Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Why go after this guy in particular? CNN implies it's a combination of his site advocated use of physical force as a means of change AND he had links to info that could be dangerous.
Does this mean the US government couldn't go after the actual bomb-instruction sites themselves (because they're out of US jurisdiction)?
The last paragraph implies he took a plea bargain because of the current terrorism culture/enforcement. But do those new laws (or "enhancements"- weird term) mean any site that advocates use of physical force is to be shut down?
Also, was his site pretty famous? popular? well-ranked on Google? I was pretty certain a few years ago one could find bomb-making sites via Google if one searched enough. I definitely don't advocate terrorism. But I always get concerned when data or access to data starts getting more and more limited. And why wouldn't the government's next step be to ask Google to remove or restrict info for such dangerous sites?
I have a site that links to another site that sells marijuana plants.
I have a site that links to ELF (earth liberation front), even though my site is highly critical of ELF philosophy and practices.
I have a site that links to sites that advocate or claim to participate in human cloning.
And God forbid, but if the Bush admin manages to pass something that makes gay marriages unconstitutional, and I have a site that contains links to sites that are pro-same-sex-marriage...
[Disclaimer: in reality, I have no such sites but these don't seem so unlikely in the real world. And I may have glanced through the Anarchist's Cookbook as a kid, but that didn't result in any desire on my part to build bombs or cause harm to others because of our divergence in belief.]
Can they bust you for it? I doubt it... but if you do anything they can bust you for, you'd better believe they'll be there when you do. ;)
It's nothing new... but perhaps quite a bit riskier in the current climate.
9/11 didn't help matters much and the music industry seems hell bent on forcing the laws to suit a more "open" (less private) society on the basis that they are losing money.
I think it will be very interesting to see when or even if there is a breaking point in the US in regards to freedom, especially on the net. The Patriot Acts do leave a huge amount of wiggle room in matters like this. It hasn't been abused yet, according to popular public opinion, but I wonder if there will ever come a time when that wiggle room will be widely exploited for political purposes. I don't think US history has seen any other path than that dark one when it comes to laws that protect security at the cost of privacy and rights. But perhaps, due in part to the net and teh ability to recieve information from all fronts and sides, we have grown beyond that and we do not have to worry.