> At 11:02 PM -0500 4/8/03, John Thornton wrote:
>
>
>>While I agree that this blurb is short on substance you could do what I did and look the name up on Google. Since I knew nothing about this story before and I did bother to look it up "useless" would seem to be overstating things a bit. While I may infer from this post that Chuck sometimes gives out incomplete information to say that this post also "gives free speech a bad name" also seems to overstate things quite a bit. Why the hostility about something so insignificant?
>
>
> Maybe I was over-reacting, vague stories seem to make me cantankerous. Anyhow, I took your advice and did a web search, which turns up the fact that http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/34/news-mikulan.php the fellow pleaded guilty, so if the charges are a frame up he is as at least an accomplice to that frame-up.
>
> It also has to be said that the charge of distributing instructions on the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, with the intent that the info be used in a crime of violence, sounds a bit excessive, in the circumstances. But the fellow did plead guilty.
>
> Sure, he lives in a police state, where the standards of innocent until proven guilty has been abandoned. True, the entire judicial system there is rotten to the core, characterised by prosecutors who are prepared to charge defendants with crimes they don't even believe the are guilty of, in a naked attempt to coerce guilty pleas. But still, people have to take responsibility for pleading guilty.
>
> How the hell can a judge be expected to give someone a slap on the wrist, after they have just pleaded guilty to "distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction with the intent that such information be used in furtherance of a federal crime of violence."
>
> If Sherman Austin is really guilty of that and he says himself he is guilty, then it is no minor offense.
>
> If he isn't guilty, then he ought to plead not guilty.
Sherman is a young working class activist who doesn't have access to nice liberal things like radical lawyers. One of the frustrating things about doing support for Sherman is the stupid things he did in the early stages of this case. The authorities did some heavy duty leaning on Sherman, which successfully scared him into pleading guilty to stuff that isn't a crime. He's basically been found guilty of distributing information that can be found in any public library. His real crime is running a radical anarchist website that is quite popular among younger activists. The fact that Sherman is a person of color probably explains why he is having the book thrown at him.
<Insert standard LBO-list rant here about how the USA has become a totalitarian police state>
Chuck0