Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Criminal Justice

Barrett Brown Taken Back Into Custody for Talking to the Press

Initially arrested for crimes rooted in his part in linking to hacked documents online, Brown now seems to be being punished just for allowing himself to be a subject of journalism.

Brian Doherty | 4.27.2017 5:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Barrett Brown, famous "hacktivist" who spent four years prison in an arrest that started with his role in releasing linking to some hacked documents online (though that investigation led to a video in which he was taken to be threatening FBI agents, another crime he was charged with) was taken back into custody today, according to D Magazine, for whom Brown had been working as a reporter. (The complicated details of his original charges and conviction are explained in this 2015 Wired article.)

Free Barrett Brown Twitter

Relying on reports from Brown's mother, Karen Lancaster, with whom Brown had been living, Brown was tossed back in the pokey for conducting interviews with the press without explicit permission from the Bureau of Prison bureaucracy—even though Ms. Lancaster insists that the Bureau, even when asked, could not provide written proof that he was legally required to do so:

Barrett was re-arrested during routine check-in this morning and is being transferred to a BOP facility that is unknown. He has not missed a check-in over the last five months of his early release. He has not failed any of the random drug tests administered. He has been on home confinement status since February and has been home each and every time they called the landline at 1:00 to 2:00 a.m. for "bed check."

He believes this is only because of his refusal to get "permission" from crews to film and interview him. He has had many interviews since his early release, on November 29, both by phone and in person. Last week VICE had a group in to film him for two days [ed: they filmed a bunch up here at D Magazine headquarters], and he was scheduled to be interviewed tomorrow by a group working on a documentary for PBS.

Ms. Luz Lujan, his BOP contact, refused to provide him with copies of program statement rules saying this is a requirement during halfway house and/or home confinement status. The forms that they finally came up with yesterday, after he had been requesting documentation for the past two weeks, are forms offered to media when requesting a visit with an inmate in a federal prison setting.

There was never any mention of these rules during the past four months of his federally approved employment at D Magazine when he was working with media and involved with a range of interviews.

The Bureau of Prisons acknowledged in an email today that Brown "is no longer in home confinement and he is presently located at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Seagoville in Texas (our inmate locator webpage should updated tomorrow), but we can not disclose the reasons for a specific inmate's transfer of locations."

The Bureau of Prisons, contra Ms. Lancaster's implication, seems to believe that any regulations that would have bound a Barrett Brown literally behind bars similarly binds him on his current "early release" (distinct legally from the probation that is scheduled to begin next month, at the end of his original sentence).

Kevin Gallagher, who runs the Free Barrett Brown website, said in a phone interview today that the specific terms of Brown's supervised released did not mention restrictions on talking to the media. Gallagher notes both that Brown has been doing media since his release began (including with Reason TV, see below) and that Brown has a record of "being critical of the Bureau of Prisons in many different ways."

Thus, an element of pure punishment for speech seems involved in their locking him up again, even if technically it is just about not following their paperwork demands.

Brown explained some of the complications of his early release prior to the beginning of his actual probation in May (when he moves into the jurisdiction of the Justice Department rather than the Bureau of Prisons) in a D Magazine column in January.

Audio of phone calls in which Brown is trying to discover the actual written proof that this was indeed a legal requirement can be found here on Soundcloud. Brown points out on those tapes that he does not want to be considered to be refusing an official order when they refuse to show him that there is even such an official order.

Details from Reason in 2013 on Brown's original arrest and prosecution.

The "Free Barrett Brown" Twitter feed has its eye on this situation as it evolves.

A Reason TV interview with Brown from March, after he was released from jail last November, possibly evidence of a crime:

**The subheadline has been edited to properly reflect Brown's role in the hacked documents.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: 'Thin Blue Line' Bill to Expand Federal Death Penalty Advances in Congress

Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason and author of Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books).

Criminal JusticeFree Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (15)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

    That's why you never agree to probation, since the supervising authority has you by the balls.

    If you do time in prison, then just keep you nose clean while on parole.

    Once you're off probation/parole, spend the rest of your life making the government hacks that came after you regret it. Do articles and investigative journalism to uncover their corruption and laugh as you mail it to the FBI.

    1. TW   8 years ago

      That's really terrible advice.

      If you can get out of prison early, even under supervised release, then you should do it because being out on parole is a lot better than being in prison.

      1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

        It's terrible advice to have people plead guilty, agree to unreasonable terms that lead to many people violating those terms, waiving rights to trial, waiving right to 4th amendment protections, etc.

        If you are a government target, plead not guilty and go to trial. Put your life in the hands of a jury rather than a bureaucrat.

    2. BYODB   8 years ago

      Spoken like someone who's never been in a holding tank for the night, I presume?

      The better advice, as you point out below, is never plead 'guilty' in court. Even there, though, most people aren't going to risk (for example) 25 years in prison if they can get off for sure with only 3 - 5. You only get one life, so it's a rational choice even if it's immoral on the part of the state.

  2. GILMORE?   8 years ago

    this guy comes off as a complete asshole.

    1. TW   8 years ago

      I think the moment he threatened the FBI agent's children, he painted a big target on his own back.

      There's stupid and there's "this will change your life and not for the better" stupid.

      1. GILMORE?   8 years ago

        yeah, that one instance is just.... so stupidly over-the-top and excessive, that you get the impression that he's probably done similar things as the source of his other "misfortunes". Its hard to paint him as a sympathetic figure when he has the personality of someone who seems to want to pick a fight with everything he sees.

  3. Hugh Akston   8 years ago

    it's kind of cute how they keep insisting that the government needs some kind of specific written authorization to fuck with people.

  4. Cynical Asshole   8 years ago

    Seems like an obvious case of "FYTW."

  5. Jacks61   8 years ago

    I hope he has a decent lawyer that can make sense of this. I've never heard of any probation that circumvents the first amendment. Yea I understand no drugs as being part of probation, but this raises some interesting questions.

  6. Larry M   8 years ago

    Is he related to Franz Kafka or Joseph K.?

  7. josh   8 years ago

    The federal government has been reduced to a compilation of every nasty probation officer having a bad day that ever existed.

  8. kiduxu   8 years ago

    ??????OLast month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I've been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier? They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basizing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply? Visit following page for more information ??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-

  9. DanO.   8 years ago

    I don't know if he's evil or just another innocent victim of the Police State? but he looks kind of like a cunt.

    1. ace_m82   8 years ago

      There's no reason why all three can't be true.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Cooking the Books

Charles Oliver | 5.9.2025 4:00 AM

The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech

Jack Nicastro | 5.8.2025 4:57 PM

Is Shiloh Hendrix Really the End of Cancel Culture?

Robby Soave | 5.8.2025 4:10 PM

Good Riddance to Ed Martin, Trump's Failed Pick for U.S. Attorney for D.C.

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.8.2025 3:55 PM

Trump's Tariffs Are Already Raising Car Prices and Hurting Automakers

Joe Lancaster | 5.8.2025 2:35 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!