Court To Twitter: No Time For Appeal, Hand Over Info Or You're In Contempt
from the ouch dept
We've been covering the legal fight concerning the government's desire to access Tweets and other information related to Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protestor who was arrested. Twitter had jumped into the case to argue that users have standing to protect their own information, which the court denied. Twitter then said it would appeal, but it appears that NY State Supreme Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. doesn't care, claiming that its failure to hand over the info may put it in contempt of court:The judge had asked Twitter to show why it wasn’t in contempt of court after refusing to produce information about Twitter posts by protester Malcolm Harris in response to a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.Twitter and Harris's lawyers point out that this seems to completely ignore Twitter's right to appeal the ruling. Sciarrino again doesn't seem to think this is an issue, insisting that his original ruling was "fair" and Twitter has had more than enough time to comply with the order. Harris' lawyer notes that this appears to be an attempt at railroading, preventing due process from happening:
“I can’t put Twitter or the little blue bird in jail, so the only way to punish is monetarily,” Sciarrino said.
“It’s pretty outrageous that the D.A.’s office wants to prohibit Twitter from exercising its right to appeal,” said Martin Stolar, a lawyer with the National Lawyers Guild who represents Harris, after the hearing.Unfortunately, that seems to be how things work these days...
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: appeal, due process, info, malcolm harris, new york, privacy
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Contempt: Civil versus criminal
Wait a second.
The purpose of civil contempt is not punishment. Rather, the civil contempt power is to coerce.
If the judge is out to "punish", then it's criminal contempt�and there needs to be a trial.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Contempt: Civil versus criminal
Wait a second.
The purpose of civil contempt is not punishment. Rather, the civil contempt power is to coerce.
If the judge is out to "punish", then it's criminal contempt�and there needs to be a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt: Civil versus criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contempt: Civil versus criminal
Our flawed legal system breaks when corps are involved because of we define a corp as a person with all the rights of a person, yet not all of the responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contempt: Civil versus criminal
(Footnotes and pincites omitted.)
That case goes on to cite United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947) for the proposition:
Certainly the judge may impose a fine to coerce Twitter's obedience. The judge may also impose a fine to compensate injured parties for Twitter's disobedience�as long as that compensatory fine is calibrated to the harm suffered by those injured parties and payable to them.
But when a fine is calibrated instead to Twitter's ability to pay, and levied for the purpose of upholding the court's dignity, then the character of the contempt proceeding changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contempt: Civil versus criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt: Civil versus criminal
Even then, the fine can only be a "small" one and with some conditions that make it impossible for the judge to keep fining Twitter and/or its representatives over and over again for the same thing.
As has been noted Criminal Contempt requires a hearing. The fine I'm discussing is more in the way of the fine one might pay in any other civil matter like parking for two hours and 10 seconds in a two hour zone. You can appeal that, too, but in most cases you still pay the fine for parking.
Most judges I know of in Canada, where I live would put a stay on the order they issued as the appeal went forward. Particularly if the grounds for the appeal was a serious point of law. I'm presuming that the judge issued the "produce the data" order because he interprets Twitter's refusal to do so as, in some way, hindering the collection of information useful in a prosecution which is, in and of itself a criminal act.
Which leads us all out of the civil realm and into the criminal one again.
Though that changes nothing in terms of Twitter's right to appeal the contempt ruling and the judge's original ruling.
Incidentally none of this has to do with the judge being fair. He can pat himself on the back as much as he wants he's there to correctly interpret the law, make rulings based on that interpretation based on precedent, similar cases and so on down the line. Fair doesn't enter the picture.
Nor does effectively denying Twitter its right to appeal. That, pardon my phrasing, is contemptible in and of itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They keep giving us reasons to hate them, and then scratch their heads, when the public protests
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A question
Let that sink in for a minute, to really appreciate the priorities these power hungry criminals have. Those involved are willing to railroad the court case, and just completely trash the idea of justice, over a misdemeanor. This level of abuse of the court system wouldn't be acceptable for a felony, or ever really, but they seem to think it's perfectly fine to do so with a charge that insignificant.
Of course the cynical part of me has to wonder if they're going after him so hard due to the fact that he and twitter didn't just cooperate from the get go; basically to make an example of him of what happens when you say 'no' to big brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A question
And the banksters walk free.
High court / low court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct me if I'm mistaken...
If all it takes to block an appeal is the judge saying 'No, I'm pretty sure I got the ruling right', then the whole appeal process would be completely negated, as I'm betting you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a judge that would admit upfront that they screwed up their ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holiday spirit
Bravo, Judge Sciarrino!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holiday spirit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holiday spirit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holiday spirit
Anonymous Coward, Sep 11th, 2012 @ 5:11pm
=)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holiday spirit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holiday spirit
It is no joke, it is beyond sad and horrific that the current police state has sprung up from the ashes of catastrophe. And this disrespect trope I've been hearing is complete rubbish, disrespect has been towards those who remain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holiday spirit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government
The constitutional right to assemble peacefully doesn't fly with today's government and will continue this way regardless of who wins the election in November.Oops, I mean who buys the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People should look up this outfit.
The Judge can hold Twitter in contempt, and Twitter has the right of appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this judge issues a subpoena for Twitter to appear and testify, does the entire corporation have to appear in court? If they are found in contempt, are all twitter employees tossed into jail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The information should be turned over directly, as per the court order - and also APPEALED. If the appeal works, the information is removed from who it was given to, and any legal action as a result against third parties goes out the window.
Twitter does not lose it's right to appeal when the information is turned over. If anything, it's more risky for those receiving the information, because if the appeal is won, their case against third parties will always be easy to question and defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Dictator sues to get info on dissident and judge agrees
2. Twitter appeals and hands over the info as you cleverly suggest
3. Dictator does all the bad things he wants with the info
4. Twitter wins appeal
5. Dictator unsees the information and undoes all bad things, raising the occasional victim back from the dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is definitely possible when you have the Romney time machine at your disposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the judge's call? The DA pushes for his advantage, the defense their's and the judge rules. Why is the DA the villain in an adversarial system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, because they are going after the wrong people.
[ 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:
The "inhabitants" of Guantanamo Bay. And somehow, I don't think that Twitter is a terrorist organisation in under 140 characters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Today I learned that pointing out prosecutorial bias is tantamount to anarchy. Oh ... and that I was planning something illegal, AC must be a precog eh ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
execute now !
...and liberty and justice for 1(%)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the judge was denying their right to appeal per se, but insisting they turn over the info WHILE they are appealing.
Of course, if they were to win on appeal, you can't exactly take back the information you were wrogly forced to hand over in the first place.
And what if, as a result of illegally turning in that info, harm had come to the defendant? Or he was put in jail as a result of it?
Naturally he'd be released if he won on appeal, but what's done is done.
I hope the EFF gets involved with this one. I'm tired of judges viewing electronic communication as less protected than what has been written on paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As if millions of dollars suddenly cried out in anguish...
Strictly my opinion of course, but that's the fun thing about opinions, the judge can f'ing sit and spin on em for all I care. Protected speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if millions of dollars suddenly cried out in anguish...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As if millions of dollars suddenly cried out in anguish...
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As if millions of dollars suddenly cried out in anguish...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter needs to ask the judge why they shouldn't have contempt for the court. When a judge is contemptible, contempt is an appropriate response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are having more and more of your rights taken away, i can foresee in a close future some law will come out that makes rallys, protests and that sort illegal... then you will be really screwed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no, too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]