The type of speech our government hates - gets you 18 years in jail...

[Bill]

... is ecology speech.

Guy spent time in jail for burning fur farms.

Guy gives speech, is asked how he made incendiaries used in his crime.

He answers honestly.

Government hears about this, charges him with terrorism, he faces penalty - 18 years.

http://lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=5450&IssueNum=204

"In 2003, Coronado gave a public speech about animal rights in San Diego attended by about 100 people and hosted by a vegetarian group. It was, he says, his “standard” speech at the time, talking about his own extreme efforts to protect wildlife, including a 1991-92 arson campaign against fur farms as an agent of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), for which he served 57 months in prison. During a Q&A period after the speech, someone asked him how he once made his incendiary devices. Having long retired from that kind of action, and having paid for it with prison time, he answered the question.

U.S. Attorneys now say Coronado’s brief response – the actual speech itself – is a federal crime. Not only that, it’s terrorism."

So, even talking about how such devices are made is now a federal crime.

If you're an ecologist.

Somehow I doubt the same charges would be applied to a device to be used against abortion clinics.

Tho I'd love to be proven wrong on that score.

[TheRightWing]

He should go to jail. Terrorism, is terrorism, is terrorism. You make it as if this information can be limited to just this area. Freedom of Speech can only go so far. If someone puts out information that can be used for terrorist activies (even if it's environmental terrorism), they should be jailed.

[RawAlex]

One of the hardest things is to draw the line between protected free speech and speech that may be harmful to the country or it's citizens.

In these very politically correct days where making calling a chinese takeout place as a prank on the radio and asking for "slimp flied lice" is enough to get you fired, I have to say that describing how to make a bomb is a pretty tough position to defend. This guy is (or was) a terrorist, just not on a jihad against the nation but on a destructive campaign against fur. In the end, all terrorism is the same and it's intent is to change public actions through fear and intimidation.

It sucks to be him, but next time he might consider keeping his bomb making secrets to himself.

[Bill]

The problem with that thesis is that, as those in power change, the definition of terrorism could be applied to anyone those in power don't like.

Right now power don't like ecologists - but in 50 years, maybe power won't like sombody you think are okay.

Gun owners could be defined as terrorists, for instance.

Or, say, the white minority.

Then there's that pesky constitution and bill of rights.

[RawAlex]

Ahh, Bill... the constitution is a document that deals in bizarre legal absolutes. Technically, all speech is permissible. The legal reality isn't so clear.

The power doesn't care about scologists... they care about bombmakers. Just remember, the unibomber wasn't a terroist, he was just a misunderstood naturalist.

[Bill]

I was answering rightwing, Alex - just in case my post seemed a non sequiter.

Your post slipped in while i was writing.

[TheRightWing]

The problem with that thesis is that, as those in power change, the definition of terrorism could be applied to anyone those in power don't like.

Right now power don't like ecologists - but in 50 years, maybe power won't like sombody you think are okay.

Gun owners could be defined as terrorists, for instance.

Or, say, the white minority.

Then there's that pesky constitution and bill of rights.

So you think a pro-life republican that was teaching people how to make pipebombs to wouldn't be considered terrorists in this day and age? Of course he'd be considered a terrorist.

You want to narrow it to the ecologist, but the information he was giving out could be applied to any terror group and the techniques could have been used by any person wanting to take the law into his own hands.

Information nowadays spreads fast and freedom of speech sometimes has to be stopped for public safety.