Shelby County Tries To Reveal The Authors Of Nearly 10,000 Anonymous Internet Comments
from the free-speech-means-something-different-apparently dept
We've had plenty of stories about attempts to reveal anonymous commenters. Time and time again, we've pointed out that there needs to be a very high bar for legally requiring the identification of such commenters, because the right to anonymous speech is recognized by the courts as being protected by the First Amendment. Yet, many seem to ignore this -- and quite frequently we even see government officials themselves seeking to uncover anonymous commenters. However, as Paul Levy has pointed out, Shelby County, Tennessee has taken an attempt to uncover the identities of anonymous commenters to new levels: seeking the identities on somewhere around 10,000 anonymous comments posted to the website of Memphis' local newspaper, the Commercial Appeal.The link explains the reasoning behind this, but the short summary is that Shelby County (home to Memphis) is trying to push back on a state law. The reasons Shelby is pushing back may be noble (it appears to feel that the reasons for the law itself are based on racism), but even so, that's no excuse for stripping away anonymity on thousands of comments. Levy is helping in trying to block these subpoenas:
The Commercial Appeal, standing on its own First Amendment rights as well as the rights of customers who have registered to post comments on its web site, has served Rule 45 objections to the subpoena. The objections, which I signed along with Lucian Pera, long-time counsel to the Commercial Appeal, argue that this theory – assuming that it is the basis for the subpoena – is not a sufficient reason for depriving members of the public of the First Amendment right to debate the propriety of government policy on an anonymous basis. In addition, we argue that because the subpoenas have been issued by government bodies, they are precluded by federal statutes that limit government access to such information to cases involving a probability of criminal wrongdoing. Indeed, the very same firm that is representing Shelby County was forced to withdraw a subpoena on behalf of the City of Memphis, seeking to identify a blogger who criticized the city's police chief, for the same statutory reasons.Furthermore, he points out that the attempt to reveal such a massive number of commenters, indiscriminately, is somewhat breathtaking. The very scale of the attempt clearly suggests that the goal here has little to do with actually uncovering illegal activities, and is almost entirely about creating a chilling effect on public speech. Even if that speech itself is reprehensible (such as racist commentary), that doesn't mean that we should support such a blanket subpoena wiping way First Amendment rights.
Even apart from the question whether the legal theory behind the subpoena can meet the test of a compelling state interest, needed to overcome the right to speak anonymously, is the sheer indiscriminateness of the subpoena, seeking to identify everybody who spoke about the issue underlying the legislation regardless of whether they favored the consolidation or opposed it, and whether they expressed racist views or not. In past cases involving Doe subpoenas, it has often seemed to me that the plaintiff had the germ of a good case, and perhaps a reason to identify one or two critics, but then obscured the merit of its case by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the subpoena. Here, the very breadth of the subpoena suggests that County's motive is to chill public discussion of an important policy question, by sending the message that if you speak out, you will be subpoenaed.Hopefully the county pulls back the subpoena.In the dozen years that I have been litigating cases involving Internet anonymity, I cannot recall any case involving close to so many anonymous speakers. In Pilchesky v. Gatelli, the chair of the Scranton Pennsylvania City Council sought to identify about ninety different Scranton citizens who has posted hurtful comments about her on a community message board established by one of her critics, and in Donato v. Moldow, officials of the Borough of Emerson, New Jersey sought to identify the authors of more than one hundred critical comments. In both of these cases, the trial courts upheld the right to speak anonymously and quashed the subpoenas (with a small number of exceptions in the Pennsylvania case – and those identities were preserved on appeal). A large number of posters were also involved in my first case involving a subpoena to identify anonymous speakers, when Northwest Airlines sought to identify flight attendants who had advocated a "sickout" during collective bargaining negotiations.
Shelby County subpoena outstrips these cases in indiscriminateness by a factor of ten or even a hundred – more than 9300 comments remain on the stories, and the removed comments likely take the number of comments at stake in this case beyond ten thousand. Many of the comments were posted by repeat customers (we can tell because, as on most newspaper web sites, only registered users can post comments), but the estimate so far is that more than 2000 separate people are facing possible denial of the right to speak anonymously. Even most file-sharing cases pale by comparison: the recording or movie companies typically sue and seek to identify only hundreds of anonymous uploaders at a time.
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, free speech, shelby county
Companies: commercial appeal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Anonymous speech
In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature. However, in Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987), the Court upheld the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, under which several Canadian films were defined as "political propaganda," requiring their sponsors to be identified."
Further, the pro-anonymous decisions are specifically for political pamphlets, and not for general free speech. There is very little out there that says you have some right to say whatever and not be held liable for it.
There is a point where the protection of "anonymous" postings meets up with the liability of that speech, and the anonymous factor should never outweight responsiblity. Otherwise, anything could be said as anonymous, without any fear.
Anonymous is generally to protect you from other citizens who may not agree and may make your life miserable for stating it. It's not intended to protect you if you make false, libelous, or have you statements.
I think Mr Levy is fighting a losing battle here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if this was true, then about 110% of the internet should be in jail right now, you and me included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If thats the case, then I know one little shill on this site that must be shitting his pants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So no shit pants over here. You, however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I find it telling you replied to the shill out thread, clearly you identify as one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually statistically speaking Wikipedia is just 0.02% less accurate than the average college text book (or in some cases a medical journal). When you submit an article, it's looked over for it's citations and accuracies by the editors.
Don't get me wrong, I would definitely not condone citing Wikipedia in an MLA college essay for two reasons. One major reason is because MLA writing style requires you to cite not only the article you got your information from, but if it was from an essay or web page, you have to cure the articles that are cited (my wife is also an English teacher and she had explained this to me). The other reason is that most of the articles on Wikipedia are in APA format. So on the whole, if you are stuck in a jam to find resources, you can extrapolate information and base knowledge on the essay you wrote from Wikipedia, but you read their online sources for the citations.
That being said, on a comments board such as this, it is perfectly valid to use Wikipedia...especially for translating legalese into things everyone can understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure here, but I believe the most recent Supreme Court case would prevail.
This is what McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) says about it:
There is a point where the protection of "anonymous" postings meets up with the liability of that speech, and the anonymous factor should never outweight responsiblity. Otherwise, anything could be said as anonymous, without any fear.
I agree that there comes a point where liability of speech outweighs anonymity. My belief is that point should not occur until a court has determined the validity of such claims. IE: For example in a libel case, it should be proven to the court without a doubt that a libelous action occurred before identifying the anonymous commenter.
Anonymity has been a free standing right since before the Constitution was penned. The Supreme Court has upheld this right on numerous occasions. I don't see how the internet changes any of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here is how Ohio's public schools are funded. A percentage of your local property tax goes to the local Board of Education of that district. It is usually in the thousandths of a percent called a Mil Tax Levy. The no vote for a renewal, or raising of the wee percentage they take out from State funding, had been going on for at least 11 years. The tax levy basically needs to be raised for compensating for inflation, so in 1995, we had 1984 US dollars funding our schools.
Given my home town's sediments at the time, the ruling may have saved McIntyre's life. It allowed him the right to give his information that he truly believed in, regaurdless of reality and facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well then, the plaintiff should have to show that the statements meet the legal criteria for false or libelous statements before being permitted to request the anonymity be stripped from the defendants.
Are there 10,000 statements that meet that criteria? I'd be very surprised if there more than a handful that even come close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
or, OR, read the first ammendment...
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.
A common mistake when it comes to the constitution is to believe that it gives U.S. citizens rights. It does not. These "rights" are inherent to the citizens of the U.S. from our creator. The constitution does however Limit the government from passing and acting on any laws that violate these rights we do have.
Pretty genius way of phrasing things if you ask me and speaks directly to this particular case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
Big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
-- The Declaration of Independence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
Big difference."
Right, the police are there to "Protect and Serve", but I don't think that is for the citizens either.
;^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Cause You Know Our Public Officials
Public officials (the government) govern the citizens so that the freedoms and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution are not infringed.
The people are not necessarily protected...in fact, people are often injured (physically, emotionally, politically, economically) in order to secure those freedoms and liberties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: The *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators.
It's a simple, direct, yes-or-no question. Why do you refuse to answer it? What are you hiding?
Why won't you give a simple, direct answer to such a simple, direct question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only reason piracy is not OK is because, several centuries ago, some idiot wrote a paper. And in that paper, it said that piracy was NOT OK. Now, I am pretty sure made some sense at the time, but given the realities of modern society, which seem increasingly more incompatible with Copyright in its current form, I think that it is about time we started questioning the wisdom of the ancients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In any case, my answer would be no. I would rather we stay friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"It's not okay because I don't think it's okay. You're asking a moral question. There is no answer to a moral question other than "that's what I believe." I don't think it's right to ignore the wishes of a content creator.
But that, of course, is entirely separate from what that content creator can do to deal with the fact that many (perhaps most) others have a different moral view on the issue.
Arguing over morals is a waste of time, because it doesn't move the discussion forward.
That's why I don't focus on moral questions, but practical questions. You, apparently, prefer not to do that sort of thing. It makes for silly grandstanding, but nothing useful."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple yes or no. He refuses to answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no: Is the *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators?
All he has to do is answer. If yes, he's done. He's answered the question. If no, then he hasn't answered the question completely and I would like the answer that he claims to have given me (but obviously has not if the answer is incomplete).
Why is Mike so scared to talk directly about his beliefs? What is he hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One word, yes or no: Is the *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators?
Is the answer yes or no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Multiple word answer: No that's the not the only reason. It's not even *a* reason why piracy is not OK. The only reason piracy is not OK is because it's against the law. What does the content creator have anything to do with it? The only entity the law cares about is the copyright holder? If you want the content creator's say to be so important, then what happens if the creator says it's OK to pirate even though the creator no longer holds the copyright?
Your turn: Yes or no: Is it OK to pirate the works of William Shakespeare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why won't you give a simple, direct answer to such a simple, direct question?
Ohhh. I wanna play too!
Now remember - only a simple yes or no answer here:
Is your unsettling, weird obsession with Mike's moral beliefs and scruples the cause of your sexual dysfunction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you think he's avoiding answering at all costs? Because he knows he's in a corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
have you stopped beating your wife?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What he will never do is give a direct answer.
Yes or no: Is the *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators?
Why won't he answer such a simple question? Because he doesn't want to be pinned down on his position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rights Of Others
Im all for free speech and the rights of privacy. But I don't believe, in this scenario at least, that those rights apply. It's a little known clause in the First Amendment that basically says you cannot violate another person's rights in the process in the free speech. That means if your comments are blatantly racist, you have a right to say it. If you are doing it and suppressing others of their rights in the process, then you have no right to say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Rights Of Others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Rights Of Others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@#1 (AC):
Anonymous speech is a major player in the 1st Amendment, and the right to it is most often upheld.
If, during the exercise of ANY form of Free Speech (not just the "anonymous" kind), it evokes the question of defamation (libel/slander) or false information, that question has to be answered BEFORE stripping that speech of its 1st Amendment protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little Brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm I'm confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Title 18 violation?
A simple oral discouragement is worth a year in federal prison. Actual use of force can elevate it to ten years (a felony by any measure). If anyone dies as a result of the illegal act, life without parole or execution are on the table. That's 242. Under 241, most punishments are one step more severe for the same act.
A private citizen cannot break these laws. Only public officials can. Public officials include anyone elected to any government office, but also include appointed positions, such as police officer, judge, court clerk, animal control officer, and so forth.
So, a government agency that reasonably knows it's pursuing an unconstitutional goal is on shaky legal ground. And since no bureaucrat ever acts alone, well, that's a conspiracy, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]