ACLU Explains Why It's Fighting To Protect Info On Anonymous Vegas Newspaper Commenters

from the you-should-be-able-to-criticize-the-gov't dept

Fri, Jun 26th 2009 2:27pm — Mike Masnick

We recently wrote about the fishing expedition US prosecutors went on trying to get all sorts of info (much of which didn't exist) on anonymous commenters on an article by the Las Vegas Journal-Review. The newspaper fought (publicly) the request as being way too broad, leading the feds to back down and greatly narrow the request to just info on four commenters. The newspaper appears to have no issue giving up that information, but the ACLU is still protesting, claiming that one should be able to anonymously criticize the government without having US Prosecutors track you down. Specifically, the ACLU notes that the US Attorneys are really stretching things to call the comments in question "threats" to the US Prosecutor involved in the lawsuit the article was about. It does seem clear that the comments weren't meant seriously. It sounds like people who disagree with the result of the case venting in the same way people vent on pretty much any forum online. That said, I would agree with the ACLU if the newspaper were being compelled to hand over the info. But if it voluntarily is handing over the info after being asked, then I'm not sure it's an issue for the ACLU to get involved in, because the decision is the newspaper's to make.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, newspaper, privacy
Companies: aclu, las vegas journal-review

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 2:47pm

"But if it voluntarily is handing over the info after being asked, then I'm not sure it's an issue for the ACLU to get involved in, because the decision is the newspaper's to make."

Perhaps the newspaper feels threatened by the government and that's why it's handing over the info? Not to mention if the newspaper agrees to terms that it will not hand over info to the third parties unless required by law then it must honor that (in which case the ACLU may correctly intervene). Users should be made aware that their info will be handed over to those who ask before they start posting. Isn't this a privacy issue? Some marketing agency can't simply ask for my info and have you hand it over without raising some legal privacy issues. Why should the government be any different. If an entity has no legal authority to compel another entity to hand over information then handing it over should raise privacy issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  It's like allowing anyone on the Internet, like someone I purchase goods from, to hand over my all my info (or to sell it) to anyone they feel like (ie: marketers). If there is no statutory obligation to do so then why should they be allowed to do so? Unless they tell me ahead of time, if you purchase a product from us you agree that we can hand over your information (or sell it) to anyone we wish. They have to make that clear. The government is a third party subject to these laws just like any other third party (including telemarketers and others) unless there is a statute that compels entities to hand over info to the government upon government request.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re:
  Think of it this way, I now subscribe to Internet service, can my ISP arbitrarily hand over (or sell) my info to other ISP's or to cable providers or to corporations that sell televisions or to marketers or to anyone who wants it? Why should the government be any different in this regard?
  
  "But if it voluntarily is handing over the info after being asked, then I'm not sure it's an issue for the ACLU to get involved in, because the decision is the newspaper's to make."
  
  I'm not saying you're wrong but I think you are greatly oversimplifying the issue. Many privacy concerns are involved here, corporations can't just arbitrarily hand over all information on their customers to anyone they feel like. Why should the government be any different if no laws compel the corporation to do so?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Smith, 26 Jun 2009 @ 3:03pm

The ACLU's issue
If the newspaper is doing something the ACLU disagrees with (especially if it's likely that there's behind-the-scenes pressure applied), then the ACLU also has the right to criticize the newspaper...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re: The ACLU's issue
  "especially if it's likely that there's behind-the-scenes pressure applied"
  
  and this is another point I was trying to make which further complicates things. We may not know what's going on behind the scenes and I think Mike is greatly oversimplifying a very complicated issue here (for several reasons).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 3:53pm

At the end of the day, if you have the balls to bitch about the government, you need to have the balls to sign your name.

I don't bitch about the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re:
  Free expression could come with consequences if someone doesn't like what's being expressed. If we live in an oppressive society, with an oppressive government, people should have the freedom to communicate that oppression without consequences. Removing anonymity might very well suppress a lot of very important information from the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re:
  "if you have the balls to bitch about the government, you need to have the balls to sign your name."
  
  I think the benefits to society of allowing anonymity far outweigh your unsubstantiated conviction that all speech should not be anonymous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re:
  "At the end of the day, if you have the balls to bitch about the government, you need to have the balls to sign your name.
  
  I don't bitch about the government."
  Wow.
  
  So that's what [y]our rights have come down to? Unless we wish to risk our lives, we should talk about the government?
  
  Things sure have changed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is it is easy to hide an an anonymous and lob verbal bombs (many of us do it here). But every so often there is a real whackjob who isn't just lobbing verbal bombs, but in fact planning something.
    
    There has to be some sort of happy medium where the cranks can get called out before we have a collection of dead bodies or something similar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hulser (profile), 26 Jun 2009 @ 5:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The problem with your happy medium theory is that it relies on trusting the ISPs not to hand out private information on individuals at the drop of a hat and the government not to overextend its authority (especially for the wrong reasons). And as we can see from stories like this, neither ISPs nor the government can be trusted in this regard. The price of free speech ranges from dealing with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory to empty "I'm gonna kill you" type threats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "But every so often there is a real whackjob who isn't just lobbing verbal bombs, but in fact planning something."
      
      We are not referring to someone who is "planning something", or making threats, we are referring to people who are criticizing the government or some organization. It's ridiculous to think that just because someone criticizes the government they must be "planning something" and therefore deserve no anonymity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jul 2009 @ 7:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    "So that's what [y]our rights have come down to? Unless we wish to risk our lives, we should talk about the government?
    
    Things sure have changed."
    
    Welcome, my friend, to the Fourth Reich.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 26 Jun 2009 @ 4:42pm

screw the government it only well worked in theory like flying cars, and dictatorship
ACLU can reach me at crazymonkyyy@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 7:47pm

This may be the only case the ACLU has ever taken up that actually had something to do with there supposed purpose to exist. Normally they are just a bunch of progressives who act like terrorists using the laws of this once great nation against itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2009 @ 8:30pm

"At the end of the day, if you have the balls to bitch about the government, you need to have the balls to sign your name.

I don't bitch about the government."

This has to be one of the most asinine comments I've ever seen posted.

In a perfect world I could express my opinions and not worry about government stooges sitting outside my house recording my phone calls and monitoring my internet usage but sadly that isn't the case. Even when someone does post a valid anonymous criticism of a government official (see stupid sheriff in Florida who had her gun stolen) they abuse the system to try to squash any negative opinion and try as hard as possible to identify said poster...even going as far as saying just because it's true doesn't make a good defense against getting sued for libel.

If I have a valid criticism of a police officer do you think it's ok to have a whole battalion of police officers out gunning for me because I exposed a serious flaw or corruption within their ranks?

When you bash me for using my first amendment rights you bash our country. This is in integral right that our founding fathers fought for. Should Mike make your IP address and any other pertinent information publicly available because of that?

Didn't think so....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 28 Jun 2009 @ 12:05pm

Asinine comments
Try this one on for asinine:

"If you don't vote, you can't bitch."

Really? I don't vote and I will continue to bitch nearly incessantly. Why? Because I pay taxes.

And as for these people who advocate killing/bombing politicians to alter the country's course: give me a break. If anyone really thought that would work, it would have been done already.

What would happen is this: AC#1 kills Pol #1. AC is branded "nutcase." Pol #1 is declared "instant martyr." The media will exult the "bravery" of Pol #1, who has spent his entire taxpayer-subsidized career selling out his constituents, earmarking billions for himself, whoring himself to any special-interest group that'll give him a second look and resorting to chickenshit bipartisan infighting at the slightest provocation.

And it's not as if taking one politician out really changes the equation. As long as law schools continue to crank out graduates, there will always be a steady supply of jackasses with just enough knowledge to rip their constituents a new loophole while building a paper-thin legal facade to deflect attention.

Those demanding this info aren't really afraid of a threat to national security or anyone's well-being. They're just used to being able to throw their weight around with impunity. I'm sure they hoped to have the info in hand before anyone could object.

They're behaving like every cliched corrupt cop in every cliched movie involving corrupt cops. Do this, do that. Yer not from around here. Yer taillight's out. You got the right to stfu. Etc.

"Because I said so," only works with those under the age of 8. Possibly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sprearson81 (profile), 9 Jun 2012 @ 6:43am

The Fourth Reich, aptly put.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]