That's also a misleading way of framing the issue. Brown wasn't charged with "criminal linking" (an offense that does not exist). He was charged with deliberately and knowingly assisting in the breach of Stratfor, and subsequent maximization of the damage from that breach. And remember, he was convicted of doing that; they just pursued a different vector for it than the link. Keep in mind also, they didn't just work back from people who posted links. Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out.
Most criminal statutes look insane if you ignore the mens rea component and consider only the actus reus.
Probably the right way to address your comment is to acknowledge the sentiment behind it. It would be ominous if prosecutors trawled the Internet looking for the wrong kinds of links --- people RT'ing updates from Anonymous, for instance, or relaying already-public newsworthy facts from breaches --- and fit accessory liability cases around those innocuous acts. It is worth being wary about prosecutors doing that, because computer crime laws are poorly rigged and set up terrible incentive systems for prosecutors.
It's just that those concerns are not yet vindicated by the Brown case.
While "criminal linking" doesn't exist as a standalone crime, prosecutors have essentially tried to make it exist via other statutes. I don't know the disposition of the case, but a man in the UK was ordered a few years ago to be extradited to the US to stand trial for criminal copyright infringement after operating a site that offered links to copyrighted sports broadcasts [1]. In the Brown case, they tried to use the conspiracy statutes.
In both of the above examples, while not charged with "criminal linking," the actual conduct was linking to something prosecutors didn't like. The loud and clear message they are sending is "link to things we don't like, and we'll find a way to get you". That will have a chilling effect on free speech.
Most criminal statutes look insane if you ignore the mens rea component and consider only the actus reus.
Probably the right way to address your comment is to acknowledge the sentiment behind it. It would be ominous if prosecutors trawled the Internet looking for the wrong kinds of links --- people RT'ing updates from Anonymous, for instance, or relaying already-public newsworthy facts from breaches --- and fit accessory liability cases around those innocuous acts. It is worth being wary about prosecutors doing that, because computer crime laws are poorly rigged and set up terrible incentive systems for prosecutors.
It's just that those concerns are not yet vindicated by the Brown case.