The Robin Hood of Keene media coverage keeps rolling in. A major national TV news crew was in town today and last week I had the privilege of appearing as a guest on KGO-AM in San Francisco. KGO is what is called a “flamethrower” in the business. It’s the maximum legally allowed 50,000 watts on AM in one of the top markets in the country, San Francisco, with a monster signal that covers Sacramento, Santa Rosa, San Jose, and Salinas.
“Today’s decision is a victory for First Amendment rights,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director for the New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief on the case. “The court recognized that government actors cannot sue citizens for alleged torts in an attempt to suppress legal, but unpopular, speech in public places. We must all remember that the First Amendment only means something if it protects popular and unpopular speech alike.”
In a nearly complete victory for Robin Hood of Keene, the NH supreme court has affirmed nearly all of the superior court’s decisions against the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” in the city’s libelous assault on the heroic activists who have rescued thousands of motorists from parking tickets in downtown Keene in the last couple of years.
The victory is nearly complete, with one exception. The supremes ruled that the lower court needed to consider the city’s request for injunction separately from the claims of “tortious interference” and “conspiracy”. Therefore, the supremes remanded only that detail back to the superior court to decide. If you’ve been reading Free Keene for a while, you may recall that the city’s original suit in 2013 asked for a in injunction of a 50ft radius “buffer zone” around each parking enforcer that would preclude the named Robin Hooders from being in that zone. Eventually, they reduced their request to 30ft, then 10-15ft. The buffer zone concept has previously been ruled unconstitutional in other courts and likely will be again when it goes back to Cheshire superior court.
The rest of the court’s twelve-page opinion backs up the lower court’s dismissal of the city’s outrageous case. The claims of “tortious interference” with the city’s “business” of screwing over people shopping downtown and the claim of “conspiracy” were shut down on a free-speech basis:
However, we need not decide whether a viable tortious interference claim can exist under the circumstances present in this case because we agree with the trial court that holding the respondents liable for tortious interference based upon their alleged activities would infringe upon the respondents’ right to free speech under the First Amendment…we also conclude that the First Amendment bars the City from pursuing its claim that the respondents are liable for conspiring to commit the very same tort.
The city’s lies about the behavior of Robin Hooders (they claimed, without evidence, we were “harassing, threatening, and intimidating” the parking enforcers) had no effect on the court’s decision to dismiss. The court’s judges know that telling government bureaucrats how you feel their job is wrong is fully within free speech protections, even if the bureaucrats don’t want to hear it. Further, the court opinion backed up the Robin Hooders’ non-verbal actions as protected free speech: (more…)
Free State Project early mover Amanda Bouldin was elected in Manchester in 2014 as a state representative and one of the first things she did was file a bill, HB 271, that ends prohibition on possession of Narcan. Narcan is a trade name for Naloxone which can be administered to counter the effects of an opioid overdose – saving lives. Until now, Narcan could only be possessed legally by EMS and police. Now anyone who acts with “good faith and reasonable care” may store or administer the life-saving drug to a person in overdose with no criminal or civil liability. It’s a major change that will likely result in saving the lives of multiple heroin and other opiate addicts in New Hampshire.
Bouldin is also known for her Shire Sharing organization that feeds poor families on Thanksgiving each year across the state.
Not only is the ending of Narcan prohibition a major success for a freshman legislator, it’s a big win for the Free State Project, and more proof that the 1500 early movers continue to have a significant impact. If you love liberty and aren’t here yet, start planning your move and join the FSP!
In his epic response, James lays out the ideas of liberty and voluntarism and addresses common objections about health care, vice, property rights, and more. It’s an excellent piece and would be a good one to share with people who still believe in “the state”. Here it is:
A recent column posited that Libertarian Party ideals, while they look good on paper, erode freedom (Monitor Forum, May 28). As someone who supported Barack Obama in his first run for the presidency, and even attended his inauguration, I can understand these concerns. But as someone who has since come to self-identify as a libertarian, I think the author (and the Monitor’s readers) could use some clarification as to what the principles of liberty actually are.
The article started with and seemed to revolve around one question: “What exactly do libertarians mean by harm?” This is certainly the heart of the discussion. (more…)
You may have seen the news today that Ross Ulbricht, the man who created the Silk Road, the world’s most infamous black market “darknet” site, has been sentenced to life in federal prison with no possibility of parole. Given the unfair trial he was subjected to from start-to-finish, the fact that he did not take a plea, and because the feds want to “send a message” to underground market operators and participants, it’s sad but no surprise he got the maximum. Ross plans to appeal and fundraising is being done for that now.
One of the big questions at the time was, what did Ross want? We knew what his understandably-frightened mother and his court-obedient attorney wanted, but was their wish Ross’ wish?
Free Keene Bloggers James Cleaveland and Jay Freeville Outside the Ulbricht Trial
Local liberty activist David Crawford decided to write Ross and find out. Unfortunately, Ross didn’t write back until after his conviction, and in what may be the first publicly available letter from Ross Ulbricht, he exonerates the liberty-loving activists who came out to support him.
Ross thanks the activists for their support at trial and says he’s glad they were there, doesn’t think they did anything wrong, and appreciated their effort. He also expresses hope to not receive the life sentence. The full text of the letter appears below.
Dear David,
I got your letter a few weeks back, thank you for writing, and thank you for your support at the trial. I’m glad you were there protesting. You should be able to voice your opinions and hold signs, especially at a courthouse where it is especially important to have that freedom. I know it was touchy because the judge wanted to control what the jury was exposed to, but I don’t think you did anything wrong and I appreciate you trying to help even though I was found guilty in the end. Now I have to focus on sentencing. I really don’t want to get that life sentence even though I know the prosecutors will be pushing for it. Please thank the others that were with you showing me support at trial if you get a chance. 🙂
You can meet Ross’ mother, Lyn, at Porcfest 2015 next month, as she’ll be speaking about this harrowing experience at the yearly camping festival thrown by the Free State Project.
P.S. This story was originally posted in early March and then quickly pulled at the request of Ross and his family. They were worried it might affect his chances at sentencing. It didn’t. So, I’m reposting it now.
