[I f***ked up the addresses so as to f**ck over the spam-harvesters. I also hotlinked the URLs, and (crudely) formatted it so as to prevent it from wrapping into one big jumble here If I screwed anything up, I'll try to correct it in a followup post. Oh, for a Preview function here... My comments follow the quoted post. --rs] -------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:00:00 -0500

To: politech@vorlon.fruck.mit.edufruck

From: Declan McCullagh

Subject: FC: FBI demands "Y2K secret Army briefing" video be yanked

X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/

The FBI has demanded that a web site with a video purporting to be a Y2K military briefing be removed. The ISP has complied. The grainy 6-minute video clip shows a plan to ignite race riots -- complete with staged assaults on women -- after the Times Square ball drop. Nobody has said the video -- placed online by artist Mike Z -- is illegal to own or distribute. The FBI did not ask for a court order to shut down the site and probably could not have obtained one. But the clip is annoying to the US government, which took action to censor it. Report: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9947/boal.shtml Discussion (thanks to Michael Sims): http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/24/013232&mode=nested Mirror sites (I also have a copy):

http://moxy.wtower.com/mirrors/timesq.ram

http://www.angelfire.com/ma/mauicool7/timesq.ram

http://www.rumormillnews.com/ -Declan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is *serious* stuff, folks. While the prank itself is clearly an exercise in puerile bullshit, what *is* troubling -- VERY troubling -- is the fact that the government's reaction is to step in, and with NO due process -- not even a *pretext* of due process -- strongarm the guy *and* his upstream into submission with their wishes. If this doesn't qualify as chilling the exercise of free speech, I don't know *what* does.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999

Answers

Well, I screwed up the formatting after all, but the links all work, so I'll leave it as is, and reiterate my wish that there was a preview function here to prevent such mishaps.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

It was a nasty video, but it was also harmless. It wasn't going to cause riots at Times Square. If the FBI caused its removal, that's of bigger concern. It means they are paranoid.

I don't think a paranoid FBI is a good thing, y'all.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), November 24, 1999.

You can't scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater. This does not qualify as "protected' speech nor should a bogus video intended to inflame passions. If it is true that the FBI asked the owners of the site to remove the video, I can't think of a more efficient use of the government's resources. Before wasting an AUSA's time with preparing a preliminary injunction for a court order, it is a smart first step to appeal to the good sense and responsibility of the website owners. If they pull it, no further expenditur of government resources.

I agree that there are going to be Y2K problems and I sympathize with those who fault the government by underplaying the Y2K problem, but don't go extreme.

-- eggman (eggman@eggman.com), November 24, 1999.

The FBI was probably Diaper-spammed by the Bankers to off the "incite" video. Didn't watch it because can't afford to get any more disturbed than already are after reading various real-life reports re Y2K. Sure sounds "in poor taste." Glad to find out it is bogus. There *are* lunatics out there ...

If racial & rape oriented, may qualify for "hate crime" manure shovel.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 24, 1999.

Yeah, but you can run into a fire station and scream "THEATER!"

Even if the government should have encouraged the removal of this video, it shouldn't have been the FBI. That's intimidation and a horrible precedent.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), November 24, 1999.

Hey, Eggman, you JUST DON'T GET IT!

This is NOT a case where someone committed some infraction, and got prosecuted for it.

This is simply strongarm tactics by the state.

The government didn't like what he said, so they shut him up.

No prosecution, no due process.

They just marched in, and shut him up.

What do you call the type of government where the police can shut you up if they feel like it, just because they don't like what you said?

I think it's called a "police state".

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

Sorry to disappoint you, Schmuckely, no AR-15 here.

And, Dense One, there's a world of difference between the owner of a resource deciding who may and may not enter the premises, and the *government* deciding who may and may not speak, by fiat.

Oh, and before you start ranting about how MIT had better shut down the tavern because it won't let YOU brawl on the floor, I suggest you contemplate a reality or two: MIT has *lots* of facilities that exclude you. Try marching in and demanding that you be allowed to sit in a classroom and mouth off every five minutes. Try demanding the use of university owned vehicles. Try demanding that they put you up in their residence halls.

You need to get out more. At the very least, you need to get out of HERE, trollio.

Don't leave mad, just leave.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

"While Internet service providers are commonly subpoened by law enforcement officials, an attorney who specializes in cyber liberties at the ACLU could not recall a similar case in which the officers acted without a warrant. "I've never heard of anything like this involving the FBI," said Ann Beeson, a staff attorney at the ACLU."

Ann is a complete nimrod and should read up on her case law and familiarize herself with with the US Criminal Code. They don't need a warrant. There was't a search and there wasn't an arrest. It appears as if they could have obtained an arrest warrant since this moron probably violated 18 USC Section 2101: " Whoever...uses any facility of interstate commerce (i.e. an internet website) to commit an act in furtherance of a riot...shall be...imprisoned not more than five years. But they chose not to arrest him and instead give him a chance to withdraw the video. FYI: there is nothing that prevents the FBI from having a consensual discussion with this moron. It wasn't custodial so there is no Miranda requirement and he cearly had no right to counsel.

How is the FBI heavy handed for giving this guy the opportunity to withdraw his video without being charged?

-- eggman (eggman@eggman.com), November 24, 1999.

So, how do we know it is bogus???

After the World Trade Center caper, the Oklahoma City/Elohim City/Strassmeir/Carol Howe fiasco, it sounds like a COINTELPRO agent provocateur operation.

-- Z (Z@Z.Z), November 24, 1999.

You really *are* thick as a brick.

"Whoever...uses any facility of interstate commerce (i.e. an internet website) to commit an act in furtherance of a riot...shall be...imprisoned not more than five years."

Uh, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the above can only occur *after* one is charged, prosecuted, tried, and convicted of a crime. If we've reached the point where someone can be imprisoned for a five year sentence without any of the above, we're in a sad state indeed!

"But they chose not to arrest him and instead give him a chance to withdraw the video."

I believe the phrase you're grasping for is, "they chose to shake him down".

"How is the FBI heavy handed for giving this guy the opportunity to withdraw his video without being charged?"

Huh?

I guess there must be one mofo of a latency on news delivery on Planet Troll. They didn't give him an opportunity to do a damn thing. They leaned on him, they leaned on his ISP, they leaned until the ISP caved.

They huffed and they puffed and they blew his house down. Without a court order, without evidence of a crime, without even *suggesting* that a crime had been committed, without a smidgeon of due process.

They just shoved their way in and got what they want.

And I suspect there's a wink wink message along the lines of, "let that be a lesson to the rest of you" in there too.

You don't need to commit a crime to get shut up. You simply have to say the wrong thing.

The fact that you're pushing your *tragically* pathetic "argument" tells me that you're an idiot, a troll, or a shill.

Shall we take a poll?

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

The video certainly wasn't inciting a riot. At the very worst, it might have created fears of a deliberately planned riot.

The video wasn't criminal in the least. It was mostly pictures of taxi cabs. The narration wasn't anything worse than you might read in a Tom Clancy novel, except that it wasn't as good.

It's total crap for the FBI to be leaning on anyone's First Amendment rights, and I am both outraged and profoundly worried about what they might do next.

This is Project Meggido. Look out.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), November 24, 1999.

Ron: You are scary and I am afraid you have a superficial understanding of our Justice system. While it is true that there are many protections built into the system--as you put it people must be "charged, prosecuted, tried, and convicted of a crime" --it is also true that many people who come under criminal suspicion seek more lenient treatment through pre-indictment resolution. In this case, this jerk wasn't charged. Apparently, the AUSA didn't think justice would be served by criminally charging this "artist." A whole host of considerations probably went into this decision. If his conduct would have been further along the criminal scale, the AUSA probably have required the person to enter into a plea agreement where he waived indictment and agreed to an information being filed. Noone is required to enter into a pre-indictment resolution or waive indictment or waive trial by jury, etc., but many do because to do so usually results in a more lenient outcome. This artist could have kicked the FBI out, told the AUSA to pound sand and simply waited to see if anything would happen. If he was charged he could have defended his case through the efforts of a court appointed lawyer if the defendant could't afford it. These are all traits of an efficient and just justice system in my view.

How this all meshes with your views on our government or my being a troll I don't know, but you could benefit from a dose of optimism.

-- eggman (eggman@eggman.com), November 24, 1999.

It pains me to say this, and I cringe at the inevitable hay the trolls will attempt to make of it, but it needs saying:

Someone edited my original post in this thread, and did not include editor's marks. I *do* have the uneditied version archived.

Inasmuch as I recall at least one of the sysops asking for any evidence of this sort of editing, if any of the sysops wish me to fwd a copy of the original, archived off the server, please email me.

I do *not* want anyone *other* than a sysop to email me on this, and anyone who violates that request will find the appropriate actions taken.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

*I'm* scary?

Perhaps in your rush to defend the indefensible, you missed this part:

"Nobody has said the video -- placed online by artist Mike Z -- is illegal to own or distribute. The FBI did not ask for a court order to shut down the site and probably could not have obtained one. But the clip is annoying to the US government, which took action to censor it."

That's right, toadley -- they did NOT assert that it was illegal. They simply didn't like it. So, they silenced it, using strongarm tactics.

The fact that *you* assert that it's fine and dandy for that sort of tactic to be used tell me that *you* are scary -- because if enough people think like *you* think, we won't need laws anymore, we'll end up with government by force.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

"Nobody has said the video -- placed online by artist Mike Z -- is illegal to own or distribute. The FBI did not ask for a court order to shut down the site and probably could not have obtained one. But the clip is annoying to the US government, which took action to censor it."

Talk about irony, you seem to question everything you read except if its printed by the Village Voice. I guess it is technically true that noone said the video is illegal since the FBI and US Attorney's Office refused to comment as they always do, but that is a far cry from the implicaton the VV is trying to portray: that the video is legal. How does the VV know that the government is "annoyed?" Why did the VV use loaded language like "censored" which conjures up visions of 1st Amendment deprivation? They have a perspective, a very liberal one, and it is coloring their reporting. You are adept at debunking rosy Y2K predictions, but you completely miss the liberal spin at the VV.

-- eggman (eggman@eggman.com), November 24, 1999.

I tell you what. Continue to rationalize and justify police state enforcement of The Will Of The State against people who invoke the displeasure of the state, without being charged with a crime.

It'll say more about you than *I* could *ever* hope to say.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

Editing update:

I've been contacted by a sysop, and I'm satisfied with the resolution.

The sysop starred-out something that looked at first glance like a word that it wasn't, and I thought something else was deleted, when in reality, it was the steeenkin' BBS software failing to escape out the carets, hence, everything between them didn't display (but if you check the HTML source, is indeed still there).

Which, now that I think of it, makes me wonder if that could be the root of some other complaints? Could someone have placed something bracketed by carets, and when it didn't appear, think it was edited out?

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 24, 1999.

"I don't think a paranoid FBI is a good thing, y'all. "

-Dog Gone

The FBI is not a good thing. J. Edgar Hoover was one of the most evil men in our history. The US Constitution makes no provision for a national police force except for the Navy. According to the 10th Amendment the existence of the FBI is illegal. It is precisely the sort of organisation the Founders proscribed when they authored the 10th Amendment.

We will pay dearly for a long time for this aberration. Waco was only one step along the way.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), November 26, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Well, I screwed up the formatting after all, but the links all work, so I'll leave it as is, and reiterate my wish that there was a preview function here to prevent such mishaps. -- Ron Schwarz

Get your tests at HTML Workplace.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 26, 1999.