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

[Dale s Plenary eMail]

Thank you for the information.

I have responded in part to what you have said below.

Point of information... I do not presume the globalness of the US 
consititution.  I do believe that it is based on principles that are 
universal.  I did refer to the magna carta circa 1215 
(http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magna.html).


Kind regards,


Dale Chalfant

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 
> 

Dale Chalfant