(Thread start: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-July/033573.html ) On 7/3/14, Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Moritz Bartl <moritz@torservers.net> wrote:

...

On 07/02/2014 11:00 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:

...

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so the ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very bad deterrent to other potential exit node operators in Austria.

We are in contact with William, and quite possibly there is the option of following this further with another Austrian operator who self-reports himself, with our help. Please everyone give us time to look into this together with some lawyers.

Thank you! That's amazing! I'm quite sure that the support you get from the Tor community when running an exit node really helps in giving people the courage to do so.

Agreed, great news. In hindsight, it is clear that we as a community have an interest to build a resource of amicus curiae briefs - friend of the court briefs. So PLEASE make moves in the direction of contributing and collecting documents which may be relevant to future cases - at the least a simple collection of legal docs. We have an interest in protecting our free-speech networks (Tor, I2P etc), legally as well as technologically and politically. The Torproject.org website does a good job IMHO of presenting the social case for free-speech networks. No matter the circumstances of a particular case (a particular free speech node operator), we the global free-speech promoting and free-speech facilitating community, have an interest to advise the courts regarding matters of technology and free speech, in order to maximise the sanity of the outcomes brought about by our courts (and yes, another operators courts are as good as mine, in terms of global impact). For example a tor-network node operator charged for actual illegal activity, should not cause legal suppression of free-speech networks in general. To kick things off, here's the gist of what I have in mind (this is in no way directly responsive to the case that started this thread, which I know nothing about): " In this matter an individual has been charged with a [criminal] offence. The case of a matter of an individual committing a proven criminal defamation or incitement must not be used by the court to suppress free speech generally by way of the court's power of judicial sanction. Similarly in this case the [Defendant] was the operator of a 'digital communications facility' which facility was a node in a free-speech network, in particular the [Tor|I2P} free speech network; where the operator is found by this court to have committed unlawful acts, then this court must only target those unlawful acts when it makes its determinations, by way of this court's power of judicial sanction exercised according to law; and this court must not reach beyond those unlawful acts in its determinations/ rulings/ sanctions; if the court exercises its power in reaching beyond those unlawful acts then such exercise of judicial power is likely to undermine confidence in the court by all other operators of the free-speech network and by users of the free speech network. A ruling by this court will be seen by many humans around the world, both operators of free speech nodes in the free speech networks, as well as by users and by potential users of free speech networks around the world. In this case, the rulings of this court are visible globally, and shall be watched by many; there is therefore a great burden upon this court in this case, and this court therefore has a special duty of care when it makes its rulings/ determinations, to be conservative and cautious, in particular regarding any general deterrents this court might ordinarily be minded to create by its rulings which deterrents might unintentionally dampen confidence in this court and/ or confidence in the courts generally to protect our human rights including freedom of communication. This court must be especially careful in its rulings in this matter, since the court is in a position to bring about chilling effects upon the liberties of not only those humans within its immediate jurisdictions, but also upon the broader global community. " (A glosary, localisation, much enhancement and other legal polishing would be required of course, along with subroutined/ separate submissions regarding each relevant law, and regarding each relevant precedent in the jurisdiction in question and/ or in jurisdictions relevant (some cases/precedents are so poignant, so timeless, that they apply all over the world, e.g. the Credit River Decision, as well as the trial of William Penn).) Such advice or briefs to the court are ideally tailored to each particular country/jurisdiction. However, even a brief prepared for some country other than the country at issue, is likely to be useful to those attempting to create a brief for a particular case in another country, and may even be directly useful as a filing in its own right, at least if the language is the same :) Regarding the filing of briefs, we need standing to file; that is, we need an interest in the matter which interest is seen by the court. In some countries particular organisations may be ideal for the filing of such briefs, such as the FSF and EFF (USA) and EFA (Australia). In other countries, if there is no directly applicable organisation, then a "designated representative of the Torproject" who is resident in that country, may have standing to make such a filing. Alternatively, a local human-rights-friendly politician may be amenable to making the filing on behalf of their constituent(s) (that's us). Finally, in general any individual should have standing to make such a filing, since we have an interest in our own human rights - free speech is a fundamental human right - so we should also aim for the preparation and collection of briefs file-able by ourselves. Take notice, we HAVE A DUTY OF CARE to each other, and to the broader community, to contact Torproject and/ or others in this community, if ever we find ourselves in a court case involving the operation of any free speech network node (I2P, Tor, exit or relay), in order that those in the community who have an interest, ie the rest of us (at least those of us in the same country), are given the opportunity to make our interest known to the respective court(s) in that jurisdiction, by way of filing appropriate and standardized briefs. Zenaan