of cleaners bought in bulk, and so forth. With that much ammunition on the government's side I'll spend the rest of my days rotting in jail....

    So nice to know that what few rights I have left don't matter for shit if Big Brother actually takes a dislike to me, in part because my fellow citizens will jump up and say "fuck the Constitution! Hang the terrorist son of a bitch!".

    Jefferson must be weeping in his grave.

    Max

  • He claimed to be a terrorist. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @07:24PM (#3015814)
    Here's a quote from this little darling, read by the judge:

    "Yeah, motherfucker, I'm a terrorist to the U.S. Government. I'm a terrorist to capitalism, not to innocent people. I'm a terrorist to the evil system that's terrorizing all of us. Fuck the Government.
    I hope they burn in fucking hell right back where they came from, motherfuckers. You can't fool all the people. We know your fucking style."

    Here is another quote read by the prosecutor:

    "We don't gather weapons, plan extreme operation, and risk our lives for nothing. This is real."

    So even if the guy isn't a terrorist, he is spectacularly foolish, why would anyone expect to write this and be ignored. It is a testament to his coddled spoiled existence that he thinks that this is acceptable behaviour.

    He doesn't need protected from the FBI, we need protected from him. He's a NUT, with aspirations to acts of extreme violence, including grandiose fantasies of using weapons of mass destruction against governments. I don't care if he meant what he said, I don't need to waste time worrying about it, if someone says this kind of crazy thing they should go to one of two places, jail or the nut house. I don't care which, but this isn't about speach, it's about unbridled threats of violence.

  • Talk about a contrast (Score:3)

    by msuzio ( 3104 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @07:24PM (#3015816) Homepage
    I just cannot believe the transcript. To hear the government talk, this kid is the next Tim McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden all rolled into one. They make him sound like a crazed lunatic who jumped into his Toyota and drove across the country to blow up New York... and might blow up the Olympics on his way back.
    Then his lawyer talked and basically trashed all those distortions. When she presented the facts, all of the sudden a totally different picture emerges. He's not some violent fugitive... he's up on some misdemeanor charges. He wasn't even charged with a felony.

    I think this is a preview of things to come... the government uses hyperbole and fear to push judges to smack down the most minor offenses. It's legal FUD.
  • Let me get this straight: he advocates using violence against the state to overthrow it, and then complains when the state returns the favor? Since when do anarchists belive in following rules?

    If he's a real anarchist, then shooting him should be perfectly legal. After all, he believes in the rule of the jungle. Guess that only applies for everyone but him.

    In the end, another rich, white crybaby. Big deal.

    -jon

    • If he's a real anarchist, then shooting him should be perfectly legal. After all, he believes in the rule of the jungle.

      1) That's not what many (most?) anarchists believe. Most don't view anarchism as a philosophy of government but as a meta-analysis -- i.e. How should we evaluate power? -- with the idea that as soon as some power structure is no longer absolutely necessary, then it should be dismantled. Anarchim is a process of constantly questioning and reevaluating how much power people cede to institutions.

      1a) Even if that is what they believed, it would not make shooting them "legal" or justifiable.

      2) Many believe in the "rule of the jungle" -- in some aspects. For instance, Reagan rejected the decisions of the World Court when the US was convicted of terrorism in Nicaragua (killing civilians, mining the harbors, etc.). Bush (jr.) violated international law by attacking afghanistan without a resolution in the UN Security Council, or even in the general assembly. That is also a form of anarchism, and by your logic, this means that it would be "legal" to shoot the entire Defense department and heads of government of almost all nations.

      3) But I suspect the real reason why you think shooting anarchists is ok has nothing to do with their perceived lack of respect for law and order. Several presidents and law enforcement organizations have routinely flouted and continue to ignore/subvert their own regulations and outside checks on their powers. So perhaps the deciding factor here is not anarchism but the fact that you find this person's views distateful, and so it's ok to shoot him, in which case you've more in common with him than you realize.

      • Re:He's an anarchist! (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by TWR ( 16835 )
        by your logic, this means that it would be "legal" to shoot the entire Defense department and heads of government of almost all nations.

        See, the thing is that someone already DID take a shot at the Defense Department. Happened in September. You might have heard about it. Since then, the US government's (and most American's) sense of humor isn't exactly too keen when it comes to people who talk about violently overthrowing the government.

        What you don't understand is that might always makes right. Now, the US government, by and large, uses its might for what I consider good purposes. It's not perfect, but as Churchill once said about democracy, it's better than any of the other alternatives, especially the ones espoused by this inbred.

        The US, BTW, did NOT violate ANY "international law" by attacking Afghanistan. It invoked its right to self-defense under the UN charter. And since the ability to make laws depends on the ability to ENFORCE them, who exactly is enforcing international law? I could proclaim myself Emperor of the World, but until I have some power to make my title respected, I'm just a kook with an old towel wrapped around my shoulders.

        It's amazing how much time people spend pissing and moaning about the behavior of the US, while ignoring countries like China and Syria, which flout UN resolutions all the time. The difference, of course, is that protesting on the streets of DC against the "fascist" US is safe, while protesting against China or Syria in downtown Beijing or Damascus will result in you finding yourself on the wrong end of a gun. I'm not impressed with crusaders going after easygoing targets.

        you find this person's views distateful, and so it's ok to shoot him, in which case you've more in common with him than you realize

        No, I don't mind people whose viewpoints are "distateful." I mind the viewpoints of people whose goal in life is to kill me and destroy the society I am a part of. Killing them before they kill me seems like a good idea, but I like myself, so that separates me from most liberals. I'm a liberal (in the classic sense of the word) who believes in self-preservation and the preservation of the things that I value.

        I say you have a guy who writes about the violent overthrow of the government, describes how to build weapons, and is found with weapons, you don't wait until he USES the weapons. Sane societies know how to recognize threats to themselves and react accordingly.

        -jon

        • See, the thing is that someone already DID take a shot at the Defense Department. Happened in September.

          Yes, and you seem to agree with their logic of "kill the anarchist". I disagree with this logic. Surprisingly enough, you use sept. 11 to support your argument, which reveals that it is not an argument at all, but merely vitriol. Read point 3 above.

          What you don't understand is that might always makes right.

          So you are an "anarchist" according to your definition of the term, and yet you think those who live by "The law of thew jungle" should be killed..

          The US, BTW, did NOT violate ANY "international law" by attacking Afghanistan. It invoked its right to self-defense under the UN charter.

          Shouting aside, that's just not true. The US made no such appeal to the UN charter. The reasoning from the state department was -- 'we are justfied in waging war on "terrorism" [an abstract noun, mind you] and don't need to appeal to the UN or any other international body.' Actually, the reason is simple. The charter allows countries to use force for self-defense only in response to an "armed attack". The phrase "armed attack" has meaning, and it must be on-going. So you cannot defend yourself against an armed attack after the fact. For example, if an army were to invade the US from Mexico, we could use force to repel that army. But we would not be justified in invading Mexico after the invading army was destroyed. Nor could we cite the UN Charter as a justification to bomb some other country (i.e. Russia) which trained or supported the invading army. You may not like it, but that is the defintion of armed attack which the US itself helped create when the UN charter was written. For these and other reasons, the state department never cited the UN charter as a justification for bombing of Afghanistan.

          I mind the viewpoints of people whose goal in life is to kill me and destroy the society I am a part of. Killing them before they kill me seems like a good idea,

          Yet again you make my point for me. It seems that you accede to my observation of your true motives if only the word "distasteful" is replaced by a stronger adjective. Yet it's this form of ideological justification of violence which you and your intellectual brethren in Al-quaeda use to support the killing of civilians.

  • The problem is, basically, these indictments tend to read:

    "The defendant is hereby charged with murder, rape, robbery, and being obnoxious".

    The prosecution does this because 1) They like to throw lots of mud and see if it sticks, and 2) Sometimes they hope that with the serious crimes, the judge or jury will pile-on the "being obnoxious" charge, and establish case law that can be used later against true enemies-of-the-state.

    Then the stories can be "Defendant charged with being obnoxious".
    And the web-discussion runs "If being obnoxious is a crime, we are all criminals. 1984, Orwell, Rand etc. etc."

    So the problem is that the "being obnoxious" charge often isn't the reason for the case itself. It's a kitchen-sink or mudslinging aspect. On the other hand, it is there, and the fact that the prosecution is trying for it still remains a problem. These situations sometimes aren't simple.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close