Peter Young Speaks at the Long Haul, 1/9/08: video

um, here are some thoughts which come to mind. It would be helpful if a lawyer or legal assistant could explain certain concepts here.
Did you follow the Rod Coronado trial? He just was forced to accept a plea bargain for an incident where he had given a speech on environmentalism in general, then an unknown person in the audience asked how one would make a gasoline bomb. Rod said 'oh well, you'd put gasoline in a container and attach a timer device" ... blah blah. Then a couple years later, (too long to remember whether the person asking the question could have been a police officer) the FBI charged him with inciting arson, and said that arsons committed in the same county could have been linked with his speech. Even if this is ridiculous, I think the animal rights activists should understand the legal basis by which they forced Coronado to take this plea bargain, and even possibly edit the talk description above - particularly the 2nd clip.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/02/26/18047421.php

I believe it is okay for someone to talk about corporations and what they do without saying anything which could be interpreted by the FBI informant in the audience as suggestive of a plan of action. At a separate talk, someone could legally discuss self-defense techniques, martial and shooting arts and so forth. However, I believe risk arises when someone talks both about targets and also waxes about direct action. I don't understand where the line is drawn - but again refer to the Coronado case above. That guy's speech wasn't about encouraging any action, but included some historical account of anti-whaling stuff and his incarceration, and he had only responded to a directed question by some sketchy person in the audience.
Another concept to be aware of us conspiracy - i.e. the Eric McDavid charge. It's very very easy to commit. McDavid had no prior criminal history and never did anything. http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A80311 He is being sent to jail for years because a very pushy informant (I saw one of the hidden tapes made at the cabin set up by the FBI. Trust me, she was pushing hard by proposing a radical plan to knock down the power going into a city, and they were talking her down. McDavid was urging her to calm down and take her time. But she kept prompting them to either list their own plan to admit that they were 'all talk'). Anyway, it is really easy to show conspiracy of people who never were actually going to do anything, because the state just has to demonstrate two people nodding yes to a plan (even if one of them was lying, and just trying to look cool or brave to the second person) plus committing one overt act (in this case, it was the defendant looking up the location of the target on google, plus reading about explosives). What Young was describing was independently conducted actions, which would avoid the possibility of conspiracy. But people should still watch out. even if I don't share the same version of animal rights as most attendees there, I still want that crowd to be around when the planet goes into a grain shortage in the next few years due to ethanol production and climate shifts, and the bread riots start etc.

what was at issue in rod's case was whether he had the intent to have someone possibly use the technique to build an incendiary device or not in response to the question or whether he was inciting others in a similar speech to SD in DC. and i think the plea was to avoid being litigated to death by the feds. rod's case never had the full benefit of an appellate court look at the intent issue with his speakings. anyhow, talks like this, one needs to be aware of what their intent is when they share information. sharing information isn't illegal and not discussing things succumbs to no free speech.

hell, myth busters on discovery channel provides more knowledge on how to blow up things. there's actually a school in missouri where you can get a degree in blowing up things. firefighters know all kinds of things about fire and there's degrees one can obtain in that also. the feds had how to build nuclear bombs "on line" for a while after sadam was caught in iraq. knowledge and sharing it eventually comes back to the intent. shouting fire in a movie theater when no fire is dangerous and the laws are put there because its a bad intent to mess with others in that scenario. free speech isn't so simple when generalizing about the laws and the 1st amendment.