Comment analysis of the warrant, and insight from NY (Score 1) 883
the warrant and affidavit supporting it are here:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/
Now: my own analysis. (For credibilty: I am a lawyer. I am also a political activist. I was AT the WEF protests in New York.)
Yes, his website did contain information about making molotov cocktails, and a suggestion that they might be used for illegal purpose. However, it didn't even BEGIN to reach the constitutional standard for incitement (which, as another poster accurately pointed out, requires the danger be imminent), and should never have been censored. Especially by the forcible taking down of a website, which, in my mind, is equivalent to prior restraint in that it prevents future listeners from hearing the speech. (about as close to prior restraint as taking up published copies of a book and burning them. Not totally prior, but pretty prior.)
I might add that the Black Bloc is indeed a tactic, not an organization, and one based in safety from random police snatch-squads and fearmongering singling out, not in violence. 99.99 percent of the people who use that tactic are completely nonviolent, even if, on average, more militant than the rest of the movement.
Noone has accused anyone of bombing anything in NY.
In fact, the arrests at the protests in NY were total and complete jokes. On Saturday, there was a permit for the major march (there were others) and there was not a single crime committed, with the possible exception of littering. Yet the cops made some 25-40 arrests by on-the-spot counts. On Sunday, the cops made the other couple of hundred, and all of peaceful, nonviolent protestors, almost all for nonsense crimes like blocking the sidewalks or disorderly conduct. Or my personal favorite, the totally oxymoronic (given the First Amendment) crime of "unlawful assembly."
I know, I was there, marching with them on Saturday, and also at the spokescouncil meetings of the group on Saturday and Sunday, and also getting news from the participants on Monday's events. ("No, Senator, I am not a communist.")
Only 1 window was allegedly broken. (I say allegedly because there were also reports of provocateurs.) No other serious crimes have even been alleged, except those committed by the cops. My guess, based on the estimates of various sources, was that there were 15,000 activists in New York at the time. Look at that ratio for a minute. How many other groups of 15,000 people can you find who don't committ crimes? (Ignoring such idiotic crimes as violation of NY's unconstitutional mask law [in NYS, part of the loitering statute prohibits gatherings wearing masks except in masquerades licensed by cities that have licensing for them], and blocking the sidewalk/street)
Disorderly conduct = contempt of cop, and/or dissent.
Yet what does the corporate media focus on? Well, duh.
"When investigators raided his apartment Jan 24, they said they discovered a treasure-trove of mischief-making tools. In addition to computers, they found literature advocating revolution, gas canisters, iced-tea bottles filled with flammable material, gas masks and an anarchist flag. Austin's car contained fertilizer, cans of brake fluid and two gas canisters."
Since when are
literature advocating revolution
gas masks (often brought by protestors because the cops indiscriminately gas people)
and anarchist flag[s]
"mischief-making tools?" Haven't those morons in the corporate press ever heard of the First Amendment?
A friend of mine (support her: http://www.thewalkfordemocracy.org) brecame an activist because she was at Seattle. A normal citizen, she was taking her groceries home, and was gassed by random cops. A door opened in her mind. Gas masks, especially, are perfectly reasonable equipment at a protest.
Item "c" of the warrant is particularly scary. Authority to search for any document about the WEF or IMF? What??? Of course, that's not as scary as g(iii), giving the cops carte blanche to destroy encrypted information merely because it is encrypted. (Helloooooo, first amendment?)
Items 27, 29, 39[should be 38](a), 39(g)(ii), 41(h), 44(f), 45, 49(d), 50(e) and 50(f) of the affidavit are equally terrifying: now it's a crime to espouse "anti-government... messages," to attend protests in masks, and other protected political activity??? (See ESPECIALLY 41(h), 44(f), 45(e), 49(d), and 50(e) and (f), for the most obvious direct punishment by political opinion.)
In short: His arrest was 100% political. He's a political prisoner, of the kind Amnesty International is interested in. If they really wanted him for the hacking, they wouldn't have arrested him right before the protests, and all the political stuff wouldn't have been in the affidavit.
RISE UP AGAINST CAPITALISM! There. Now you have literature advocating revolution on your computer. Expect a visit from the FBI shortly.
-Paul Gowder (email changed to paul@paultopia.org)
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/
Now: my own analysis. (For credibilty: I am a lawyer. I am also a political activist. I was AT the WEF protests in New York.)
Yes, his website did contain information about making molotov cocktails, and a suggestion that they might be used for illegal purpose. However, it didn't even BEGIN to reach the constitutional standard for incitement (which, as another poster accurately pointed out, requires the danger be imminent), and should never have been censored. Especially by the forcible taking down of a website, which, in my mind, is equivalent to prior restraint in that it prevents future listeners from hearing the speech. (about as close to prior restraint as taking up published copies of a book and burning them. Not totally prior, but pretty prior.)
I might add that the Black Bloc is indeed a tactic, not an organization, and one based in safety from random police snatch-squads and fearmongering singling out, not in violence. 99.99 percent of the people who use that tactic are completely nonviolent, even if, on average, more militant than the rest of the movement.
Noone has accused anyone of bombing anything in NY.
In fact, the arrests at the protests in NY were total and complete jokes. On Saturday, there was a permit for the major march (there were others) and there was not a single crime committed, with the possible exception of littering. Yet the cops made some 25-40 arrests by on-the-spot counts. On Sunday, the cops made the other couple of hundred, and all of peaceful, nonviolent protestors, almost all for nonsense crimes like blocking the sidewalks or disorderly conduct. Or my personal favorite, the totally oxymoronic (given the First Amendment) crime of "unlawful assembly."
I know, I was there, marching with them on Saturday, and also at the spokescouncil meetings of the group on Saturday and Sunday, and also getting news from the participants on Monday's events. ("No, Senator, I am not a communist.")
Only 1 window was allegedly broken. (I say allegedly because there were also reports of provocateurs.) No other serious crimes have even been alleged, except those committed by the cops. My guess, based on the estimates of various sources, was that there were 15,000 activists in New York at the time. Look at that ratio for a minute. How many other groups of 15,000 people can you find who don't committ crimes? (Ignoring such idiotic crimes as violation of NY's unconstitutional mask law [in NYS, part of the loitering statute prohibits gatherings wearing masks except in masquerades licensed by cities that have licensing for them], and blocking the sidewalk/street)
Disorderly conduct = contempt of cop, and/or dissent.
Yet what does the corporate media focus on? Well, duh.
"When investigators raided his apartment Jan 24, they said they discovered a treasure-trove of mischief-making tools. In addition to computers, they found literature advocating revolution, gas canisters, iced-tea bottles filled with flammable material, gas masks and an anarchist flag. Austin's car contained fertilizer, cans of brake fluid and two gas canisters."
Since when are
literature advocating revolution
gas masks (often brought by protestors because the cops indiscriminately gas people)
and anarchist flag[s]
"mischief-making tools?" Haven't those morons in the corporate press ever heard of the First Amendment?
A friend of mine (support her: http://www.thewalkfordemocracy.org) brecame an activist because she was at Seattle. A normal citizen, she was taking her groceries home, and was gassed by random cops. A door opened in her mind. Gas masks, especially, are perfectly reasonable equipment at a protest.
Item "c" of the warrant is particularly scary. Authority to search for any document about the WEF or IMF? What??? Of course, that's not as scary as g(iii), giving the cops carte blanche to destroy encrypted information merely because it is encrypted. (Helloooooo, first amendment?)
Items 27, 29, 39[should be 38](a), 39(g)(ii), 41(h), 44(f), 45, 49(d), 50(e) and 50(f) of the affidavit are equally terrifying: now it's a crime to espouse "anti-government... messages," to attend protests in masks, and other protected political activity??? (See ESPECIALLY 41(h), 44(f), 45(e), 49(d), and 50(e) and (f), for the most obvious direct punishment by political opinion.)
In short: His arrest was 100% political. He's a political prisoner, of the kind Amnesty International is interested in. If they really wanted him for the hacking, they wouldn't have arrested him right before the protests, and all the political stuff wouldn't have been in the affidavit.
RISE UP AGAINST CAPITALISM! There. Now you have literature advocating revolution on your computer. Expect a visit from the FBI shortly.
-Paul Gowder (email changed to paul@paultopia.org)
