Lessig

Senator Edwards, i read what you blog over on your campaign blog. thank you for posting your ideas! we love hearing from you!

i hope you address the issue of the FCC and how we divide up the spectrum. its a crucial issue.

thank you again Senator Edwards! i can't wait to vote for you in 2004!

Senator Edwards, I visit your web site several times a day. I enjoy hearing the way you see the campaign going. I am orginally from NC but now I live in Florida. Looking forward to helping out with the campaign.....

Senator Edwards, Thank you for this opportunity.
I would like to know a little more about your views of the world. I am doing grad school in the same university you got your law diploma from, but I am originally from the old continent. I would like to know your opinion about some EU leaders, for example the Prime Ministers of the 3 EU countries geographical closer to the US: Barroso, Blair and Aznar. Conveniently I excluded President Chirac :)
Best of luck for your campaign!

Senator, you did not vote on S. 877, a bill to prohibit spam e-mail. I wondered if you would share your position on that issue?

Senator, in the real solutions guide you talk about encouraging renewable energy through converting agriculutral waste and biomass. Will solar, wind and geothermal forms of energy also be priorities when you are president?

Senator, I would like to know what your position is on so-called "accountability" proposals ito the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 2004 which would basically do to colleges and universities what the awful No Child Left Behind Act is doing to primary and secondary schools. In other words, what I have read indicates the proposals in HERA require schools graduate students in a "timely" fashion and that a certain percentage MUST graduate from that school or else federal funding would be reduced or eliminated to those schools.

In other words, it is a clear attempt to undercut community colleges (whose student bodies are NOT in the traditional mode and many students attend who have NO intention of getting any kind of degree), a major and crucial cornerstone of making higher education available to the American people, as well as many state universities, in favor of handing money to elite, private colleges that cherrypick their students to begin with and whose students are more likely to graduate and in a "timely" manner than students in other colleges.

In other words, it's another battle from the war against middle class and working people.

Senator,
First let me thank you for all that you are doing on this campaign, I really appreciate the fact that you are introducing a rural agenda in this election. As far as I know you are the only candidate to specifically detail a plan for rural America. My question is, what would you do to make sure that rural America has the same kind of access to high speed internet as urban America? I think that this is a very important issue, just like the Rural Electrification Act under FDR was an important issue. The internet is quickly becoming a neccessity, but many rural areas, including the one in which I live, don't have access to high speed internet. This is something that could drastically improve our rural economy, but no business is willing to front the cost of high speed internet because it is such a big gamble. What would you do to either encourage businesses to expand their high-speed service to rural areas or, as in the 1930's, would you be willing to use government funds to expand this service?

Dear Senator, several months ago, after some extensive research into the various backgrounds of all of the Democratic Presidential candidates, I was immediately drawn to you for your outstanding history of directly supporting the Internet and new technologies. With regards to the Internet in particular, I have noticed you are a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus and that you have put forth great proposals for trying to get more broadband connections into rural America and into schools and small businesses. Since over half of all Americans are active users of the Internet and over two-thirds are online at least once a month, and now that speeds are so fast and getting faster, what kinds of ideas do you have about Internet tax, spam mail, and especially protecting digital rights, such as music and video?

Again, thank you for taking an interest in these subjects. It is refreshing to know that finally someone who has stepped up to the plate is aware that we are in an age of technology and is doing something to better the world with it, instead of just using it just to better themselves.

Howard Dean’s Constitutional Ignorance
Sen. Edwards, Do you believe Dr. Dean has a sufficient understanding of the constitution to appoint federal judges given the below information. Do you have a broader understanding of constitutional rights? -- scott huminski

Another in this series of articles where Dean attacks judges that dare to follow the law and the Bill of Rights in a State where he pledged that it was his ‘mission’ to appoint judges that would ignore legal technicalities, the Bill of Rights. Dean’s shoot from the ‘lip’ style is noted below. It’s important to note that these spontaneous verbal gems depict Dean’s true feelings on an issue and foretell his future conduct. His damage-control statements belie his true beliefs.

At the end of Freyne’s below article he poses the question of whether William Sorrell (the next US Attorney General if Dean elected, Dean’s favorite appointee) would follow the same legal policies enunciated by Dean. Without a doubt, yes. See,

Cronies v. Qualifications, Dean’s Dilemma
&
Is Howard Dean a Criminal Too?
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/9/prweb80286.htm

Howard Dean Worse than Ashcroft and the Patriot Act
http://wmass.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1642/index.php

The Freyne article is followed by the recent TIME flip-flop article on Dean’s law and order policies.
– Scott Huminski

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Days

8/7/96

Burlington, Vermont

* * * *

HO-HO AND THE 'HOODS'

By Peter Freyne

Ask Governor Howard Dean a question and more often than not, you'll get a Howard Dean answer. There are times he'll actually say, "I'd rather not comment on that" or "That's the first I've heard of that," but hit the right button and the guy with the 68-
percent approval rating and certain re-election staring him in the face will shoot from the lip with blazing accuracy. Such was the case recently when the subject of State Auditor Ed Flanagan was waved in front of Dean like a red cape in front of a big, bad bull. And The Lip showed itself again the other day when the Gov was asked if he had any thoughts on the decision by Chittenden County States Attorney Scot Kline to drop charges against the Free Mumia protesters arrested during last summer's NGA spectacular. Judge Dean Pineles ruled on June 12, over the prosecutor's objection, that the defendants could present a "necessity defense" -- in a tradition made famous over a decade ago by the Winooski 44 who invaded U.S. Sen. Robert Stafford's Winooski office and refused to leave. Six protesters were arrested outside the Sheraton last summer for playing "catch us if you can" as they streaked for the hotel's front door in a long-shot attempt to reach Gov. Ridge of Pennsylvania and persuade him to commute the death sentence of cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. They didn't have a chance and were quickly tackled by an all-star team of cops from local communities as well as state troopers. They were charged with unlawful trespass.

Howard Dean could have let this one slide. He could have said, "I really don't want to comment on that. It was the prosecutor's call." But he didn't. Ho-Ho couldn't resist. Firmly mounted on the state's largest bully pulpit, Howard Brush Dean opened up with both barrels. His first shot was aimed squarely at the judge.

"The error was by the judge not the prosecutor," replied Ho-Ho. "The decision to allow the necessity defense to be used was a mistake." Brilliant legal mind, our governor, eh? "I thought it was very disappointing and unfortunate," said The Lip, "that Judge Pineles made the decision he did about the use of the necessity defense in a case where there was significant damage done to public property such as the Ethan Allen Homestead
and $25,000 of police overtime. I don't regard those as trivial. I was very disappointed."

It's certainly comforting to know just where the guy who appoints judges to the Vermont bench stands on matters of law. This only embellishes Ho-Ho's law and order reputation. Remember he's the guy who once said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers?

"These guys defaced the Ethan Allen Homestead," continued Field Marshall Howard Von Dean. "These guys are a bunch of hoods running around our streets. I don't think this has anything to do with the necessity offense --imported hoods I might add. People who spray paint and deface public property are hoodlums not protesters with some higher purpose. I have no patience for that." Never mind that no one has ever been charged with a crime for spray painting "Free Mumia" on the walls of the Ethan Allen Homestead where the governors gathered for breakfast. Can't let the facts get in your way. Judge Pineles told Inside Track that he "respects the Governor's opinion," but noted his ruling
allowing the necessity defense was "legally sound." Pineles carefully applied the four-pronged standard established in case law by the Vermont Supreme Court. He followed the law, not the whims of the state's most successful politician. The prosecution appealed to the high court but the Supremes refused to hear it. They let Pineles' ruling stand for one reason and one reason only -- it was the right decision. You've got to wonder if Ho-Ho's King George III views on the law reflect at all the views of his right hand man -- Administration Secretary Bill Sorrell, our Supreme Court justice in waiting. Blaming the judge for going by the book might make Ho-Ho feel good, but one would expect a little more class from one so well bred.

Huminski Comment - This judge merely ruled that the defendants could assert a specific defense to the charges when it came before trial. In response, the prosecutor dropped the charges when he knew he would be facing a strong defense in a very public trial. The prosecutor realized that this case would not be the usual railroad job that Vermont prosecutors have become accustomed to under Dean regime appointed judges. Dean, a fan of prosecutors, blames the judge because a prosecutor realized his case was too weak to overcome a valid defense. Dr. Dean what other legal defenses should we eliminate to satisfy your zeal to convict at all costs? Dean was born to wealthy nobility, but unfortunately, in the wrong era. Historically, rulers like Dean could have been the law unto themselves. It must be very frustrating to Dean that he wasn’t in power several hundred years ago where he could have really called the shots unconstrained by the technicalities of the law.

Use of the trespass statute as a tool to silence dissent has become commonplace in Dean’s tenure in Vermont and that practice is currently before the federal courts as an unconstitutionally over-broad restriction on First Amendment rights. This federal ruling is expected within the next several weeks and it will hopefully be the start of the un-doing of what Dean did to justice and the Bill of Rights in Vermont.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dean's Law and Order Views

The representative of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," is, on some constitutional issues, at odds with many of his party’s base.

By VIVECA NOVAK

TIME Magazine, Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has rarely missed a chance — in debates and smaller forums, as well as on his website — to hammer the Bush administration's handling of civil liberties since the 2001 terrorist attacks. He's even taken other Democrats to task: "Too many in my party voted for the Patriot Act," he said last June in a not-so-veiled jab at some of his opponents in the presidential race. "They believed that it was more important to show bipartisan support for President Bush during a moment of crisis than to stand up for the basic values of our constitution."

But on Sept. 12, 2001, Dean had quite a different reaction. He told the Vermont press corps he believed the terrorist hijackings would "require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street…I think that's a debate that we will have."

Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman, notes that Dean's comments came in the frenetic immediate aftermath of the attacks. "We shouldn't lose our focus on how the Bush administration has cynically used 9/11 to erode American civil liberties," Carson said. "Gov. Dean is and has been for his entire career a strong proponent of civil liberties for everyone." Dean's comments might be attributed to the emotion of the moment. But his views on certain constitutional and criminal justice principles have for years been at odds with those of many who form the base of the party — who are in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that Dean says he represents.

At the time of Dean's post-9/11 comments, Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor, called them "terribly irresponsible." In an interview this week, he gave a broader critique of Dean's approach to legal issues. "Whenever law is involved, he's been dreadful," Mello said. "He just doesn't get the Constitution or what lawyers do or what the courts are for." The exception, he added: Some "surprisingly good" Vermont Supreme Court appointments.
Dean made it clear early in his tenure that he thought alleged criminals were cut too much slack. "My view is that the justice system is not fair," Dean said in 1991 during his first week as governor. "It bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims and to society as a whole." Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." (Carson says the comment was meant as a joke, but Appel counters that even if it was, "the underlying message was pretty clear.")

Which may be one reason why Dean, in 1999, wanted to refuse a $150,000 federal grant to the public defender's office for aiding mentally disabled defendants. "That was unusual, to say the least," says Appel. The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition. Dean spokesman Carson responded that Dean didn't want to create a program that the state couldn't afford to fund if federal money disappeared in the future. But he did not disavow Dean's anti-defendant bent. "This is a governor who was tough on crime and is a big believer in victims' rights," Carson says.

Dean's shifting views on the death penalty have raised questions about whether he has gone from being an outspoken opponent to a sometime supporter as a matter of political expediency. He says he began to change his mind in the late 1990s, partly as a result of the case of Polly Klaas, the California girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered. He attempted an explanation of his support for capital punishment, even while agreeing that in some cases "the wrong guy" might be executed, on NBC's Meet the Press earlier this year. Saying he thought the death penalty was preferable in some instances to a sentence of life without parole, Dean noted that in some instances criminals who are locked up for life might be freed on a legal "technicality" only to commit more horrible crimes. "That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime," he said.

Dean, whose support for the death penalty is limited to cases involving murdered children or police officers, or mass murder, has since refined his position. On his website, he says that as president he would order his Attorney General to evaluate the federal death penalty and take steps to ensure its fair application; support the Innocence Protection Act, a pending bill that would help defendants secure experienced lawyers and access to DNA testing; and set up a Presidential Commission on the Administration of Capital Punishment to recommend reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.

Appel is willing to give Dean the benefit of the doubt. "My hope is he has grown over time, and I think he has," he said. But the former governor's explanations don't satisfy some of his critics. "He has the wrong reactions when it comes to people's legal rights," said law professor Mello, adding, "I wish so much I could support him."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed look at Dean’s ‘justice’ policies from a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau piece at the below link.

http://nolaimc.stopcafta.org/news/2003/10/543.php

I never realized Larry's head was so large... ;)

Senator Edwards, In your "Are We Safer?" speech you proposed the creation of a domestic intelligence agency while also calling for more protection of civil liberties. Since liberty and security involve tradeoffs, I would like to know what concessions you believe the American people need to be willing to make in this regard and whether you see them as permanent or temporary.

Building upon a previous question on the EU: I wonder if you could state, in a few words, your opinion/position about the need of a constitution for the EU?
Best of luck, Chris

Hi Senator Edwards! I really appreciate all your time and effort both as a Senator and a Candidate. You are in my opinion the best choice. I am 100% democrat and in addition quite frankly Bush, scares me more than most republicans!

I am seeing in the political climate a strange, and perhaps wonderful bonding between the far left (anti-war and ecology types), and the far right (Conspiracy theory types.) They are actually linking each other’s sites now to share attacks on Bush. They are quoting each other! They are finding that they have a lot in common, especially a common foe. I find this amazing. I wonder what, if anything, you plan to do to appeal to these folks on the fringes. To me anything that opposes G.W. is wonderful, no matter how strange. I think the extremists could be useful. They are courageous, active, and vocal. Perhaps a little nutty and volatile, but they are at least paying attention. How do you feel about Left and Right extremists joining hands to passionately fight Bush tyranny? I can see where it could be dangerous, but perhaps fruitful ground.

I think the far right is ready to swing Democrat, at least for now. They are ripe for the picking! They do represent a growing number of votes! Their literature also influences popular thought much more than most people like to admit. What can you offer extremists other than an end to Bush, which would probably be enough?

Also I want to know your plans to put an end to war and tension in the mid-east? How will you repair the injured relations between the US and the rest of the world? What is the best way to assure the Muslims that we are not “Crusaders” seeking to crush Islam. I agree that our main focus should be our shattered economy, but what do we do about this giant mess in Iraq. I agree that spending money on government contracts to G.W.’s buddies isn’t the answer, but what is?

Love & Peace
FC

Senator, if you were President would you, in your first hundred days:

(1) introduce legislation to modify the term of copyright back to "only" life+50/75 years ?

(2) introduce legislation to modify or repeal the "device" and "circumvention" provisions of the DMCA ?

If not, why not ?

George Bush wasn't experienced enough to be president and I'm afraid you also aren't at this point.

I wish you (and Sen. Graham) had decided to run again for Senate. Re-gaining the Senate is as important as beating Bush.

Ensuring uniform high-speed access to the Internet is a laudable goal, but it solves only half the problem. As long as the DMCA is used to forbid Linux users from writing DVD player software, as long as copyright controls are used to keep students at Swarthmore from pointing out glaring security holes in Diebold's voting machines, and as long as computer users are not allowed to own the software they purchase, the digital world will be a shadow of what it could be if we only gave it freedom. Senator Edwards, what would you do to ensure that fair use and free speech are considered above corporate profit margins?

Mike, Google "Scott Huminski". You'll get over 1500 links.

He's posted it to this blog before, and the "Reporter" who wrote the story use him as its only source.

Best as I can determine, he's a serial litigator whose behavior is egregious enough that he has a court order preventing him from entering the court house.

As best I can devine, he had some business setbacks involving what looks like an attempt to conceal assets in a bankruptcy case, and has declared war on all of officialdom in Vermont.

He appears to have filed suit (multiple times) against a number of Vermont state court judges (both district and environmental court), the Rutland Police Department, etc.

BTW, the post is a duplicate of at least one other post in the comments section of this blog.

I'm beginning if he is the Vermont version of Sendar Argic.

Agreed, Mr. Kasper.

I have seen more and more troll-style postings here at this blog. (Sigh) I think one solution might be to limit comment length to, let's say... 1800 characters. I don't ever remember a comment longer than that which was anything other than a rant, an unsolicited political speech, or an off-topic post. (Surely those of us who try to add value could make an effort to stay within that limit?) Professor Lessig, what do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

p.s. For extra effect, it would also be nice to reject comments containing more than two consecutive words in all caps or in bold. It might force commenters to learn to write persuasively instead of yelling with their masking keys.

With all this talk about broad band and connectivity to the internet. I feel compelled to ask the most important question on my mind concerning the internet. Will you try to make spyware and tracking illegal? Will you stop government and private business from trying to track us? People are becoming increasingly reluctant to express their opinions on public forums, and worry that someone is recording which sites they frequent. The net is the only place left where free speach can actually be practiced in a meaningful way. Please help keep it free.

FC

In the 21st century, all politically 'hot' issues concerning science are biological, e.g., cloning, abortion, teaching Creationism in schools, environmental protection etc. Thus, I would like to know where you stand on some of these issues:
- stem cell research; Of the 60 cell lines Bush said were available for research, less than 10 are viable. Also, the adult stem cell research has received some serious setbacks recently and it is of very questionable potential at this point in time. In the meantime, other countries are making big strides in this area, and some of the top US researchers have left the country. Would you lift the ban?
- animal rights; these groups (PETA, ALF) are officially labelled as 'special interest domestic terrorist groups'. However, they have strong lobbies, their agenda seems politcally palatable so it easily passes in the House and Senate. As a result, the animal research has been severly stunded in the USA in the past several years. All the data from in vitro studies are just hypotheses that can only be tested in whole animals. What is your stand on this?

Sorry, that was a poor job of linking on my part...you have to scroll to the bottom of the page when you click on the link above. The post I'm referring to is 'Quit Your Day Job'.

My apologies,
kd

Tomorrow is Rock the Vote for the young voters-I think I speak for alot of the over 50 set, that you and your campaign has inspired us to get back into the political arena. I haven't been this encouraged about a candidate since I was 12 and heard JFK speak at a primary. You seem representative of all the people in this country. I believe we cannot have a Democracy without an educated polpulation. We cannot have a country or world without environmental controls. We need to go back to a Global view ( as in prior to this administration) And as HG Wells forcasted in his History of the World, think of ourselves as Earthlings! Keep up the Great Work!

Senator Edwards is now traveling, but he'll be back tomorrow. In the meantime, let me try to answer a few of the very thoughtful (and eclectic!) questions posted so far today. Apologies in advance that it's a little bit of a laundry list. Because of where we are, I'm going to focus on tech and education issues here.

On spam, Jim, Senator Edwards supports anti-spam legislation. He actually talked about the issue before it was quite such a big deal, in a speech last March. Coby, he strongly supports other forms of renewable energy in addition to biomass, including wind, solar, and biomass. Susan Nunes, on higher education, I know he has real concerns about proposals that claim to be about accountability but could actually reduce college access for many young people.

There were several good questions about fair use and the public domain. Senator Edwards believes both are tremendously important for creativity and learning and need to be preserved. The specifics are complex, but these are issues he continues to think about.

Andrew Baron and Ed Lyons asked great questions about rural Internet access. Senator Edwards already has a couple of proposals that would make greater use of the Internet in rural communities. One would support distance learning and access to advanced placement classes for small rural schools that don't have them; another would make greater use of telemedicine. Both of these plans would encourage the development of infrastructure and good use of that infrastructure. Another idea, which Senator Edwards has discussed before, is to help states extend broadband access. North Carolina, for example, has been a leader thanks to the North Carolina Rural Internet Access Authority, which has done a great deal with limited resources. And then there's Wi-Fi, which the Senator mentioned in his comments, and perhaps tax credits as well.

The last note was about spyware. Preserving privacy as technology progresses has been a concern of Senator Edwards' for a long time. If you want to learn more on his views on these issues, you can check out a couple of bills he introduced in the last Congress, S. 197 (spyware) and S. 2846 (government surveillance), available at www.thomas.loc.gov.

Again, sorry for the laundry list and the questions I've missed--the Senator will be back himself in a bit.

Yes, Ned, we want snap judgments from staffers in response to such important issues. THat's the way togovern!! Right on!

Dr Franken:

A candidate who surrounds himself with paralyzed staffers unable to make a snap judgement on the fundamental concerns of our republic is not fit to be president.

Hey Senator Edwards,

It really nice to see some Democratic representation on the internet. I do not think the Democratic Party actually realizes how many Activist Democrats there are on the Internet. It is a population that has literally gone underground since the corporate media has shut us out. You can find a lot of support here for left of center causes.

Welcome to the club.

Another IP issue I think is relevant today is GMOs. I get this sneaking suspicion that GMOs aren't so much about science and health as they are about business. I just have this sense that they're really being used to make profit margins so tight for independent farmers that they can't compete, and that agricultural production in the US is moving more towards big-business control of farming. Just like I think Wal Mart would start monopoly pricing once they control enough of the retail market, I think big ag business will monopoly price once all the independent farmers are gone.

Perhaps you could talk about what you think about those patents of life forms, and whether there should be some special treatment of them to reduce the ability of big ag companies from wielding them as swords against subsistence.

As I said, I don’t really have a firm grasp of all the issues here, but I definitely think the debater is over big business/concentration of profits/monopolization and subsistence/independence/ spreading the wealth created from farming broadly, and I think technology and patenting is being used not to make farming cheaper, and more productive (which is good for independent farmers), but to use it to make life more difficult for the independents and easier for big, corporate farmers.

Where's Edwards?
Compared to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, Edwards doesn't seem to be making good use of his guest blog.

The Senator is indeed prepping for the debate tonight. I am sure he or Elizabeth will be back shortly.

In the meantime, please tune in to http://blog.johnedwards2004.com after the debate. Register and you can chat with the Senator.

To quote a wise man named Seagram:

you never plan to fail
you fail to plan

or else it was some type of DDoS attack

ELF: Do Eco-Terrorists Wet the Bed Too?

NLF: Northwest Liberation Front terrorized Portland, Oregon with machineguns and sawed-off shotguns long before ELF: Earth Liberation Front made that city it's aboveground communique headquarters. NLF planted dynamite timebombs while ELF just plays with matches (Everyone Loves Firebugs!)

Little boys who play with matches will wet the bed.

Access indepth data on the NLF taken from a file found within an entire truckload of stolen police intelligence surveillance reports: http://www.livelogcity.com/users/copkiller11 http://www.olynetwork.com/wiki