2012 is the year that the internet became a political force. What took so long? Well, the majority of us have surely been distracted by LOLcats and pr0nz.

Full disclosure: I work on issues at the intersection of technology, copyright and policy. In recent months, I’ve been able to observe firsthand the impact of internet-powered social movements. To wit: the unprecedented outrage around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP (PIPA) stopped either bill from becoming law — something many in Congress assumed was a fait accompli.

Then there’s the immense pressure brought on Susan G. Komen for the Cure after the organization pulled funding to Planned Parenthood. The swift disapproval — again, largely web-driven — was so intense that Komen’s VP is now stepping down.

The “bitroots” blowback is hardly limited to the US. Public demonstrations are currently taking place in the EU over ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that some think goes too far. Protests have spilled into the streets, with more than 20,000 people participating in Poland alone. But the real engine of dissent is online.

Powerful as this new form of protest is, it’s hardly perfect. Oversimplifications are common, which is to be expected when complex policy matters are condensed into viral action items. Still, there is one clear takeaway: the world’s netizens will no longer lay back while decisions are made that impact their lives, online and otherwise.

From my experience, I can say that the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement was broad and remarkably diffuse. Internet users are now stakeholders, and they have countless ways to share information and amplify their voices. And, although it would be incorrect to call them a monolithic group, they are perfectly capable of representing their own self-interests when push comes to shove.

It’s unfair to characterize the SOPA/PIPA skirmish as one between Hollywood and Silicon Valley (read: Google). While some major tech companies were certainly involved, most of the push happened at the netroots level. I’d say it went down something like this:

1. Tumblr saw the liabilities they’d face under this overly-broad legislation and independently decided to black out their pages in protest. This woke a lot of folks up right quick.
2. The Reddit community started paying attention, and more people became very well-informed on the issue (and got pretty pissed off).
3. Wikipedia joined the loosely-organized “blackout,” and in the process inspired millions more people to call their representatives. (I think Google put a widget next to the search field on their home page, but they didn’t go dark.)
4. Some of us goobers in Washington — completely outnumbered by the well-heeled entertainment industry goons — pointed out that a lot of constituents (including tens of thousands of copyright holders) weren’t comfortable with this legislation as drafted.

The true action came from internet users who found themselves in a position to push back against a fairly draconian set of proposals. The technology itself amplified their message to the extent that a bill that had already passed out of full committee in the US Senate was put on ice, and the House companion never even made it past markup. You can believe me when I tell you that this is a new dynamic in Washington. I’m not sure anyone has fully wrapped their heads around what it means.

So, are these movements merely lighting in a bottle, or the foundations of a new and lasting form of advocacy? Can these spontaneous yet incredibly potent movements be transitioned from something reactive to something proactive? We may have to wait a while to find out. For now, if I was the MPAA or the RIAA, I might consider internalizing the lesson, instead of blithely dismissing the movement as ill-informed, or worse, driven by tech companies.

What do you bet they won’t?

Which brings me to Iran…

Now, before you go thinking that I’m some kind of hippie peacenik, know that I am quite fond of blood and guts and gore and veins in my teeth. Even as someone whose foreign policy views verge on realpolitik, I recognize the threat of a nuclear Iran to Middle East stability. I’m also aware that our options are limited.

But this isn’t about geopolitical choice so much as the language that shapes how we perceive choice itself.

Exhibit A: US Fears Israel Will Hit Iran Without Warning

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Israeli Defense minister Ehud Barak said. (The Post notes he switched from Hebrew to English when saying the words, “Later is too late.”) Leon Panetta, meanwhile, declined to refute a report that he was worried about an Israeli attack.

It’s probably unsurprising that Israel is trying to convey a sense of inevitability here. Still, one wonders if Israel has the capability of neutralizing the below-ground, concrete-reinforced facilities that comprise Iran’s nuclear workshops. In which case, the drum beating may be a nudge to the US to hurry up and complete work on its Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which may or may not be up to the task. (Either way, the MOP can be seen as a major advancement in military hardware as phallic symbol.)

Exhibit B: U.S. Intel: Iran Willing To Attack on American Soil

Poppycock.

The framers were Masonic Deists. This belief system seeks knowledge of God through the application of reason and meditation on natural laws. God here is the Great Architect, not a “life coach in the sky.”

So the next time you hear someone like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum prattling on about America being a Christian nation, keep the following quotes in mind.

John Adams
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Thomas Jefferson
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man… rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus.”

“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

Thomas Paine
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all… of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.”

“The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.”

James Madison
“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.”

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Madison was also against tax exemption for churches.

Another fun fact: a mere 7 percent of dwellers in the original 13 colonies belonged to a church at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Separation of Church and State
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And here’s one last quote, but not from a framer:

“Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” —Adolph Hitler

One of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that I’m spending every spare bit of my energy trying to make sure a pair of ill-conceived pieces of legislation do not become law (at least in their current form). The bills in question are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the PROTECT-IP Act in the Senate. (Of the two, SOPA is the worst.)

Now, both of these proposals could be considered well-intentioned, but their language is dangerously overbroad and could have serious implications on free speech, innovation and cybersecurity. I won’t bore you with the details, because I have a broader point to make. (Here’s my favorite analysis of the bills’ scope and provisions, if you’re curious.)

What pisses me off most is that there’s likely another way to achieve the bills’ goals — namely, combating foreign sites that traffic in unauthorized American intellectual property. Yet these alternatives are largely being ignored by a Congress eager to simply hand the internet over to Hollywood. And can say with certainty that these folks are always happy to restrict speech and quash competition in the name of preserving an antiquated business model.

In an agonizing twist of irony, Congress’ mad rush to codify online censorship is in direct opposition to the American government’s efforts to promote informational freedom abroad. This article in Slate expertly explains the discontinuity.

There is a recurring theme in terms of how recent legislation is being crafted. We’re seeing deliberate loopholes that don’t explicitly detail how your liberties will be restricted, but nonetheless establish the conditions under which such outcomes are not only possible, but likely.

Take for example, the highly controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Steve Benen has an excellent analysis about whether this law would allow for the permanent detention of American citizens.

Not to compare apples to oranges, but I was struck by the following disclaimer in NDAA:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oh, good! Then there’s NO WAY a court could interpret this statute as giving the president the option of indefinitely detaining without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism!

This deliberate-loophole doublespeak reminds me of the opening renunciation in SOPA (emphasis mine):

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

That must mean that there can be absolutely NO WAY that any portion of a site that is “avoiding confirming a high probability” of infringement could be blocked by the US attorney general or have its commercial transactions halted on the mere accusation of infringement (the latter without any due process, and and with an impossibly narrow window for recourse). I feel so much better now!

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

To go any further would require a level of legal analysis that would likely put you in a coma. So I’ll close with this hopefully straightforward statement: American civil liberties are currently under threat, and our elected officials have abdicated their fundamental responsibility to safeguard these basic freedoms.

And that should scare the shit out of you.

I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet — legislation that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/15233/uncensor

The ████████ is too █████████ to ████ up. █████ I ███████ ████████ in the ███████ of ████████ to ████████ the █████ of █████ ██████████, ████ ████ be ████ to do so in an ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ to ███████ ██████████ ██████ and ███████████ in the ███████████ ████ ████ ████ the ████████ ████ a ██████████ ██████ for ██████████, ██████████ █████████████ and ████████.

████ is so ███████ █████ the ████████ is ████ it has ███████ ████████ and █████ █████████████ to ███████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ to ████████ █████ ██████████ to ███████ ████████ as a █████████ of ████████ the ███████████. The ████████ of ████ new ███████ — █████ ████████ █████████████ can ████████ the █████ of █████ ██████████ on █████ own █████ — ████ be █████████.

My ████████ █████ ████ is ████ it ██████ ████ too far. We ████ to ██████ ████ all ████████ ████ the ███████ to ███████████ in not ████ █████’s ███████████, but ████████’s.

In the █████ ██████████ we are ███████ ██████ a ██████████ ███████ ███████████ ████████ by the █████ ██████ ███████ ███████ to the █████ ████ of the ████████ ██████. I’m ███████ █████ ████████ of ██████ █████ ███████ due ███████.████ █████ ██████████ the ███████, ████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ████████ and █████ ███████ ██████ █████████ in its ███████. ████ isn’t ████ for ████████.

████████ ████████ are ███████ to ███████ █████████████ — and let’s ████ it, ████ ████ was ████████ by the ███████ █████████████, not the ██████ guy — ████ ████ ████ ███████ how the new ███████████ █████████. ████ ████ not ████ ████ █████ ███████████, and █████████ ████ be █████████ ████ ████████ law.

Is it over? Looks like.

Early Tuesday morning, NYPD swept through the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park in New York City, clearing out people and belongings, and arresting demonstrators. Journalists, too, were rounded up and carted away. And we’re not just talking bloggers here: reporters from AP, New York Times, NPR and NY Daily News were among those arrested.

Anecdotal reports include the deliberate destruction of the books in the OWS library (they had a library!), as well as personal items and gear.

The journalists themselves were not immune from violence. From New York Times reporter Brian Stelter‘s Twitter feed:

I’m w/ a NY Post reporter who says he was roughed up by riot police as Zuccotti was cleared. He thinks violence was “completely deliberate.”

Per @LindseyChrist, riot police didn’t distinguish between media & protesters. “They took a Post reporter and threw him in a choke hold.”

Even the airspace above the park was restricted. On the ground, reporters from Village Voice, Mother Jones, Byline Beat, Brooklyn Ink, the New York Observer and others were told by NYPD their credentials did not matter; they would not be allowed to cover the raid in any fashion.

The crackdown is apparently not unique to Zuccotti Park; varying reports indicate at least 18 mayors across the country have issued similar orders, most likely in coordination.

I’ve refrained from weighing in directly on the OWS movement, as I wasn’t able to observe the protests firsthand even in my hometown of Washington, DC. But the deliberate targeting of the media is unconscionable in a free society. What is happening here is no different than when more oppressive states quash the dissemination of information.

Leaders in America need a reality check. They criticize foreign governments for the silencing of speech and then act in coordination to block journalists from reporting on what is essentially an exercise in martial law. Constitutional interpretations regarding the right to assemble and public welfare aside, the deliberate suppression of a free press must be recognized as counter to our nation’s ideals.

These are hardly the last tent cities America will see, I’m afraid. We might just not hear about them through “official” channels.

WARNING: If your vehicle has one of these saccharine-sweet, stick-figure family stickers on it, it is a portent of DOOM and must be removed and destroyed immediately! I know, you probably thought it was just a whimsical, 21st-century way of saying “Baby on Board,” but as it turns out, the Universe is not such a whimsical place. I’d advise removing these stickers at once to avoid attracting your worst nightmares. If you have the clever ‘parody’ version where the family is all skeletons, I’m afraid this doesn’t make much difference — you have invited the same horror, only in a marginally more ironic manner.

Take care, and beware. If it’s any condolence, there’s still nothing out there that cares about your honor student.

I live in Washington, DC and work in tech policy (as it relates to creative content). This means I have the dubious privilege of seeing how the sausage is made when it comes to the laws that shape our digital future. Increasingly, I’m witnessing a convergence of some pretty hairy issues that previously had limited public impact. And, for better or worse, policymakers — domestic and international — have started to pay attention.

There are three core concerns that will have an outsized effect on how we all experience technology. The first one encompasses the other two, which are of nearly equal importance. Bookmark this page, and we can talk about it in 10 years (provided we’re all still here).

1. Internet freedom
2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
3. Data Privacy/Security

Before I explain how these issues are converging, let’s look at what each means individually.

Internet Freedom
This is the mother of all tech-policy debates, and the one with the most potential to impact every facet of your online experience. The internet is essentially a packet-switching information exchange network that uses a simple protocol to allow all these interconnected machines to “talk” to each other. Its process is, by and large, neutral with regard to content. This is what has allowed it to become the most powerful engine for democratic speech in the history of humanity. That speech may very well be 90 percent LOLcats, but it also includes political speech and practically every other flavor of expression. In the United States, this means that our First Amendment rights are automatically ported over to this digital conduit. That may not be the case with other countries, which is why you see a lot of high-falutin’ talk from the State Department about the importance of maintaining global networks where free expression can flourish.

Unfortunately, recent American trends giving corporate speech unparalleled weight means that your own online speech could depend on how deep your pockets are. This is the crux of the so-called “net neutrality” debate, in which the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge a premium for the faster delivery of content, sites and services. Without clear rules of the road, speech that does not benefit the ISP’s bottom lines — or those of their corporate partners — may be delayed, or worse still, blocked. There has been progress in achieving at least some protections here. But these rules — promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission — are currently in danger of being stripped away by Congress.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the FCC established separate rules for the “wired” web vs. internet accessed on mobile devices. This distinction, to me, is arbitrary and pointless. There is ONE internet, regardless of how you connect to it. Having a tiered internet for wireless may end up impacting those whose speech has historically been at the greatest disadvantage, as underprivileged and minority communities are more likely to access the internet via mobile devices.

It will be very interesting to see how the American virtue of free expression plays out on our domestic networks, especially as we promote open technology platforms as a means of democratic participation overseas.

2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
Wikipedia defines Intellectual Property (IP) as “a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized… common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.”

IP is big business. REALLY big business here in America. Which is why there are so many large stakeholders pushing for stronger intellectual property laws on the internet. I have no problem with this in theory, as I am a copyright holder myself, and believe that I should have exclusive rights over how my expression is capitalized upon in the marketplace – that is, for a limited term, which was the balance struck by Congress when it devised our laws governing this part of IP. There are different rules for trademarks and patents, on which I am no expert. So I’ll stick with what I know.

Increasingly, copyright law is coming to loggerheads with the consumptive behaviors of internet users. This is something I’ve written about and spoken on extensively in my professional life. In the interest of space, and without picking sides, I can say this: rightsholders are currently pushing hard on Congress to pass laws that, to my reading, look like blunt instruments when it comes to protecting IP online. And by this I mean legislation currently proposed could, at worst, restrict legitimate speech and compromise the underlying security of the internet. For further details, I point you to my DC colleagues, Public Knowledge. (Full disclosure: my wife works for them.)

3. Data Privacy/Security
Which brings me to my final issue, data privacy/security. Again, I can’t claim to be an expert here, but on the other hand, not many can. Here, we have everything from domestic defense to corporate espionage to individual rights and even First Amendment concerns. Some may have heard Eric Schmidt of Google‘s statement on total data transparency being the key to informational security. I’m sure the NSA would agree, so long as they are the ones with “total” access to the data. I bring this up because at no other point in history has informational privacy been of such import — perceived and actual. I can remember people on the street where I grew up being hesitant about having their name listed in the phone book. Now, everything we do and say online leaves a digital trace. Before you get yourself in some Philip K. Dick psychological tailspin, keep in mind that there’s a big difference between personally-identifying data and non-personally-identifying data. The former can be used to target, track and harass individuals; the latter is basically why Amazon knows what books you might be interested in reading next. Still, there is a lot of grey area with regard to how this information is collected, shared and exploited. And, at the moment, US privacy law is a patchwork of state-by-state regulations and jurisprudence. That might not be the case forever, as Congress has shown interest in establishing a federal privacy standard. Obviously, that could cut both ways.

Data security is the other side of the coin. Here, we reach the queasy intersection of defense, espionage — corporate and state — and hackerdom. Much of what occurs in the world of data security happens privately, or though private-public contracts between government and IT wizards. Obviously, any breach of US information security comes with pretty severe (domestic) penalties, but that doesn’t mean that hackers here and abroad aren’t trying to break into our informational infrastructure every second of every day. A serious breach is practically guaranteed, as is the subsequent crackdown. I believe this is what is referred to as the “Internet 9/11.”

The US isn’t just playing defense here. I’ve followed closely reports of how the administration very seriously considered a cyberattack on Libya’s air defense network in the lead-up to the NATO engagement. We ultimately decided against it, likely for a combination of reasons: one, we may not have wanted to be the first country to open the Pandora’s Box of cyberwar; two, we didn’t have enough time to pinpoint and exploit weaknesses in the Libyan network before airstrikes were scheduled to commence; and three, there were lingering legal questions about whether cyberattacks are considered “hostilities” subject to Congressional oversight within the War Powers Act. I guarantee these questions will soon be answered one way or another. And this will undoubtedly impact the evolution of global information networks.

All three of these issues intersect in myriad ways. The economics of digital entertainment is related to open networks vs. walled gardens, and also bumps up against data privacy/security on both the consumer and corporate end of the spectrum. Participatory democracy depends on open tech platforms and access to robust data pipelines and mobile spectrum. Overly-broad IP enforcement has the potential to limit exactly that openness while sending the signal to other nations that censorship is OK. Digital networks can also be exploited by despots (and even less-nefarious governments) to monitor the speech and movement of a populace. And around and around we go.

Taken together, as they are destined to be, these three issues represent the last tech-policy debate. How we respond will shape human interaction for decades, if not centuries to come.

As far as hoary, oft-repeated sayings go, it’s hard to beat “rock is dead.” The origin of the phrase is shrouded in mystery — like the etymology of “heavy metal” — but it’s not hard to picture Lester Bangs coining it while reviewing the latest Lou Reed long-player in his underwear, specks of Robitussin drying on his mustachioed upper lip.

In reality, people have been claiming “rock is dead” since the genre wriggled its way into the repressed loins of America’s bobbysockers. Every so often, a new pack of scruffy young kids with guitars are labeled as its saviors, but it never lasts. ROCK IS DEAD. Long live paper and scissors!

But what if we had empirical evidence that rock really was dead? Or at least in a state of such dissolution that its resurgence was a probabilistic impossibility? To know for sure, we’d need data.

Now we’ve got some.

This article in The Hollywood Reporter indicates that rock is a spent force in the marketplace, squeezed out by more persistent pop forms. Based on a recent study highlighting the ubiquity of synth-pop, the news may be the final nail in rock’s coffin. (I’m just shocked that there was room for one more.)

According to Hit Songs Deconstructed, 79 percent of top 10 pop hits used a synthesizer as the song’s primary instrument. That’s up from 62 percent a year ago and seems to signal that the current electro-pop fad is here to stay — at least a little while longer. Further boosting that theory: the fact that 88 percent of Top 10 songs used electric-based instrumentation. As for the least popular instrument? The guitar, which hit a low of 4 percent during the second quarter of 2011….

…as for lyrical themes in pop music, “hooking up” is the most popular so far in 2011, prevalent in 38 percent of hit songs, followed by “inspirational” songs, which have steadily increased to account for 25 percent of the Top 10 in the second quarter of 2011, “partying/clubbing” (21 percent) and “love/relationships” at 17 percent. Curiously, any “other” categories of lyrical themes have failed to register at all, coming in at zero percent so far in 2011. Last year, when music listeners were seemingly interested in a little more than sex, it was at 9 percent.

Now, it’s easy to come right back and say that the vast majority of rock songs have been about fucking. That may be true, but the flexibility and durability of the form was such that it could include both “Wango Tango” and “Roundabout” in the same canon. I’m not sure that today’s pop will evolve to the same extent.

For those of us who still traffic in this antiquated form, there are more troubling indicators:

Other curious trends pointed to a steep drop in solos, down from 17 percent to 5 percent of hits, and the once popular bridge portion of a song now only exists in 42 percent of songs, down from 54 percent last quarter and 55 percent a year ago.

You may think that it’s perfectly fine to eliminate the guitar solo. Years of co-existing with jam bands elicits a certain sympathy for that worldview. I still enjoy them (if they’re well-placed and say something), but they aren’t a musical necessity. I have more of a problem with the idea that nobody employs bridges anymore. Sure, some of them are useless, but they are a time-honored construct that helps to give songcraft a form. I’m all for experimental art, but eliminating the bridge is kind of like saying we’re no longer going to bother with paragraph breaks. Can you get away with it? Probably. But it says something about our society if we abandon such formalities. It’s a short hop from here to anarchy. Anarchy, I tell you!

One thing that I like about having quantitative data on the death of rock is that it liberates me to keep making it. I am The Contrarian, after all. It would hardly befit my status to toil in a popular genre.

As always, we’re interested in your reactions. What do you think of this data? Was rock dead all along, and we’re just now noticing? What if it turns into a zombie? Are we prepared for that?

Many readers will be familiar with the basic facts of the case. On May 5, 1993, three Cub Scouts went missing. The bodies of Michael Moore, Christopher Byers and Stevie Branch were found murdered and mutilated in a ditch. Investigators believed the crime to be the work of a satanic cult, and a juvenile case officer provided the name of then-18-year-old Damien Echols, whose trouble with authorities culminated in a stint in a psychiatric hospital.

Authorities questioned an acquaintance of Echols’ — Jessie Misskelley, a mentally handicapped teenager with an IQ of just 72. During the 12 hours of investigation, Misskelley implicated himself, Echols and Jason Baldwin. Although Misskelley recanted his confession and refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin, a juror’s notes revealed the jury foreman added Misskelley’s “confession” to deliberations. All three were convicted, with Misskelley and Baldwin condemned to life in prison and Echols to death row.

The West Memphis 3 were recently freed through a rare legal device called an Alford Plea. The upshot is that, although Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley could continue to maintain their innocence, they were required to plead guilty. And, although prosecutor Scott Ellington stated he believes the men to be guilty, the three were required to sign a waiver promising not to sue the state.

For a death row inmate, Damien Echols was comparatively lucky (although I’m reluctant to apply that word to someone who lost years of his life due to a flawed law enforcement system). Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were the subject of the HBO documentary “Paradise Lost,” showcasing the flaws in their cases and trials. Since it aired, DNA evidence and new witnesses have “not only supported the innocence of all three men, but have pointed to other people who were not investigated when the murders occurred. More important, the crucial theory of the case was, in large part, debunked by leading medical experts. The mutilation of the bodies of the boys — believed by investigators to be caused by knives as part of a ritual — was more likely to be the result of animal predation that occurred after the children were killed.”

Furthermore, despite an unsurprising suicide attempt via overdose, Echols was able to maintain a modicum of sanity. As he reported during a televised interview with Piers Morgan, “The only thing you can do to maintain your sanity is not think about the case and not think about what’s happening to you. You have to create your own world in there or you’ll go insane from that stuff.”

Still, states practicing the death penalty are hardly reluctant to apply the ultimate punishment to the mentally ill, despite the fact that Ford v. Wainwright ruled such punishments to be unconstitutional. Moreover, according to Amnesty International, “The National Association of Mental Health has estimated that five to ten percent of those on death row have serious mental illness.” To paraphrase Echols, despite the media’s attempt to paint those on death row as evil Hannibal Lecter-type geniuses, the capital punishment ranks are packed with the mentally handicapped, schizophrenics and lost souls.

In 2009, the United States executed 52 inmates. America ranked fifth out of countries carrying out the death penalty, preceded by China, which executed thousands, Iran at 388, Iraq at 120 and Saudi Arabia at 69.  None of these are countries whose company we want to keep in terms of human rights. While it is commendable that our justice system finally found a means through which to release the West Memphis 3, many other innocents (and even guilty) incarcerated men and women face an end that much of the rest of the civilized world has already dismissed as barbaric.