Dear Big Content,

I love your movies. Especially the ones that are all s’plodey and where stuff flies off the screen. And I love your records, the Led Zeppelin catalog in particular. I’ve always been a good customer: I don’t infringe, and I’m loyal to a fault. But I do have a few questions for you.

First, why do you treat me and my friends like punks? We buy your stuff. But you make it really hard to do it in a way that fits with our digital reality. I’m looking at you, movie and TV peeps. You really want me to accept the violation of a decades-old consumer compact whereby we could rent a movie on the same day it was available to purchase? Do you really think that making me wait TWO MONTHS to be able to rent Mars Needs Moms on DVD (I’m not even talking streaming) is going to drive me into Best Buy to plunk down for the petrochemical disc? Do you secretly like piracy? Because that’s exactly what you’re encouraging.

And music guys: how come you create the conditions where there are only three companies that can afford to offer your wares? Do you know how much fucking money you’re leaving on the table by clinging to your prehistoric licensing terms? Once upon a time there was this disruptive, infringing technology called radio. Completely freaked song publishers out. They wanted to force every broadcaster to pay an individually negotiated amount for every spin. In hindsight, that seems not only inefficient but imbecilic. Maybe the government needs to step up and prod you goofballs towards more internet-friendly terms. I bet you could even keep your car service! Now, I know that you fought the phonograph. And the CD. And the MP3. But you don’t have much fight left in you. So the time to get your shit together is probably now. And yes, me and my friends will be paying VERY close attention to make sure that the artist splits are fair. Because frankly, I’m not all that convinced that you’re providing much value anymore. Consider this your opportunity to be cut into the future while you still have a chance.

And would you please get a basic grasp of how the internet works? Why are you so keen to demonize an entire class of technology? Let’s take search for example. I can look up a recipe to make hash brownies. Or I can look up a recipe to make regular brownies. Now, we all know that those criminal scumbags offering the former must be dealt with in the severest possible manner. But what you’re proposing is like blowing up the entire library because you don’t like that the card catalog system tells you which shelf has the book on hash brownies. Are you really this boneheaded? I get that you’re jealous about Google making bajillions from search. But is that a reason to compromise a mechanism upon which millions of global internet users rely? I guess it’s true what they say: the entertainment industry isn’t all about the money — it’s about ALL the money.

Also, could you please stop pretending that the SOPA/PIPA debacle was about Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood? (Or, as you prefer to characterize it, homespun creators vs. Google.) Literally millions of internet users — many of them copyright holders — had issues with your overreaching bills. They didn’t jump into a controversial intellectual property debate because they wanted to. They felt compelled to, due to the fact that big-money industry lobbying groups like yours were attempting to speak for them.

So kindly cut it out.

I want to be your friend. But you don’t make it easy. The arrogance, belligerence and outright bullying that you employ is hardly endearing yourselves to an entire new generation of creators and rightsholders. If I wasn’t so goddamn genteel, I’d go ahead and list some of that stuff. But unlike you, I have a modicum of class.

Consider this a friendly bit of advice from someone who cares. The road you’re going down leads to disaster and heartbreak. But it’s not too late to turn around.

Your pal,
Casey

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.

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” – Luke, 20-21

I have a cousin who is a born-again Christian. I haven’t seen her in years, but she is, of course, on Facebook. Recently, I came across one of her status updates, compelling the OWS protesters to “occupy a job,” and poking fun at the mass arrests. Now, this sentiment doesn’t seem particularly Jesus-like to me, but then again, I am entirely confused by contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

I’m also fascinated by the shift from the social gospel and its emphasis on community and cooperation to the me-first, “Jesus-as-life-coach” culture of modern evangelicals. And I’m scared shitless by their political influence. (There is some great literature on the subject, including a book I’ve recommended before, The Family, by Jeff Sharlet.)

Even more mind-boggling to me is that another Facebook acquaintance, a self-professed LaVeyan Satanist, made a comment on my wall in defense of my cousin’s initial statement. He used five economical words: “She’s right. Deal with it.” Then he proceeded to unfriend me.

Isn’t it interesting that the contemporary evangelical movement espouses the same moral perspective as a religion whose express purpose is to eliminate Christianity? Both groups owe a tremendous amount to Ayn Rand, and preach individuality above self-sacrifice. That’s fine for Satanists, as their beliefs reflect no internal contradictions. But how does any of this jive with the Gospel of Christ?

Clearly, it doesn’t.

The Jesus of the Bible railed against money-lenders and “redistributed” loaves and fish to the hungry. He tended to the needy and sick. Moreover, he encouraged others to do the same.

Compare that to the sweeping push by those aligned with the evangelical movement to eliminate social programs meant to aid our society’s most needy. These are the same folks who loudly and proudly tout their so-called “Christian values” and claim a moral high ground.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark, 10:21-25

Let’s see here… Jesus instructed his disciples to redistribute their personal, material wealth to the poor as a key means to entering the Kingdom of God. It’s right there in the Bible. I hope I don’t need to mention that Jesus freely healed the sick with no regard to “pre-existing conditions” like leprosy.

These teachings were carried on by the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion. It would be amazing if the Christians of today were to take them to heart instead of celebrating the suppression of speech and liberty.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? – James, 2:1-7

To me, the more frustrating thing than the outright hypocrisy is the unwillingness to engage in even moderate self-reflection. No need to account for your actions, no reason to adjust your personal behavior to be more in line with the articles of your supposed faith. The act of becoming “born-again” simply guarantees your place at the Lord’s table. I can see why this belief system is attractive, as it requires practically zero effort. But it is absolutely not in keeping with Jesus’ actual teachings.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or disingenuous.

Look, I have some sympathies with the OWS movement. I certainly think that my cousin’s statement is ignorant, and that there are hundreds of reasons why people in an economic depression (when one in 16 are below the poverty line, that’s what it is) may want to publicly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with wealth inequality in the United States. But this isn’t about my political views. It’s about the tendency of the modern evangelical movement to mask their disgust for their brothers and sisters behind a veneer of faith.

I don’t care if you happen to be related to me. I’m calling bullshit.

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.

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.

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.

So stop asking, dammit!

• Serial killer of the week. The Zodiac Killer! “Oh, yawn,” you say, “I already know ALL about that old thing.” Oh really, smartass? Well did you know that this dude thinks he cracked another cipher letter which reveals the killer’s name? And this lady says it was someone else — her dad. (However, she also thinks she is the biological daughter of JFK.) But wait, there’s yet another suspect fingered in this guy’s autobiography!
• Religion of the week. You’ve all eaten with Oneida silverware, right? Well now you can think about this wacky cougar sex and eugenics religion every time you see the Oneida logo. I don’t envy the person who had to write this carefully worded company history on their website. I want to visit the old homestead and ask the staff about every aspect of the sexcapades.
• Fetish of the week. Speaking of cougars, I guess the contemporary celebration of cougarism is probably good because it might break down some of the culturally enforced ideas about womanly beauty being the sole province of the young. My problem is when the cougar scenario becomes uneasily Freudian and just makes me think of mommy fetishists. I know I wrote about infantalists once before, but that was the non-sexual kind. Remember Stanley? Well, Senator Tom Coburn thinks he smells disability fraud. Apparently Senator Coburn is able to do full medical and psychiatric assessments based on a few minutes of television programming.
• Links!

Another diapered man in the news.

I love the show “Deadliest Warrior.” Yeah, I know it’s silly, but I frankly can’t get enough of weapons and fighting and watching things go smash and boom. I love mayhem, duh! This show is like an organized, televised, somewhat scientific version of the drunken conversation tradition of debating who would win in a fight between X and Y. Spetsnaz vs. Special Forces? Waffen-SS vs. Viet Cong? Shaka Zulu vs. William Wallace? Ninja vs. Spartan? Craziness! God bless television!

Looking back at Alien while looking forward to Prometheus.

Miscellaneous nasty facts with pictures.

What is the hum?

He boiled for your sins.

Drunkeys!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk

Did you know that you can die from having sex with time-traveling sea monkeys? Well now you do. You’re welcome.

TOT TRIAL TAKES TOPSY TURN!

Did you hear? Casey Anthony has been found NOT GUILTY of killing her two year-old daughter, Caylee. The internets are aflame with outrage! Nancy Grace‘s head ACTUALLY EXPLODED on TV! Forget the Tea Party, this decision is the real spur to revolution!

I didn’t follow the case closely, but after the verdict, I did a little bit of research into the evidence and arguments. While I understand the jury’s decision, I will cop to being a bit troubled by the fact that our justice system is seemingly content with letting the death of a toddler go unsolved. It just doesn’t sit right on a fundamental human level.

The jury’s decision is fun to parse for a legal nerd like me. But that’s not what I’m really fascinated by. I’m more interested in how the proceedings played out in both the mainstream media and social networks. Recent history is peppered with highly controversial cases — from OJ to MJ to JonBenét — which have provoked strong reactions in observers. But the Casey Anthony trial was different. This isn’t because of the stomach-turning particulars, but rather the confluence of old-school media and user-powered platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It makes you wonder what the Rodney King aftermath might have looked like if it had happened yesterday.

People like to talk about “old” media vs. “new” media, as if one didn’t influence the other. But surely, the nation’s interest in the Anthony case was encouraged by TV pundits like the relentlessly shrill Nancy Grace, a woman who deserves an award for hyperbole. (Note to self: launch the Annual Contrarian Media Hyperbole Awards).

Now I know it is our duty as American citizens to respect the jury system. But I know one thing: as the defense sits by and has their champagne toast after that not-guilty verdict, somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.

Isn’t that something? Such sustained, sensational coverage no doubt contributed to the way people perceived the case. A quick scan of related Twitter hashtags reveals multiple death wishes to Casey Anthony. This isn’t to say that she’s not potentially guilty, but it does hint at how strong emotions can be shaped by mass media reporting.

What might have been an opportunity to examine how our legal system functions instead became a powerful demonstration of mob mentality. One can be skeptical about whether justice was served and still be disturbed at the bloodlust just beneath the surface of our supposedly civil society.

And that bloodlust isn’t limited to the Great Unwashed. Corporate media feeds on it, opportunistically repackaging our obsessions as easy fodder for ratings. This creates a worrisome feedback loop that plays to our basest collective instincts.

I’m not a believer in a “fixed” human nature, but rather a spectrum of potential behaviors that are rooted in any number of factors. These phenomena are not limited to individual expression. As Carl Jung observed of the rising specter of Nazism, groups of people, too, possess a “shadow” personality that is subject to collective agitation. Here is the seed of the so-called “mob mentality” (or “participation mystique,” in Jungian terms). This phenomenon often presents itself as chaotic, but can be harnessed and directed to very destructive ends (as borne out by the Third Reich).

I’m not suggesting that the reaction to Casey Anthony verdict bears any direct relationship to Nazi brownshirts. Yet as the linkages between German propaganda and mass behavior were once poorly understood, much remains unclear about the interaction of traditional and networked media. At the right time and under the right conditions, the combo could produce calamitous results. This is the flipside to the “Twitter revolution” that  tech evangelists point to as driving democratic change in the Middle East. (The fact of the matter is that little actual organizing happens on these networks; most of it is Western echo chamber.)

At the dawn of the Internet Age, many of us overestimated the power the new platforms would have in remaking our media landscape. Certainly, they have upended business models and created an unprecedented environment for individual expression. But they have yet to replace traditional media. This could be due to the relative influence these corporations have over public policy, but I think it also has to do with ingrained consumer behavior and expectation. And by the time that a critical mass of the populace is fully acclimated to the new channels, old media will have figured out a way to control the underlying architecture — through law or corporate collusion. (For those playing along at home, this battle is raging as I type, and is the main reason for my existence in Washington.)

What I’m getting at is this: the continued strength of traditional media, coupled with the unique contours of the social web, creates an entirely new world for information. Like anything, there’s bound to be a good and not-so-good side.

To truly address the feedback loop described above would require a more open and participatory media environment, and not just in the realm of social networks. Whether this is possible or not, given marketplace and political pressures, remains an unanswered question. How that question is answered will determine nothing less than the future of information exchange.

Take that, Nancy Grace.

HAPPY RAPTURE!

The Contrarian Media and LUX ETERNA wanted to take this moment to celebrate your imminent ascendancy to His Kingdom.

What’s that? Not getting Raptured? Well we’ve got the perfect consolation prize.

Here’s a brand new track from Strange Angels just in time for End Times: