Unfortunate site logo as well. Between his writing style, the content of some of his posts, and the choice of name and logo, I'm finding it very difficult to take this author seriously.

Civil rights are actually not dependent on domain name, writing style, content of writing, name, logo, or in general any damm thing at all. They are called "unalienable rights" for a reason.

As Americans declared in a few days ago in 1776, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

If what he says is true, then it is our right, and our duty, to stand up for weev. If the government is this far in the wrong, then that is more important than any single individual's actions. Give him some cash (http://security.goatse.fr/help); write to the EFF; call your congressman; ask an America you know to do the same; but please, find another thread for discussing logos, e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1493603

If he is lying, then we need evidence he is lying, not that he has bad taste in logos.

EDIT: I clarified the above to add the "If what he says is true... // If he is lying..." without marking the edit, which I am now doing. I apologise if I edited after the children had posted.

Of course civil rights aren't dependent on anything. But whether we believe his story that his civil rights are being violated is partially dependent on his credibility, which seems at first glance to be pretty close to zero.

He claims that his civil rights are being violated in the same breath that he claims that it happens to him all the time and that anti-semitism is okay. Why should we believe any of this, exactly?

EDIT: Okay you edited your post to be conditional on him telling the truth and requesting of evidence that he's lying. My point is just that crankishness is typically evidence that someone is lying, or at least good reason to not take things that people are saying at face value and to wait for independent confirmation for whoever cares to look for it. There's a burden of proof issue here.

Kindly retract that he said "anti-semitism is okay."

Screenshot 1 and 2 of the threatened indictment seemed believable and imply he is in legal trouble over a security disclosure. A quick search online implies the disclosure was responsible, proportionate and AT&T are pissed about it (e.g. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/att-explains-ipad-s...). So, from those two things, coupled with the fact legal aid is being denied to him, implies he is serious about needing help with a lawyer.

Is he already on some kind of FBI shitlist? Maybe, maybe not, it's irrelevant. Would it have been better not to mention it? Probably. Is he credible? I don't see why not given the corroborating evidence.

> Kindly retract that he said "anti-semitism is okay."

Fair enough. He didn't say anti-semitism is okay. What he did do, which prompted my inaccurate comment, is admit to make "joking" videos about the genocide of Jews which are in egregiously poor taste. And then go on to make paranoid comments about the FBI manipulating the Jewish lobby and Jewish reporters to alleging that he bombs synagogues, or something (I wasn't too clear on this part).

Thank you. He certainly did make such videos which he claimed to be parody adding useful balance to the Israel/Palestine debate -- I think we would agree that this was not useful, but I don't believe his intentions were anti-Semitic.

It's hard to really say what his intentions are.

He does (going on his online postings) regularly spout anti-semitic nonsense, but then he is a very troll like person. So it is hard to figure where his real beliefs lie - he often sounds serious, but then he may just be a serious troll.

(and, also, I suppose it is arguable his intentions [trolling or meaning it] are irrelevant because it still goes out there and communicates to people without being clearly ironic)

I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence was not written on parchment with a crudely drawn gaping asshole.

The declaration of independence has about as much legal standing as weev's blog post.

The whole "goatse" thing is part of the performance art. Hacker groups have a long history of over the top stuff like that -- look at the Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc), Phone Losers of America, Legion of Doom, etc.

weev is a troll (in the 4chan sense), and a performance artist, but on this issue, he's actually being pretty straight up. He got some information about a security vulnerability, was asked to publicize it, did so, and is now being unlawfully screwed for it.

Was what he did prudent, especially for someone already on the FBI shitlist? No. Was it lawful? Yes. And, it certainly brought the security vulnerability, which was an incompetent decision by ATT, to public attention.

There's also a long history of cranks falsely claiming that their rights are being violated and that due process in their case is being trampled.

I'm not saying that that cranks shouldn't be defended when their rights are violated or that his claims are false. But he's certainly not helping his credibility with his disorganized, rambling writing, and his juvenile website, etc. It makes it so that my immediate inclination reading this is to suspect that most of it is wildly exaggerated.

Don't know why you're being downvoted (I upvoted you), but I had the same thought and impression as you did.

weev talking about "this is not the first time" -- that whole section should have been left out. That makes it very conspiracy theory-like, and really has no bearing on what's going on now.

I agree -- he has definitely not helped his credibility in defending himself from some "fruit of the poisonous tree" drug charges resulting from an illegal search warrant.

There is a reason why test cases usually find really unambiguously "safe" people for the test case -- e.g. the elderly, unambiguously law abiding and moral, African American gentleman in Chicago used for the recent 2A case McDonald vs. Chicago, or the same with Heller vs. DC.

I am pretty sure no one expected search warrants when this all started. If it was expected that the FBI and local law enforcement would get involved, an academic security researcher would have been a far better spokesman.