Chris Peterson

A few years back I wrote “In Praise of [Some] DDoS?”, a short essay about the remarkable difference in punishment meted out to hacktivists using DDoSs compared to activists using sit-ins as tactics. My essay was observational and descriptive, rather than prescriptive or judgmental: I was not, and do not now, draw a strict equivalence between the two, nor do I think it’s “wrong” that such a discrepancy exists. My opinion is a great deal more nuanced – which is a smarter way of saying “conflicted” – than that.

Such is not the case for lawyers representing some of the script kiddies who compose Anonymous, who told Talking Points Memo that:

Stanley Cohen, representing 20-year-old Mercedes Haefer on a pro-bono basis, told TPM that he got involved in the case because he didn’t like the way the feds were dealing with Anonymous.

“I think this is a political persecution, end of story,” Cohen said. “This administration wants to send a message to those who would register their opposition: ‘you come after us, we’re going to come after you.’ That’s what has happened in the Eric Holder Department of Justice.”

“When Obama orders supporters to inundate the switchboards of Congress, that’s good politics, when a bunch of kids decide to send a political message with roots going back to the civil rights movement and the revolution, it’s something else,” Cohen told TPM, stipulating that he was not indicating that his client was even involved. “Barack Obama urged people to shutdown the switchboard, he’s not indicted.”

“It’s not identity theft, not money or property, pure and simple case of an electronic sit in, at best,” Cohen continued.