[WSIS CS-Plenary] Response re: indymedia seizure by Dale Chalfant

[dhalleck at weber.ucsd.edu]

Below is a response that was posted by Stacy Scheff
of the Sydney Indymedia. While I think the discussion
of the US constitution is interesting, what troubles
me more about the seizure is the internationalization
of the repressive measures of the US Patriot act. Not
to mention that Dale's response assumes the global
nature of the US constitution.
DeeDee Halleck

Dear Dale,

I have looked at your blog and the reasoning behind
your support of the seizure of the Indymedia
hardware.

You start off with an assumption: that the hardware
was seized because of the RNC delegate information. 
The fact is, Indymedia's lawyers still don't know why
the hardware was seized.  No one has been told
anything.  We still don't even know what country
initiated the seizure.

You then go on to praise the principles of the US
Constitution, but set limits to freedoms by using the
well-worn metaphor of yelling 'fire' in a crowded
theatre.

First, I'd like to point out that the fifth amendment
to the Constitution states that a person shall not,
"... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law'.  That is the point we
object to.  All indymedias have collectives of
individuals who are answerable to the public. If
there was a good reason for the seizure of the
servers, the due process of law requires the
authorities to disclose those reasons to a judge in
order to get a court order.  We would then receive
this court order when the property was seized.  This
did not happen.  The order was served on Rackspace,
who did not own the servers.  They were then
prevented from telling us what happened and why.

Second, the problem with yelling 'fire' in a crowded
theatre is one of intent to cause harm.  If someone
yelled 'fire' and there was, in fact, a fire, they
would be saving lives.  If there is no fire, and the
person is doing it to cause harm, that is a crime.

If there was an article posted to an indymedia site
with intent to cause harm, all that is required is a
letter or an email to the site's administrators, who
can then hide the article.  To confiscate the entire
physical server is an extreme overstepping of the
bounds of due process if their intent was to prevent
harm.

In fact, their actions were overtly antagonistic,
with no attempt at a dialogue with the site
administrators or the proper owners of the hardware. 
The actions of law enforcement in this instance
amount to a crime in themselves, if we are to take
the Constitution seriously.

I would appreciate your response to these issues, as
I believe that your blog is spreading information
about the situation which is not true, and could be
harmful to the legal case which is now being pursued.
 Once the
case can be argued in a court, we may be able to
understand what happened, and then pass judgement on
whether or not it was justified.  Until then, I would
ask you to remove or ammend your blog to reflect the
information that is available, and also in respect
for the Constitutional right to due process.

Thank you for your consideration,
Stacy Scheff
Sydney Indymedia volunteer


>>
>> Hello:
>>
>> I have not posted before; I have been an observer.  I
>> am coming from
>> the view point of a technician (a programmer, DBA,
>> UNIX admin, ...),
>> who is now in law school, and I am a Citizen of the
>> State of
>> California in America.
>>
>> As I understand it, the indymedia servers were
>> removed because they
>> contained information targeted at a group of
>> individuals, the
>> delegates of the Republican National Convention.
>> And, this
>> information was used to harass people who were trying
>> to go about the
>> business of the Republican Party.
>>
>> I concur if that is the case...
>>
>>
>> Say someone was to yell; "Fire!" in the middle of a
>> theater, and as a
>> result, there were people hurt.  Further suppose the
>> person was still
>> in the general area.  The police, in an attempt to
>> find the individual
>> for justice, cordoned off the place.
>>
>> The police did not want to take the chance that the
>> individual's
>> friends would let the friend go (due to a knowledge
>> that the were
>> police coming), so the police did not notify anyone.
>> The law sealed
>> off the area and went to looking and opened the area
>> back up after
>> that was done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Dale Chalfant
>>
>> I posted a bit more detail here if anyone may be
>> interested:
>> http://cyb2law.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plenary mailing list
>> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary