Pennsylvania AG Drops Twitter Subpoena
from the well-that-was-useful dept
Last week, the news came out that Pennsylvania Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate), Tom Corbett, was so thin-skinned that he had subpoenaed Twitter to try to get at the identity of some anonymous online critics. Of course, all this really did was draw attention to (a) the criticism of Corbett and (b) his incredibly thin skin when it comes to criticism. Twitter, thankfully, didn't just roll over, and now Corbett has dropped the subpoena. Of course, one of the reasons Corbett was trying to unmask the identity of the commenter was because he believed it may have been someone he had already targeted in a political corruption scandal -- who was being sentenced on Friday. However, without being able to identify the user by the time of the sentencing, he couldn't use that in pushing for a tougher sentence. So, in the end, Corbett didn't get what he was after, but called a lot more attention to criticism of him. Nice work.
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: pennsylvania, streisand effect, subpoenas, tom corbett
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Want Tom Corbett Wants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So little mikee now claims its a good thing
WOW little mikee m, come on do you stand up for anything that would make society a better place by holding people responsible for their actions?
So far you've supported allowing pedophiles access to kids, thieves to run ramped, and just about any other form of criminal action, with maybe the exception of murder, but then I haven't read a single article that states your opinion about that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
Mr. Thompson,
Please grow up.
Sincerely,
Everyone Else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
I said no such thing. What I said is a good thing is that an AG is not able to just get identifying information on anonymous commenters. I had no idea that you were so against the basic premises of our First Amendment, Michial.
WOW little mikee m, come on do you stand up for anything that would make society a better place by holding people responsible for their actions?
I believe in the First Amendment. You don't?
So far you've supported allowing pedophiles access to kids
I've said no such thing. I've not even come close to saying that because that is absolutely ridiculous. Saying that is false and defamatory. Please admit that you are wrong and retract your statement.
thieves to run ramped
I don't know what ramped means, but I don't support freely allowing "thieves" to run anything. So I'm not sure what you are saying. Again, please retract your false statement.
and just about any other form of criminal action
I have no idea what this means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So little mikee now claims its a good thing
Nice to know that you've tossed your democratic values into the disposal. We'll keep that in mind, for future reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow - thats a real stretch of the story.
For a start how come a political election candidate is in the business of individual sentencing. In civilised countries we realise that politics and justice (in individual cases) simply don't mix.
This is about justice, which, surprise surprise, isn't always the same thing as nailing the maximum sentence on every offender, let alone doing it for political advantage.
It takes a deeply corrupted way of thinking to see these events as anything other that the triumph of the law over political corruption.
This applies regardles of what the other party has done.
Remeber, just because Ben Johnson is on drugs it doesn't mean that Carl Lewis isn't an a******.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, sentencing is DIRECTLY related to the guys actions both before during and after the trial, and up to the point of the Sentencing hearing. The reason judges have the ability to sentence two people for the exact same crime to different sentences is to take into account the situation, the person, and the punishment. A criminal who's actions show little or no remorse should receive a much greater sentence than one that is truly regretful of their actions.
In this case, a criminal ran an anonymous smear campaign of the person prosecuting him, his actions show little to no remorse or even concern for his crime. His actions show at least to me that a lesser sentence will only put him back on the streets sooner to commit more criminal offenses. So his smear and intimidation campaign SHOULD be used during sentencing to show his true character allowing the sentencing to represent an accurate level of justice for his crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and that should NEVER be part of the job description of an elected official, especially when he is running for an even higher position. Here in the UK we removed the last vestige of the ability of elected ministers to affect individual cases several years ago - as it was judged to be a violation of the European human rights convention. Of course once you have such a stupid system all kinds of bad consequences will flow from it.
A criminal who's actions show little or no remorse should receive a much greater sentence than one that is truly regretful of their actions.
Seems logical - but in the past this principle has been responsable for increasing the impact of miscarriages of justice - since the innocent aren't going to show remorse for something they didn't do. I'm not therefore inclined to give any weight to the argument.
In this case, a criminal ran an anonymous smear campaign of the person prosecuting him
which he wouldn't have done if that person hadn't been running for office. As I said - once you breach the important principle of separating the individual cases from elected politicians then all kinds of problems ensue.
Since this case concerns political corruption anyway we have to bear in mind the possibility that the so called "criminal" might be in the right and the AG might be the one who is actually corrupt (bear in mind that this is a thought experiment - I'm not saying that things are this way around in this case).
If there were no truth at all in the "smear" then the AG probably wouldn't have got so worked up about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, an Attorney General's job (at least seems to be) is to get your name in the newspaper enough that people vote for you when you run for a higher office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proof?
Says who? You? The AG? Very convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it's not, that's the jury's/judges job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never forget.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]