Sherman Austin

Some have questioned whether Austin's trial was fair. Austin's supporters consider him a political prisoner.[11] Since his arrest, Austin has become a cause célèbre on the internet, with many sites dedicated to freeing Austin.[12][13] Zack de la Rocha, lead vocalist of the band Rage Against the Machine, came out in support of Austin,[14] and other musicians and bands, including Far East Movement and Death to W, supported Austin as well by having a benefit show at the Ché Café in San Diego, CA.

Leslie Kendrick, arguing for the adoption of a standard for determining whether speech is "criminally instructive," has questioned whether Austin's sentence was fair given the available evidence. As she notes, the law protects both (a) speech that is intended to incite a violent crime, but is not actually likely to do so, and (b) speech that is likely to incite a violent crime, but is not actually intended to do so. The Department of Justice prosecutor recommended a sentence of four months in jail and four months in a halfway house, but the judge rejected that plea twice and ordered a twelve-month sentence in jail, saying the prosecution was not "taking this case seriously enough." Writing of Austin, Kendrick says, "Too little information is available to make a complete assessment either of Austin's intent or the likely use of his website by others.… Judge Wilson's difference of opinion with the Justice Department prosecutor (the very agency that had contributed to the drafting of the Feinstein Amendment) illustrates the degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the danger imposed by the activities of individuals like [him]."[2]

Carnegie Mellon University professor David S. Touretzky posted a mirror of the Reclaim Guide on his Web site in reaction to the FBI raid on Austin, in order to prompt public debate. As Touretzky notes on his website, his own distribution of the material does not violate the statute because it is not performed with the intention or knowledge that the information be used to commit any illegal violent acts. On his website, Touretzky distances himself from Austin's politics, which he characterizes as "mindless," and suggests that the hacking evidence alone would be enough to arrest and charge Austin. But he is deeply troubled by the way the government handled the case:

"Did the amateurish bomb-making information, written by a minor, that Mr. Austin allowed to appear on his web site pose any significant threat to public safety? Did he personally intend to promote crimes of violence? Because he was coerced (with the threat of a possible 20 year 'terrorism enhancement') into signing a plea agreement, the government was spared the trouble of a public trial, and thus did not have to prove its case or enter its evidence against him into the public record. How then can we, the American people, judge whether our government acted reasonably in this matter?"[15]

• Internet censorship in the United States
• Nanny state