Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd

[dalebert]

The sign violated state law that prohibits posting signage on any state right-of-way. Such postings distract drivers and pose a safety risk, according to DOT spokesman Bill Boynton.

I find speed limit signs and stop signs and such very distracting to my driving. 

[Tom Sawyer]

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/NEWS01/310250118/-1/news

Free-Stater still jailed after arrest
By HATTIE BERNSTEIN, Telegraph Staff
Nashua Telegraph

...
The Free State Project is an effort to bring 20,000 people to New Hampshire who agree with their statement of intent, "government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else."

Free Staters believe they should not have to pay taxes, register their cars or apply for driver's licenses.

Perfect opportunity for a letter to the editor correcting the article. Mistakes keep the story alive in this way. Perhaps Irena or Jason should take advantage to get published.

[EthanAllen]

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/NEWS01/310250118/-1/news

Free-Stater still jailed after arrest
By HATTIE BERNSTEIN, Telegraph Staff
Nashua Telegraph

...
The Free State Project is an effort to bring 20,000 people to New Hampshire who agree with their statement of intent, "government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else."

Free Staters believe they should not have to pay taxes, register their cars or apply for driver's licenses.

The statement in bold applies to me and a number of FSPers I know, but it's glaringly incorrect to apply this to all FSPers. There are 7800 official signers and probably a number of others considering it and I'm sure they don't all share that sentiment. I called the paper and left a message for Hattie Bernstein suggesting that she contact Jason Sorens and offering to assist her in getting in touch with him if she's going to make statements about the FSP. I suggest others call her as well.

The statement of intent was changed from saying the "sole role of government is to protect..." to the "maximal role of government is to protect..." in order to accommodate the "anarchists".

At the time, the president of the FSP was an anarchist.

[KBCraig]

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/NEWS01/310250118/-1/news

Free-Stater still jailed after arrest
By HATTIE BERNSTEIN, Telegraph Staff
Nashua Telegraph

...
The Free State Project is an effort to bring 20,000 people to New Hampshire who agree with their statement of intent, "government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else."

Free Staters believe they should not have to pay taxes, register their cars or apply for driver's licenses.

Perfect opportunity for a letter to the editor correcting the article. Mistakes keep the story alive in this way. Perhaps Irena or Jason should take advantage to get published.

I wrote the author earlier today. I received a polite response saying she was pass along the information to her editors.

I wrote:

In your article on Lauren Canario, you wrote:

"Free Staters believe they should not have to pay taxes, register their cars or apply for driver's licenses."

I hope you'll take the chance to correct the impression that all Free Staters fall into this category. The only thing they can be said to have in common, is that they believe the FSP's statement of intent: that "the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty and property."

Beyond that, Free Staters are hugely diverse. Members include Libertarian Party members, traditional conservative Republicans, Democrats, Christian Anarchists, and those who simply defy categorization.

Lauren is one individual among many. Over 500 Free Staters have moved to NH, and the vast majority of them follow the more traditional route. They might wish to change the laws, but they follow them in the meantime.

Lauren is a friend of mine. I support her, and I don't believe she should be in jail, but I don't take the same route she has chosen. Like the vast majority of Free Staters, I pay taxes, register my cars, and hold a valid driver's license. I agree that taxes should be vastly lower, and that registration and licensing are an unnecessary burden. I prefer to follow the traditional political process to change these things; Lauren believes differently.

The blanket statement in your article is simply incorrect.

Thanks for your time.

Kevin Craig

[Michael Fisher]

Yes, like usual, rebuke and alienate the reporter over a minor detail. That should bring more media coverage.

[Michael Fisher]

Or perhaps one could just thank her for covering it and for writing a great article, like a professional publicist would do.

[mvpel]

By doing what's always been done (paying the bureaucrats and voting, etc.), do you expect to make change happen?

Why shouldn't he?  Change has already happened on a number of different fronts with only a few hundred Free Staters having moved here.

[dan_sayers]

Mr. Fisher, I am not perfect. If somebody offers me criticism, I take it with a grain of salt. If their delivery and therefore presumed intent is constructive, I am additionally thankful that they respect me and my efforts enough to help me make them as sharp as possible. Journalism is SUPPOSED to be a statement of fact. In another thread, we have people espousing to distance themselves from others who might be the unintentional source of divide. Here instead, we have the appropriate action: NOT distancing ourselves from each other, but rather a clarification that they linked two things that are not exclusively linked as stated. In light of the other thread, I was proud to see people in this thread handling it the productive way.

Another cartoon about Lauren has been posted at http://anarchyinyourhead.com .

I liked the last cartoon because of its statement. This one, I literally laughed out loud over. The exaggerations are flawless and makes for a truly entertaining portrayal.

[Jim Johnson]

Can anyone see what the Keene Sentinel had to say about Lauren today?

[Michael Fisher]

In another thread, we have people espousing to distance themselves from others who might be the unintentional source of divide.

Choosing violence is not an unintentional source of divide. Everyone here knows, or should know, that movements based on violence and nonviolence cannot permanently coexist within the same small group of people.

[lildog]

The sign violated state law that prohibits posting signage on any state right-of-way. Such postings distract drivers and pose a safety risk, according to DOT spokesman Bill Boynton.

Selective enforcement is a hallmark of tyranny.

I would think it goes beyond that...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And on the state level...

[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

So I would think it could be argued successfully that any law disallowing someone to post a sign (ie free speech) would be unconstitutional.

However based on the argument made in the article it would sound as if they are using the clear and present danger take it on in order to outlaw that form of speech.  Clear and present danger is what allows speech to be criminalized in cases such as yelling fire in a crowded theater in that you create a clear and present danger in the form of people possible hurting themselves over your actions.  This is a weak argument though and if the free state group had any lawyers I would think this would be a good one to challenge.

[EthanAllen]

The sign violated state law that prohibits posting signage on any state right-of-way.

The right of way is actual a common right (individual equal).

The road itself is owned collectively. Some roads are federal, some are state, some are county, some are local and some are private.

[EthanAllen]

EA, gosh.  How can you agree that the govs own the roads?  Did they engage in voluntary free agreements whereby the roads were rightfully transferred to their ownership? 

Transferred from whom exactly?

If the roads/sidewalks were privatized then we would all lose our individual equal rights to the common right of way which is used for freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning, etc.

The only responsibility of the government as it relates to the common right of way (individual equal rights) that run within the roads and sidewalks is to insure no individual is infringing on another individual's equal right.

Now certainly the roads could be paid for by user fees more equitably but what about the positive externalities?

I don't like the general use of the word "government" nor do I like the general use of the term "public" because people use it to mean collective/joint ownership AND common ownership where they are not the same.

[mvpel]

So I would think it could be argued successfully that any law disallowing someone to post a sign (ie free speech) would be unconstitutional.

The courts have upheld time, manner, and place restrictions on individual speech.  My point here is that they leave the signs promoting politicians during campaign season, or Merrimack Fall Festivals, or whatever, alone even when posted on public right of ways, but if there's a message they don't like or that bothers them in some way, they whip out the law and take down the sign.

It's a particularly insidious form of censorship - they need to either routinely and promptly take down all signs, even the "WELCOME HOME PFC. SMITH!" banners and the decorated crosses marking fatal car wreck sites, or they need to leave all signs alone.

[coffeeseven]

Hey, it's going to be much easier to understand each other's thoughts and feelings if we avoid answering questions with questions.

This is why I left the FTL BBS. All of the academics endlessly dissecting the phantom of ownership when all they really needed to do was say the state thinks they own us. Seemed to be a problem with putting the abstract into the real world.

Or as one fellow on this board said that would pull back the curtain on public theater.