There is the case of Sherman Austin, who was convicted in the U.S. for posting bombmaking information on the web. The law in question is not some post-9/11 Republican thing, it's a 1997 law championed by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Austin pled guilty rather than fighting it, which may or may not have been a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. (I tend to think that it was not a sensible thing to do, but I'm not in a position to judge.)
It is unclear to me whether such a law would be upheld as being constitutional, because the law requires an element of criminal intent, that is, it is illegal to post information about bombmaking to the Internet _with the intent that readers commit a Federal crime of violence_. In a recent case, the Supreme Court upheld a law against burning a cross _with the intent to intimidate_.
In any event, such a law would clearly not apply to Wikipedia, because our intent would never be that people commit crimes of violence. At the same time, of course, I would find it extremely unpleasant to be faced with a bogus prosecution for such a thing. I have a little girl at home, and I don't intend _at this point in my life_ to sit in Federal prison to make a point about freedom of speech. (I very much respect people who would, though, if their life circumstances are appropriate.)
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Mr. Austin pled guilty rather than fighting it, which may or may not have been a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. (I tend to think that it was not a sensible thing to do, but I'm not in a position to judge.)
I agree. Guilt or innocence often depends more on the ability to sustain a long and difficult ordeal in the courts. When serious constitutional issues are involved the matter will need to go well beyond the local courts.
In any event, such a law would clearly not apply to Wikipedia, because our intent would never be that people commit crimes of violence. At the same time, of course, I would find it extremely unpleasant to be faced with a bogus prosecution for such a thing. I have a little girl at home, and I don't intend _at this point in my life_ to sit in Federal prison to make a point about freedom of speech. (I very much respect people who would, though, if their life circumstances are appropriate.)
It all comes down to our choice of issues. Instructions for making bombs are never more than marginal to the wider purpose of Wikipedia. The copyright issues are a lot more relevant, and criminal law is not much of an issue. Prison time for infringement of copyrights is extremely unlikely unless you get into the area of ignoring court orders.
Ec
Pity we don't have a [[Sherman Austin]], I think he's due to get out of prison on the 1st of September. From what I've read he was likely coerced into pleading guilty.
Christiaan
On 5 Aug 2004, at 5:46 pm, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
There is the case of Sherman Austin, who was convicted in the U.S. for posting bombmaking information on the web. The law in question is not some post-9/11 Republican thing, it's a 1997 law championed by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Austin pled guilty rather than fighting it, which may or may not have been a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. (I tend to think that it was not a sensible thing to do, but I'm not in a position to judge.)
It is unclear to me whether such a law would be upheld as being constitutional, because the law requires an element of criminal intent, that is, it is illegal to post information about bombmaking to the Internet _with the intent that readers commit a Federal crime of violence_. In a recent case, the Supreme Court upheld a law against burning a cross _with the intent to intimidate_.
In any event, such a law would clearly not apply to Wikipedia, because our intent would never be that people commit crimes of violence. At the same time, of course, I would find it extremely unpleasant to be faced with a bogus prosecution for such a thing. I have a little girl at home, and I don't intend _at this point in my life_ to sit in Federal prison to make a point about freedom of speech. (I very much respect people who would, though, if their life circumstances are appropriate.)
--Jimbo
I tell a lie, we so have a [[Sherman Austin]] Christiaan
On 6 Aug 2004, at 10:51 am, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Pity we don't have a [[Sherman Austin]], I think he's due to get out of prison on the 1st of September. From what I've read he was likely coerced into pleading guilty.
Christiaan
On 5 Aug 2004, at 5:46 pm, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
There is the case of Sherman Austin, who was convicted in the U.S. for posting bombmaking information on the web. The law in question is not some post-9/11 Republican thing, it's a 1997 law championed by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Austin pled guilty rather than fighting it, which may or may not have been a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. (I tend to think that it was not a sensible thing to do, but I'm not in a position to judge.)
It is unclear to me whether such a law would be upheld as being constitutional, because the law requires an element of criminal intent, that is, it is illegal to post information about bombmaking to the Internet _with the intent that readers commit a Federal crime of violence_. In a recent case, the Supreme Court upheld a law against burning a cross _with the intent to intimidate_.
In any event, such a law would clearly not apply to Wikipedia, because our intent would never be that people commit crimes of violence. At the same time, of course, I would find it extremely unpleasant to be faced with a bogus prosecution for such a thing. I have a little girl at home, and I don't intend _at this point in my life_ to sit in Federal prison to make a point about freedom of speech. (I very much respect people who would, though, if their life circumstances are appropriate.)
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Pity we don't have a [[Sherman Austin]], I think he's due to get out of prison on the 1st of September. From what I've read he was likely coerced into pleading guilty.
We should have an article about him, but I think he was just released to a half-way house the other day.
I think it is unlikely that he was "coerced" into pleading guilty any more than anyone ever is, i.e. threatened with the possibility of a very long jail sentence if he fought, he accepted a plea bargain that guaranteed him only 1 year in jail.
But, if Wikipedia had an article, we could find out. :-)
--Jimbo