Barrett Brown is a prolific and brilliant writer, who I first became aware of nearly 7 years ago. He pleaded guilty to his crimes and he’s served his time — 63 months. He’s received prestigious journalism awards and honorable mentions for his writing with The Intercept and D Magazine. Presently he’s working on a memoir slash manifesto for Farrar, Straus & Giroux while organizing the Pursuance Project, and just started doing a regular podcast for WhoWhatWhy. My motivating principle when I decided to advocate for him upon his arrest is that every person deserves access to competent legal defense, and I thought his collaborative research into surveillance issues was important — indeed it’s since been massively vindicated.

Under what most Americans imagine and grew up being taught about our country and what was intended by James Madison in his authorship of the U.S. Bill of Rights, I never expected that my own organizing efforts would become targeted by law enforcement. With Barrett’s support network, which has been stewarded by the Courage Foundation since July 2015, I prided myself upon operating professionally, diplomatically, and transparently. I devoted at least three years of my life to the cause of his legal issues with any spare time I had, and wasn’t paid for any of it.

The information sought by Heath and Smith from WePay, Inc. was not at all relevant to their case or trial preparation. I believe that if procedures and tactics like those employed by them are able to be repeated in other criminal cases, there will definitely be a chilling effect and people will be afraid to contribute for fear of ending up on a list somewhere. It doesn’t matter whether it involves security researchers, journalists, street activists and organizers, those who’re so-called “hacktivists”, or even ordinary criminals. Those millions of people being herded daily through the glacially slow justice system for whatever reason are often people who desperately need counsel, possess no meaningful access to due process in confinement, and most aren’t as notorious or fortunate to have a media platform as Barrett does.

It could be someone you love and admire or sympathize with, a member of a family or an important figure to a community. New legal defense funds appear continually and often face challenges in merely establishing legitimacy, acquiring attention or reaching a target goal, so they shouldn’t have the extra worry of having to protect their donor list from possible warrants and subpoenas. And those who’re willing to become public proponents on behalf of others should not be dissuaded by fear of reprisal. I’ve occasionally offered advice based upon my own experience to others who’ve found themselves in similar situations.

Personally I can’t just let this slide… but I’m not the only one affected. Hundreds of persons donated to Barrett’s defense, not just through WePay, but also PayPal or through checks in the mail or during a benefit event. Journalists wrote about what was happening to him. Designers and artists created images, artwork, info-graphics, leaflets, even performed songs about his case. Many prominent people spoke out, as did several non-profits, digital rights and press freedom groups. The judge Sam Lindsay received one hundred letters requesting leniency. Could all of these individuals be considered targets? Cloudflare did the right thing in providing notice to Sebastiaan Provost, whose account there was subpoenaed over the Project PM domain name, giving him an opportunity to intervene and quash. I never had such an opportunity.

I am pursuing this because I believe that financial donations to any cause, political or otherwise, are protected speech and free association. I think that supporters and donors to those who are jailed or under indictment are outside the scope of any legitimate criminal investigation; their identities essentially sacrosanct. As a country founded upon the U.S. Constitution, this must be understood as one of our most basic rights which should not be transgressed. Of course I’d like the court to find the case in my favor and for these people to admit they broke the law, but I’m also interested in finding out what else they might’ve done. Many have observed a consistent pattern of abuse of prosecutorial discretion, by no means limited to this specific case, which transpires unaccountably and without consequence. It’s been years since the events at issue in my case, but the core of the complaint, which alleges violations of the First Amendment, Stored Communications Act and California’s Constitutional Right to Privacy is worthy of serious consideration.

Organizations who crowd-fund for whistle-blowers or adversarial journalists, like Freedom of the Press Foundation who assisted Nicky Hager’s defense and Chelsea Manning’s appeal, or the Courage Foundation which has developed a roster of beneficiaries, not all of whom are entirely uncontroversial or well-liked by those in government, have good reason to be concerned and to be following this. Supporters of pro-bono efforts like those routinely performed by the ACLU and EFF are not excluded from the threat at hand. Not to mention various independent law firms which require money in exchange for their services… especially in the era of Trump, a president who openly wages war on the media.

For anyone interested in further background on this, please see:

During the course of Barrett’s case, I wrote multiple articles for outlets like The Guardian, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, New York Observer, The Daily Dot and more:

I’m not able to speculate upon the outcome at this moment, but it will surely be interesting to see what happens henceforth. If anyone out there agrees with the sentiments I’ve expressed here, then please help spread the word, and feel free to cross-post my writing. This text is hereby released under a Creative Commons license requiring proper attribution only. (CC BY 4.0)

Update 10/3/17:

The judge has ruled in our favor! Certain elements of this lawsuit are going to proceed.