feel safer now?

September 3, 2003 9:33 PM

Sherman Austin started his 1-year prison sentence on Wednesday, about seven months after the Raisethefist.org shutdown. During his three-year probation after getting out, he'll be barred from “associating with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.”. Democracy Now! spoke with him right before he joined the prison population.
posted by gluechunk (6 comments total)

associating with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.

That sounds difficult. What if the taxi driver who picks him up from prison happens to vote for a different political party than the present government?
posted by Jimbob at 9:38 PM on September 3, 2003

Good lord. That interview is extremely disturbing, but sorting out the court documents is a tough slog. The guy mirrored a page on how to make bombs, in the context of remarks looking forward to anti-WEF demonstrations.

That's a really stupid thing to do, and does warrant investigation, I would say. But in the absence of proof that he did anything besides disseminate freely available public information, I'd also say the conviction and sentence are pretty chilling. I hope the lad gets Club Fed, at least, gets out with a tan, a powerful forehand, and some hot stock picks.

Hell, the FBI, armed with a Blogdex-like link-pattern analysis algorithm, might get funny ideas about me, and all I have in mind is voting that mendacious freaking baboon Bush expeditiously out of office. (Bloomberg's got to go as well.) The wish may be father to the deed, but you can't leave your money to a moist Kleenex when you die.
posted by hairyeyeball at 10:29 PM on September 3, 2003

Claiming that he is barred from associating with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc. seems odd. The closest thing I could find is in the transcript of his sentencing, which only has the judge saying "He shall not knowingly negotiate with any organization or any member thereof which espouses violence or physical force as a means of intimidation or achieving economic, social, or political change."

If that is really the basis for the claim, it seems dishonest of the many places making it (and I'm not talking about you gluechunk, since I assume you are quoting your link which states it as fact) to leave off the part about violence and physical force, since it really changes the meaning.

Does anyone know if it is a mangled half-truth, or is the restriction from participating in any attempt to change the government caused by something else, like some standard part of parole or something (which would mean it is nothing extraordinary).

Oh, and having just finished reading The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling, I can't help but equate this story with what happened to Phrack in 1990 (FBI doesn't like BBS/website, finds excuse to raid it and try to shut it down to stop it from "corrupting youth").
posted by Nick Tamm at 11:40 PM on September 3, 2003

""He shall not knowingly negotiate with any organization or any member thereof which espouses violence or physical force as a means of intimidation or achieving economic, social, or political change."

So, that's the Bush administration out, then. B'dum tssss!
posted by Blue Stone at 4:45 AM on September 4, 2003

Since the linked article is from a questionable source, did he or did he not deface others' websites and leave behind a program to hack Army computers?
posted by mischief at 4:53 AM on September 4, 2003

another wacko in jail. good post.
posted by clavdivs at 8:48 AM on September 4, 2003