] On September 3, 2003 Sherman Austin surrendered himself
] to begin a one-year term in federal prison for the contents of a
] website that was authored by another boy and linked to Sherman's
] site, www.raisethefist.com, on a free-hosting area Sherman provided
] there. The other boy's site included a direct link to the "Reclaim Guide,
] a manual that provides crude instructions on how to build explosives.

Politech has been covering this story for quite some time, and I'm curious
what people on MemeStreams think about it. I've always been one step
away from memeing it.

This guy ran a left wing website on which he advocated violent action against corporations, government, etc... in response to globalization, and provided links to bomb making information. Diane Feinstein, for many years, has tried to make it illegal to post bomb making information on the internet. A few years ago she finally got one through, but only if you present it in a context where you intend that it be used to commit a violent crime. This guy was the first person to ever be prosecuted for it. The prosecution didn't ask for much in the way of sentencing. The judge, apparently, was appalled by that and gave the kid a year. Feinstein was also appalled at told the DOJ to use this law more often.

The reason I haven't memed this before is that this guy, regardless of what his friends are saying, really is guilty. I went through his website when this started. He was actually advocating violence and linking to bomb making information.

Should this be illegal? Well.... What if he was Osama Bin Lauden? OBL does the same stuff. He advocates violence for political reasons, and he provides information (and training camps) for people who answer his call. I think what OBL does ought to be illegal. Should what Sherman Austin did also be illegal? What is the difference?

Well, the most obvious difference is that OBL actually has people that listen to him and go through with his direction, whereas this raisethefist website was mostly the immature ramblings of an angsty teenager. No one has actually connected it with a real crime. Maybe its only illegal if people listen to you? Seems like a questionable distinction. Your actions and intents are the same. Should success be the measure of a criminal mind?

There is another difference. That is that OBL is involved in planning (and, furthermore, coordinating and funding) SPECIFIC actions, whereas Austin gives you a motive and some tools but leaves the details up to you. Is this where we should draw the line? It certainly seems like a place where you could draw one.

If you want to do that, then consider this website:
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

This website is basically the same as Austin's in that it advocates violent (or is it just destructive?) action and provides tools. The LEGAL difference between this website and Austin's, in terms of this statute, is that this website provides information on arson rather then bombing. I guess Feinstein forgot to list that one. The REAL difference between this website and Austin's is simply that people actually DO follow through on what these people are advocating. Should it be legal to run this website? Should it be legal for OBL to do what OBL does as long as he is not directly engaged in planning or finance?

Where DO you draw these lines?

One place to draw them is in sentencing, and I guess thats why I never blogged this story up until now. Give the court system the leeway to make decisions about who deserves a slap on the wrist and who deserves to get run up the creek. Thats not what occurred here. In spite of the fact that raisethefist.com is more a product of immaturity then any completely considered terrorist plot, the judge upped the sentencing. Thats a real problem. A year in a high security prison can be very serious. One in five are raped. Far more are assaulted. Many commit suicide. Apparently this individual has been put in solitary confinement to protect him from death threats (at least according to his girlfriend... Its hard to tell what to believe from her.)

This has clearly gone too far. However, I doubt there is anything that can be done about it. This kid will be out of jail before the sort of movement needed to get him released could be built. He will get out and be 1000 times more dangerous to society for the experience. All of his paranoid angst has just been given real confirmation, and he'll act on that, and probably hurt people. (Our justice system at work!) This is a federal case. Only Bush can pardon him.

With Bush and the current DOJ holding all the cards, I really can't see a way to help this person. Maybe if prominent Democrats decided this was over the line... You might try contacting them.

But there is a bigger question at stake here, and that is that this will certainly happen again. Where do we draw this line? If we can find the right answer, we can at least press for a change to the law once cooler heads are running the police.

What do you think?

The legalities of bomb making information on the internet....