Published over at Free Keene today is the following entry by Brad Jardis. Brad is a former law enforcement officer who will be representing Jason Talley, who was arrested for possession of a camera at the Cheshire County Superior Court.

This blog is made pursuant to NH Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 (c) (2) and (c) (6) as the testimony I am referring to below was given at a public hearing at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and thus, it is part of a public record. Additionally, the people of New Hampshire should be aware of the danger to the public interest.

As the time approaches where the string of events leading up to State v. Jason Talley becomes more and more public, I would like to remind the New Hampshire Supreme Court (and the news media) that at the “Rule 78” hearing on 12/16/11, (the rule about restrictions of New Hampshire’s Constitution Part I, Article 22 in the court system) that I attended, I stood right in front of you, on camera, and told you exactly how the courts were “inviolably” preserving the right to the freedom of the press in Cheshire County: a crime was committed by a sitting judge and high ranking judicial officials stripped rights away in an attempt to try and change the story.

I was even happy to see the former judge that I used to testify to as a police officer present on the panel. I figured it was beneficial to have someone on the panel who knows I am not a liar.

I spoke the truth, on camera, about the judicial cover-up occurring after Adam Mueller (Freeman)’s illegal arrest and how it ensnared Jason Talley. I was apparently ignored.

As Part II, Article 73-a makes you, the Supreme Court, the boss of all the lower courts in New Hampshire, I hope you are preparing to explain to the public how you were told specifically how a crime was being covered up in Cheshire County by judicial officers you supervise, but apparently did nothing about it.

Ademo Freeman

^— This man spent two days incarcerated for a crime he never committed. He spent two days incarcerated for constitutionally protected activity.

Hold Judge Burke and the other judges who are involved accountable because it is the ethical thing to do… not because politics forces you to do so later.

You’re not above the law…you’re entrusted with it.

Following this entry at Free Keene was a post indicating that a motion to restrain the court from using violence to enforce honoraries was denied.

by Garret Ean
Feb 15 2012

2/4 Antiwar Rally in Minneapolis, MN

On Saturday, February 4, a national day of war resistance was celebrated in the streets of cities around the nation. Following a protest at the Obama re-election campaign office opening, I headed to Veterans Park in Manchester, where there was a rally against war, especially the increasingly hyped prospect of war with Iran. In recent weeks, it seems established powers have been banging the war drums ever more loudly.

It appears to be a geographic continuance of ongoing military conquests by the US government, that in taking Iraq and Afghanistan, the next ambition would be the powerhouse that divides them. Though there’s a history of mistrust between the US and Iran, one obstacle that neither militant faction of the two countries may be able to overcome is the ability of the people of Iran and the United States to directly communicate. The internet has provided a communications medium that two modern nations facing potential war never in history have had before. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has a particularly modernized society and culture. One would hope that everyday people are able to retain control over the mediums of communication, to maintain resistance to the spread of aggressive war.

Below is my raw video from the Veterans Park rally, featuring speakers and a flash mob-esque sign wave toward the end.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Cm5HFCp30E

by Garret Ean
Feb 13 2012

Occupy NH activist Matthew Richards has accepted a diversion program deal to avoid a trespassing charge stemming from his arrest in January. Matthew was arrested during the January 8 republican presidential debate at the Capitol Center for the Arts. Concord-nh.patch.com has the details of the program included in its coverage. At a hearing in a few months, it will be determined if the state will dismiss the misdemeanor charge. With this charge seemingly diverted, Matthew also faces a trespassing charge from the five arrests made during the Occupy NH eviction.

Images from the February 4 protest outside of the Obama re-election campaign office in Nashua, NH.

by Garret Ean
Feb 8 2012

Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck

Free Keene activists have often been portrayed as an alternative to the mainstream of whatever it is they’re compared to. In NH state politics, they are the ominous extreme that some politicians take care to avoid being associated with. In the city of Keene itself, always considered a more socialist and statist locality in New Hampshire, activists with that region’s liberty movement have had little influence over the rigidly ritual Keene city council. During a protest drinking game which featured water in glass bottles, Mayor Dale Pregent had activists arrested, though charges were later dropped. In recent history, there have not been any city council measures which have been either proposed or revoked as credited to Free Keene activism.

In the past few days, a story has been brewing over whether the city would accept hundreds of thousands in federal dollars to purchase an armored assault vehicle being marketed as a rescue vehicle. Though it was approved in December, because of one city councilor’s reluctance to take the money, the issue has been brought up again and has seen much opposition to the proposal from not just the liberty activist community, but from the greater Keene population.

The most telling aspect of this development over how Keene will spend its monopoly money is how the company producing the vehicle, Lenco, has responded. On February 3, Ian Freeman posted the article, Is the Bearcat a rescue vehicle, as was suggested by city councilors? In the article was embedded a marketing video made by Lenco of the Bearcat, and very militarized police, in action. The video features a home being gassed similarly to the methods used in the final assault on the Branch Davidian compound in 1993. All of this is scored to Thunderstruck by AC/DC (which was surely not an inexpensive license to obtain). When the city council discussed the Bearcat at meetings, it was labeled as a rescue vehicle. The difficult to watch video paints a very different picture of how the machine is used. It is clear that how the idea is pitched to the people who will be using it, and how it is pitched to the people whom it will be used on are two separate concepts.

There was a proposal to have the video played at the city council meeting, which was objected to by councilors. Lenco, in the meantime, has privatized the video, making it no longer accessible to the public through themselves. Fortunately, nothing ever really vanishes from the internet, and CopBlock has hosted a copy of the revealing video on their YouTube channel. In trying to obscure it, Lenco has just attracted even more eyes to the video. See the anti-art embedded below, if you care to.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_tx-oRkQnr0

Could this be the milestone of Free Keene activists and the general public teaming up to curb a very open encroachment of the police state? We’ll see how it all unfolds.

Feb 15 2012: Today WMUR posted coverage of resistance to the Bearcat, including footage of Free Keene activists singing, “Thanks, but no tanks”.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xy8BYn0CVnE

Naz and Hope upon his release today.

In July of last year, we reported on the incarceration and pending deportation proceedings being brought against Nazry Mustakim, when NH activist Russell Kanning was arrested for chalking “Free Naz” at a Waco, TX federal courthouse. Nazry Mustakim is a Waco resident who was born in Singapore and grew up in the United States. After a series of legal proceedings, in which a prosecutor was attempting to try him again on years old drug charges, the state has decided to drop its case against him. His deportation has been canceled, and he is free to return to his home and family after having been imprisoned for 313 days.

Nazry’s success in beating the charges was assisted by the vocal, supportive community that organized around his case. His wife, Hope Mustakim, posted this announcement earlier today on freenaz.com:

At Naz’s Master Hearing yesterday, the prosecutor just decided to GRANT him the waiver to cancel his deportation just then and there! No future hearing, nothing. We are DONE! I am picking him up as soon as they release him this afternoon…

For Naz and I, our involvement in immigration reform is far from over. The heaviest tears we’ve cried during the past 10 months have been for the men [and women] in the detention centers who were so scared and confused, without a network of support to sustain them like Naz. They are sweet, hard-working, generous individuals. Dads, husbands, brothers…These are people, warm-blooded humans, children of God. And we refuse to settle back into “life” and forget about them. But honestly, we never could.

July chalking at the state house, Concord.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JwPG9ceLI

by Garret Ean
Feb 7 2012

Saturday, February 4th was a national day of action against agitation for war with Iran. With my camera charged up, I made my first stop on the mild winter day the Barack Obama campaign office in Nashua, which had an opening celebration at 10:00am. I showed up to meet Occupy NH participants who had brought literature to distribute. I went about my usual chalking, focusing on messages that I hoped would make supporters of the president question their commitment.

Some suits emerged from the building, looked around, and went back inside. As I was keeping the chalking away from a portion of pavement under an overhang, and in the public area of the sidewalk, I knew that there could not be a claim that I was chalking any private property. Aside from myself, only one other person chose to participate in the chalking.

Three police cars eventually arrive. An officer politely asks the group to be sure that they do not block the sidewalk, as they had received complaints. He was brief, leaving after having relayed the information.

Up the street, the officer from the lead car was speaking with a man in a red jacket. I filmed from a distance, and noticed when the police began moving away from him. You could hear him yell, “These people have no right! No right to deface public property!”

You can see in the video his profane reaction when I try to converse with him after the police leave. He went on to deny the first amendment freedom of speech, and imply that I was morally transgressing by speaking against “your president” and “your country”. Yet another example of an individual so detached from his fellow man that when he is offended by an action (chalking) he first goes to an agent of aggression, rather than have the courage to politely and respectfully address the issue himself.

Kudos to the Nashua PD for choosing not to interfere when there was clearly no wrongdoing going on.

My next stop of the day was an Antiwar Rally at Veterans Park in Manchester, which began at noon. Coverage of that event coming soon.

by Garret Ean
Feb 5 2012

As the NH house and senate return to a full schedule for public hearings, I’ve made an effort to maintain camera coverage for certain bills. Last week was a house hearing on HB 1705, which would heavily restrict, but effectively legalize home consumption of cannabis in the state of New Hampshire. The ‘tax and regulate’ bill was complimented with a decriminalization bill. The decrim bill, heard on February 2nd, would have set the penalty for cannabis possession of under an ounce at a $100 fine. The bill was amended to criminalize the third possession, so in a sense, this bill only decriminalizes cannabis possession for one’s first two offenses. The bills are imperfect, as all are, but both represent a very progressive step forward for cannabis policy reform in New Hampshire, a state which is far behind all other New England political subdivisions in this sense.

As is to be expected, those that escalate the drug war, the enforcers who invest their consciences into the fight, will speak at hearings impassioned to continue what they consider to be important work. Occasionally, those who are invested in such work recognize it to be harmful in nature, and separate themselves from the job that they do to speak out against the ill caused by the role that they play. Such rejection of the standard rally cry to continue the war on drugs is voiced by Richard Van Wickler, who in his day job is the administrator of the Cheshire county jail. He comes to the hearing acknowledging that he is not representing the role he plays at his job, and that he has taken a vacation day to express his personal feelings before decision makers in Concord. Richard is one of the few speakers on behalf of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who is currently employed in the criminal justice industry, showing how unpopular holding such a viewpoint is while actively working in the field. Below is his testimony favoring the legalization legislation, as filmed by Biker Bill.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vKVpBk9OHbM

Prohibition’s latest warriors

At the restricted-legalization hearing on HB 1705, the chief of police of Franklin appeared before the committee in full uniform representing the NH Chiefs of Police Association, who always send a representative to speak against any drug policy reform. In the past, an Enfield police chief was the usual spokesman. Since appearing on an episode of NH Outlook in which he was schooled with information on medicinal cannabis, that chief has not appeared at committee hearings. At the decrim hearing, HB 1526, the room appeared populated with the normal handful of lobbyists and concerned citizens. But in glancing at the blue sheet, a form which expresses generic support or opposition for those present, there was a significant population of names in opposition who were not in the room. Alongside their names was listed the Franklin Youth Initiative, and all had marked themselves as in opposition to the bill.

After the representatives and a few government officials spoke both for and against the bill, the call was made for the next speaker by the committee chair. The Franklin Youth Initiative was summoned. The crew of five high school students and a health teacher from Franklin High School proceeded in and stood at the table for testimony. The teacher and one student had prepared statements, and all responded to some questions by legislators.

Arguing in favor of strict cannabis enforcement, FYI didn’t try to acknowledge the failures of prohibition in preventing drug use. Their plea focused on the aura of fear associated with the black market and the importance of retaining that aura of criminality. The harsh punishment they consider a necessity in exchange for a perceived deterrent effect that strict laws may have. They submitted written testimony to the committee on the dangers of cannabis use. The written testimony consisted of an inconclusive study published by the Psychiatric Times investigating a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia.

Though the committee asked them some wise questions, I wanted to learn more about the motivations of the Franklin Youth Initiative. After they had finished speaking, they left the hearing and went out into the often busy hall. Instead of a camera, in my hand was a notepad, and I recorded responses from the group. I began by confirming that they opposed the decriminalization of all drugs, which they affirmed, except alcohol. Though the group discouraged the use of alcohol, none of them supported the prohibition of the drug. When I asked if they could account for the violent crime associated with prohibited substances and what becomes of that crime when the substance is legalized, I got the impression that this may be the first time many of the students were hearing factual points in favor of drug legalization and against prohibition policy.

When I inquired into whether they would support the sick having access to cannabis as medicine, they cited synthetic marinol being an ample substitute. I didn’t want to much venture into the realm of educator from interviewer in pointing out that cannabis is often smoked as medicine to stimulate appetite in cancer patients. The pill form marinol is not only less tested than natural cannabis, but it also may not be consumable by those whose problems are digestive in nature. In speaking further on the benefits of medical alternatives to cannabis, one student reported that approved medicines are safer in that the toxic substances in the cannabis are removed. No scientific research has uncovered any substances within cannabis that could be classified as toxic, as it is one of the safest consumable substances known to man, being less toxic than many natural foods which would never be considered dangerous.

Early in the video, the health teacher mentions that “the FYI is working with the Franklin mayor’s drug task force”. It is likely the trip was organized by the bureaucratic opponents of cannabis reform, using the participation of young people to draw attention to the bill. Their testimony seemed as though it would have been more appropriate at the legalization hearing, though strategically they may have chosen to appear at the decrim hearing because the less extensive measure is more likely to pass.

I hope that the young people of the Franklin Youth Initiative keep an open mind to what it is that they are encouraging by advocating non-violent actions be treated as criminal, and responded to violently. See the footage of their appearance before the house criminal justice committee embedded below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4e03RdONBno

Feb 8 2012: The Free Concord video of the Franklin Youth Initiative’s testimony was featured in this week’s episode of Free Keene TV, a local access news show in Cheshire county.

by Garret Ean
Feb 2 2012

Photo journalism activist Carlos Miller was arrested Tuesday evening while he was attempting to cover the police’s eviction of Occupy Miami. Carlos is no stranger to arrest for photography. He has beaten two separate prior charges for photographing police. This most recent arrest sounds very similar to what occurred during the Chalking 8 incident in Manchester, in which the police criminalize a group and then arrest all those they associate with the group. In my case, though it came up at one point, I did not need to address whether I was acting as press at the time of my arrest to demonstrate that the seizure was unfounded. In this case, protesters were ordered away from an area where press were allowed to remained. Carlos was swept up after the protesters had already been cleared despite identifying himself as press when addressed and being near other reporters.

Photo: Carlos Miller

The police have deleted the footage he had taken in the moments leading up to his arrest. Another journalist is believed to have captured footage of the arrest, which has yet to be released. There is a reason that the United States has recently been downgraded to 47th place on the global Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders.

You can read the first hand account of the arrest at the Photography Is Not A Crime blog. I especially appreciate Carlos’ activism and reporting, as he was the first of many bloggers to feature coverage of my Lemonade Liberation outreach last August.

Carlos Miller will be speaking in Nashua, New Hampshire on Saturday, February 25 at this year’s Liberty Forum.

Feb 4 2012: Some of the footage that was deleted by police has been recovered, and the slightly choppy video is embedded below. In a blog published today, it is noted that data recovery services will be used to restore more of the footage.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kqta4sTkhn0

Today marks the 67th anniversary of the execution of Private Eddie Slovik. His is a story that government education is often too ashamed to tell. Eddie was convicted during World War II of desertion after he told superiors that he was too afraid to participate in combat. Then-Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower felt the need to make an example out of Eddie, as desertion rates within the military began to rise. He was tried in a military court in November of 1944, and shot to death on January 31, 1945. He is the only American to be executed for desertion since the American Civil War.

As he was being led to his death, Eddie said to his fellow soldiers, “They’re not shooting me for deserting the United States Army, thousands of guys have done that. They just need to make an example out of somebody and I’m it because I’m an ex-con. I used to steal things when I was a kid, and that’s what they are shooting me for. They’re shooting me for the bread and chewing gum I stole when I was 12 years old.” Eddie Slovik was 24 years old at the time of his death.

Two recent videos posted over at Free Keene that were filmed in Concord demonstrate how important it is that you stand up for your right to record.

In this encounter from last week at the Drug Task Force office of the Attorney General, Ian and Ademo meet Investigator James Brown (no relation to the Godfather of Soul).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_5T_3-P3hm0

In this video posted today, Ian is filming a traffic stop on I-89 N from the passenger seat. The state trooper immediately threatens to arrest, claiming that he does not consent to being recorded. When he is told, “You are consenting by being in front of my camera,” he drops the issue.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mgb2f8ZIy-U

Free Keene activist Derrick J. also posted a video earlier today, recorded between Manchester and Keene, in which he and a passenger had to stand their ground for their right to record a traffic stop. The officer involved tried to demand identification from the passenger, citing violation of the wiretapping statute as his reasonable suspicion to ID. After his captives cited statute and case law, the ignorant officer backed down. See the video linked below:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RaDDDL0YYGU

by Garret Ean
Jan 27 2012

Since it was posted the day following the New Hampshire primary, a video by a watchdog group showcasing exploits of election security has reached over 350,000 views. I remember seeing several friends sharing the video on Facebook, and although I didn’t find it stimulating enough to watch from start to finish (it needed more editing for my taste), I found it to be an interesting piece of investigative journalism bound to start some heated debate over election security.

The video is briefly prefaced with text stating, “If a person walked in to vote in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary, and said the names of multiple DEAD people…Could he receive a ballot to vote without showing any ID?” “© Project Veritas” is watermarked on the screen. If you watch for the entire ten minutes, you’ll see the same scene repeated multiple times. A man walks into a polling location wearing an inconspicuous camera on his person. He says, “Do you have a (name) on your list?” When asked to confirm the address and party registration, he says, “That is the address” and, “That is the registration”. Upon receiving a ballot, the man returns the ballot and insists on retrieving identification before casting a vote. The video ends with a less than climactic interview of poor audio quality with ward moderator Ryk Bullock.

There was much publicized discontent over a plan by some house republicans earlier last year to mandate voters provide photographic identification at the polls. Currently, potential voters are entitled to a ballot so long as they are willing to sign an affidavit affirming their residence within a particular ward. It is clear what the political motivation of the actors in the video are when they insist that poll workers check their IDs.

On this point, I don’t concur with the producers of the video, who sign off with, “Reporting for the Project Veritas, James O’Keefe and Spencer Meads”. While they made a noteworthy point about the ability to receive a ballot while impersonating the deceased, they did not prove that photo IDs are an imperative necessity for New Hampshire’s election process.

The first editorial published in the Concord Monitor critical of the actions of Project Veritas was penned by Zandra Rice Hawkins, the director of Granite State Progress. Zandra characterizes the actions of O’Keefe and Meads as breaking the law and obstructing the New Hampshire primary. To justify the claim that they had broken the law, she cites the voter fraud statute. In the statute, the act of impersonating another voter is criminalized, in addition to actually casting the fraudulent ballot. While the impersonation may be technically illegal, clearly the spirit of the law is to prevent illegitimate votes from being cast.

Another law alleged to have been broken by the duo is the infamous wiretapping statute. Many who haven’t dug deeply into the applications of the statute falsely believe the law to require consent to audio record an individual. Despite the word “consent” appearing in the RSA, all that is required in the statute is that someone be aware that they could be recorded. When out in public, there’s no expectation of privacy, and apart from the voting booth itself, the polling location is considered to be a particularly public space. The process is considered so open that campaigns are permitted to host poll watchers, whose job it is to monitor the checklist for who has voted as poll workers check names off. On primary day, I volunteered in this capacity for the presidential candidate I dislike the least. While poll watching, a cameraman, likely from WMUR, set up his equipment near the entrance and got several wide shots of the slow action. He did not survey those in the room for consent to be recorded, nor was this his responsibility.

Zandra does not elaborate on how Project Veritas disrupted the primary. Nobody was prevented from voting, and it is not as though one particular poll worker is singled out in the video or made to look irresponsible. She analogizes, “It’s like saying that a bank could be robbed, then filming yourself robbing it to prove your point.” At this point, one is not even comparing apples and oranges. Robbing a bank and not casting fraudulent ballots go together like honeydew melons and predator drones.

While I strongly disagree with Zandra’s suggestion that making criminals of O’Keefe and company is a good idea, I appreciate that while making such strong statements, she was open enough to attach her name. The following day’s Concord Monitor included a follow-up piece, written under the anonymous moniker of the Monitor Editorial Board. The piece which ran on January 20 corrected the mistaken claim that Project Veritas had violated the wiretapping statute, but it took no shame in endorsing a prison sentence and tens of thousands of dollars in fines for the participants in the video. I suggest the editorial board of the Monitor give a second reading to the New Hampshire constitution, which humbly suggests in article 18 that “No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery, and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason.” Amateur journalism ought be affixed the same penalty that every other nonviolent, victimless crime ought have: absolutely nothing. Those who call for noncriminals to be imprisoned are mobs endorsing institutional violence. The anonymous author exposes that (s)he cares less for election security than (s)he does seeing political opponents purged. Opening and closing with similar lines, the piece ends with, “The best way to ensure the sanctity of the vote is to make the penalty for daring to obstruct, defraud or otherwise game the system so onerous that only a fool would risk it.”

This approach is as shortsighted as the assumption that executing people for lesser offenses (such as narcotics as in Singapore and Saudi Arabia) will result in people choosing not to commit those offenses. The failure of this assumption is demonstrated as people continue to be executed in those countries year after year. In openly acknowledging in the middle of the article that nobody knows how much voter fraud goes on in the state, the author underscores the fact that putting up a tough front does nothing to deter actual criminals who are free to continue their clandestine activities.

A cheap and easy solution that doesn’t require the mass of voters to carry ID and would greatly deter the type of potential fraud that Project Veritas exposed would be to list dates of birth alongside name, address, and party registration on the voter rolls. Throwing more people in prison and putting them under tremendous financial distress does nothing but increase the State’s threshold for violence.

Jan 30 2012: Yesterday’s Monitor featured a fair biographical piece on James O’Keefe. He directed the actions seen in the NH primary video from New Jersey, where he is prohibited from leaving. In early 2010, he pled guilty to entering a federal building under a false pretense, in connection to a phone jamming incident regarding a Louisiana senator. His probation is scheduled to expire in May of 2013. It turns out that O’Keefe is technically not an amateur to the extent that he is paid heavily for his exploits. Whether an amateur is defined by quality of work over whether one is paid up front, the videos that O’Keefe has produced speak for themselves.

A scene from ongoing protests in Bucharest. Photo by Mediafax.

by Garret Ean
Jan 21 2012

On January 9, the public hearing on Manchester police department’s CALEA accreditation was held. CALEA is the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Agencies seeking certification must pay CALEA for the process, which is administered by current and former law enforcement officers. CALEA certification is primarily intended for larger departments, and aids the department in insuring itself against liability. The biannual hearing is open to anyone with input, positive or negative, on whether a police department should be given passing certification. A quick Google search does not reveal evidence of a department ever having failed the CALEA certification process.

In the past, such hearings have been better attended by critics of departments. With this year’s hearing falling the night before the New Hampshire presidential primary, I was not surprised that I was the only voice critical of MPD at the event. I spoke about the Chalking 8 incident, which I had been swept up in and later found not guilty of two bogus criminal charges.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=75XDsDwvvBc

The hearing was well attended by friends of the MPD. Many of the speakers represented various government agencies, both state and federal, who had worked with Manchester police in the past and had nothing but positive things to say. You can see the full 1.5 hour hearing linked below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iUOHUjqkZR8

by Garret Ean
Jan 20 2012

Authorities in New Zealand yesterday raided the offices of MegaUpload, a file hosting service with servers based in Hong Kong. The remarkably successful business allowed anyone to upload digital media, and based on the amount of traffic that the item received, would either remain online or be replaced with new content. 20 search warrants in eight countries allowed agents working in collaboration with the United States federal government to seize $50 million in assets. The FBI asserts that its has e-mail correspondence from within the company that confirms knowledge of copyright infringement.

Another assertion of US officials is that MegaUpload has caused “more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright holders”. Their brand of logic assumes that any time a person downloads media for free, that they would have paid full price for the same content from the original distributor. Over the course of their run in the market, MegaUpload has generated $175 million in advertising revenue.

In response to the raid, Anonymous hackers launched the largest cyber attack in the history of the internet on the US Department of Justice, the RIAA, and the MPAA. This Techdirt article ponders both the ethics and effectiveness of DDoS attacks. Some speculate that the raid was intentionally timed to follow the January 18 blackout protests of SOPA and PIPA, in order to associate resistance to congressional restriction of the internet with computer hacking.

by Garret Ean
Jan 19 2012

Google as it appeared during the Jan 18 blackout.

Much abuzz online yesterday had to deal with the congressional threat to the internet known as SOPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act is a federal bill which would create a blacklist of websites which internet service providers would be required to maintain and enforce. The blacklist would allegedly include websites which either host or link to data which, per its existence, is violating copyright laws. The very concept of ‘piracy’ is on its face hyperbolic. It is laughable Newspeak to equate data sharing with the practice of pillaging vessels at sea. PIPA, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, is the senate version of the dinosaur recording industry’s legislative attempt to thwart the free exchange of information. Also lobbying very strongly with the MPAA is the pharmaceutical industry, which profits heavily from onerous intellectual property regulation.

Reddit was the first eminent domain of the internet to announce January 18 as its blackout date to protest SOPA. Wikipedia announced its participation with similar measures. Google demonstrated its solidarity by featuring a black stripped homepage with a subheader requesting that people contact their so-called representatives and ask for a rejection of state control over the internet.

Heavy traffic to government servers hosting contact information for congress and the senate caused many pages to be inaccessible for the day.

According to Wikipedia’s article on their twenty-four hour campaign, at least six senators who had been co-sponsors of the bill had withdrawn their support by the day’s end. One of those who withdrew support was NH senator Kelly Ayotte. Jeanne Shaheen is still listed as a co-sponsor of the bill, though after a quick call to her DC office inquiring on the matter, a staffer informed me that she now has “serious reservations” about the bill after hearing from her constituents. The offices of Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta have indicated that neither of them will be supporting SOPA-style legislation.

The global campaign against SOPA and PIPA was likely the most successful decentralized coordination of consciousness raising that we have seen as a result of our abilities to communicate using the internet. Detractors of the blackout took two forms. First, there were those mildly inconvenienced by an inability to access the live version of Wikipedia (Google hosted cached versions for those who knew how to look for them). Demonstrating the inconvenience of censorship was part of the protest’s purpose. The second group of detractors were those who saw their power slip yesterday during the digital uprising. Some media moguls, such as the editorial board of the Boston Herald, classified the protest as a “hissy fit”, despite underlining the success of the event, following with, “within hours of the online protest, political supporters of the bill…began dropping like flies, thus proving how very powerful these cyber-bullies can be”.

How often is it that a corporate news agency expresses how offended it is that internet activists contacted politicians? When a mass of people engaging in the most mundane form of political action are deemed “cyber-bullies”, it is clear that the world is changing.

Internet gatekeeper Chris Dodd

One of the more disturbing quotes uttered regarding the protest comes from a man who exposes himself as tyrannically minded. Chris Dodd, former senator, democratic presidential candidate, and current Corporate Executive Officer for the Motion Picture Association of America, condemned the protest as an “abuse of power”.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

Apparently, other people’s liberties are simply privileges granted by Lord Dodd.

IP Tyranny without SOPA

As reported January 16, a British student is likely going to be extradited to the United States on IP violation charges despite never having been on US soil. It is unclear whether he’s being charged with a crime or a civil infraction.

Happy 204th!

Political philosopher and activist extraordinaire Lysander Spooner was born on this date 204 years ago. Check out his iconoclastic No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority in Free Concord’s media section.

by Garret Ean
Jan 16 2012

In the eastern European nation of Slovenia earlier today, a paywall was erected engrossing many of the most prolific digital media distributors. Piano Media, a Slovakian paywall service corporation, has convinced nine publishers and twelve websites to adopt a shared paywall, which will cost subscribers €2 for a weekly pass.

The model for Piano’s cartelization of media is similar to that of television subscriptions. At present, more people are abandoning cable and satellite live programming for the boundless information frontier provided by the internet. Few subscription services have fared well in the purge caused by the internet, with a notable exception being the growth seen by Netflix. Piano’s model divides subscription profits with the companies participating in the paywall, giving 70% of the revenue to media distributors and keeping thirty cents on the dollar for itself. It measures traffic among clients and based on where more traffic is channeled, Piano compensates the company.

Delo, Slovenia’s largest publication, plans to put about 10% of its content behind the wall, keeping the remaining content free so as to keep constant its web traffic. In Slovakia, media giant SME has approximately 5% of its content paywalled at the moment.

It was last April that the Slovakian paywall was launched by Piano, about the same time that our hometown newspaper’s website was paywalled off. In the first nation to see its media restricted en mass this way, marketplace isolation aided the endeavor in being sustainable.  With limited resources in the formerly communist republic, and the Slovak language spoken only in that region, incorporating so many of the nation’s publications into the project cornered the market, and gave consumers no alternative. Similarly, paywalling the major Slovene language publications corners that nation’s market.

Such a mass paywall project has potential in the United States, but with such diverse market variety in English language media, the more comprehensive paywall project emerging in eastern Europe would be less likely to catch on here. Paywalls in the United States have most often been limited to individual publications, not networks of media distributors. Though many major cities’ newsprints are owned by a handful of companies, it is possible that a coordinated paywalling effort would result in the potentially illegal sharing of copyrighted newsprint. There’s even market potential, if such a restriction was to be imposed on this very computer literate market, for the business of interpreting paywalled information. Based off of the sheer traffic a free site will get with similar content to a paywalled site, a business could copy all of the major stories from behind paywalls and change just enough detail so as not to tread the murky waters of copyright infringement. Only with state-imposed copyright restrictions may we see such a concept as a bootleg newspaper.

Extradition over copying

Richard O’Dwyer, a resident of the UK who has never before been on US soil, is being extradited by the ‘royal’ government to the US to face charges that he linked through his website to copyrighted material hosted on other websites. In three years, he allegedly made $230,000 in advertising revenue through his site and used the funds for his college tuition.

by Garret Ean
Jan 12 2012

So passed another ubiquitous presidential primary season. The evolution of social media in advancing involvement, as well as disruption and protest in the weeks leading up to the primary was increasingly evident. Whether it was Occupy New Hampshire, undercover Ron Paul supporters, or independent and creative anarchists, the 2012 primary election bloomed into a renaissance for political satire in the granite state. Independent media continues to release intriguing videos and stories from the quadrennial festivity.

One especially overlooked aspect of any primary election is when, like this year, one side of the political divide is a no-contest. Few were shocked that Barack Obama emerged as the highest vote recipient for those who selected the blue-bannered ballot during Tuesday’s primary. The incumbent president was listed among 13 other contenders for the democratic party’s nomination. This ballot is notable for being shorter than its opposition by 20 names. Aside from the potential provided by the write-in slot, the only other candidate who stood for radical change on the roster was Vermin Supreme. His campaign represented what could have been the most honest and accessible movement for variety that this nation has ever seen.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

Ed Cowan

But despite amassing 833 votes, Vermin Supreme was not to earn the coveted position of the new number two. He was narrowly edged out by world traveling Vermont resident Ed Cowan. Ed received 945 votes which put him in second place among declared democrats in the democratic primary. Counting republican write-ins, the second, third, and fourth places go to the second, first, and third placing republicans. Ron Paul’s 2,271 democratic write-in votes combined with the official 56,872 votes gained in the republican primary secured him a second place finish in both 2012 New Hampshire primaries.

Bill Gardner’s office has released the total vote counts, including legible write-ins. One surprising trend is that the lesser-contested democratic primary had 759 scatter ballots cast, compared to the 257 scatter ballots in the republican race. As the national show hits the road on its ritual tour, one wonders what our neighbors plan as entertainment for visiting politicians in their home states.

Harvard student blogger Matt Bieber has written yesterday that he was baselessly arrested by Hudson police while at a Mitt Romney event on January 9. Police said that he was identified by campaign staff as someone who was present at a previous protest which Bieber claims to have not attended. His experience is published at his blog here.

The previous protest that he was alleged to have been at could have possibly been one which I had attended in a journalistic capacity. Occupy New Hampshire participants had gathered outside of Romney’s campaign headquarters on Elm Street in Manchester. Some protesters waived signs over the windows while the presidential candidate talked to supporters inside. This occurred during the initial occupation of Veterans Park back in October.

The facts in Bieber’s case are vaguely similar to the circumstances that resulted in the arrest of Dave Ridley at the Radisson in Nashua on May 25.

by Garret Ean
January 10 2012

At Sunday morning’s presidential debate held at the Capitol Center for the Arts, one arrest was made during a foiled “mic check” attempt by Occupy New Hampshire activists. Matthew Richards of Manchester was arrested for trespassing after attempting to hold open a door at the theater to allow protesters into the debate. He was tackled by security and placed under arrest by Concord police. Dave Ridley captured the scene following the arrest, as Matthew is brought out of the building. This is his second protest related trespassing arrest, as he was also taken into custody for a short period following the eviction of the Occupy NH encampment in Veterans Park.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YS3xOKAAMnE

A video of the crowd outside of the debate has since premiered. You can see and hear Occupy NH protesters as Ron Paul enters the venue, with democratic presidential candidate Vermin Supreme on bullhorn.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aAvqshYPLAU

Also appearing today is a published piece by Sam Bollier from Al-Jazeera English. A much appreciated link to Free Concord is featured within the well researched story on New Hampshire liberty activism.

http://aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/201219115838331615.html