I can't find anything either, and the fact that he doesn't include that in the letter sort of implies that it's something that'd immediately lose him any sympathy or backing, doesn't it?
First, the guy could be accused of choking babies to death with child porn and that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as far as his, and the rest of our, fundamental rights are concerned.
Second, accused (or even indicted) is absolutely different than convicted, which itself bears an indirect relationship to 'true'.
Third, courts typically don't post private proceedings on the internet - you'd be amazed how many things you wouldn't be able to "find anything" about via a google search. If he's being held for contempt in relation to a case that he's not actually a defendant in, I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's already being held in contempt.
But by all means, don't let me stop you from impugning the integrity of a man you admit to knowing nothing at all about.
I can't imagine a lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet asking people who don't know anything about the case to spam the judge and prosecutor, either.
In fact, he states that he doesn't have a lawyer.
If he expects people to write letters, he needs to explain WHY they need to write letters. That requires telling us what the case is actually about.
What you're trying to do here is obvious, and I don't like it one bit. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're trying to introduce bias, and shame on you for doing it.
The fact of the matter is that even if the first sentence of his message stated that he was being held on child pornography charges, I would still back his right to not have to reveal his key. That's ridiculously lazy policing.
However, the omission of what his charges are from such a thorough message is extremely conspicuous. I could pretend to be a string parsing robot and only act on what the message itself contained... Or I could use my full brain like a human and make some reasonable assumptions. He's probably been accused of something pretty bad to leave it out like he did.
It's funny that in then contest to appear dispassionate and just people, even in an intelligent community such as this, handicap themselves. We're not better for having done so.