Judge Tells Twitter Revealing Classified Stats Isn't Protected By 1st Amendment... But Says Twitter Can Challenge Classification
from the inching-forward dept
Back in late 2014, we wrote about Twitter suing the US government over whether or not it was allowed to publish just how many National Security Letters and FISA Court orders it receives in its transparency report. This came after a bunch of other tech companies had settled a similar lawsuit with an agreement that they could reveal certain "bands" of numbers, rather than the specific number. It still boggles the mind that merely revealing the number of NSLs and/or FISC orders received would create any problem for national security, but the government seems hellbent on keeping that information secret. Probably because they don't want the public to understand how widely this system is used to obtain info.We had mentioned this case just a few weeks ago, noting that a bunch of companies had filed an amicus brief pointing out that it's unclear if they can even admit that they've never received such a request (i.e., it's possible that warrant canaries are illegal).
Meanwhile, the DOJ has been trying to get the entire case thrown out because that's what the DOJ does. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has now given a mixed ruling denying some of the DOJ's motion, but granting a key part concerning Twitter's First Amendment claim. The good news, though, is that the issue there is at least partially procedural, allowing Twitter to try again.
Twitter had argued, of course, that it has a First Amendment right to publish this information. But the government -- and the judge -- noted in response that you don't have a First Amendment right to publish classified information if you are a party that is "subject to secrecy obligations."
Under Executive Order 13526, information may be classified by the “original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.”...That said, the court notes that this is partially a procedural issue, because Twitter can (and perhaps should) first challenge whether or not the classification on those aggregate statistics is appropriate:
The First Amendment does not permit a person subject to secrecy obligations to disclose classified national security information.
The Court agrees with the Government that Twitter has not alleged that the information is not properly classified by the Government. Count I challenges the FISA non-disclosure provisions as being prior restraints of indefinite duration, but the claim does not take into account the fact that a classification decision is necessarily limited in duration by its nature, as the Government asserts. Along those same lines, Count II’s as-applied challenge contends that the FISA nondisclosure provisions are unconstitutional, but does not account for the fact that the Government has refused to permit disclosure of the aggregate numbers on the grounds that the information is classified pursuant to the Executive Order (not because of any FISA order or provision).In short: try again, but this time challenge whether or not the aggregate data is properly classified.
Again, Twitter has conceded that the aggregate data is classified. In the absence of a challenge to the decisions classifying that information, Twitter’s Constitutional challenges simply do not allege viable claims.
On the two other issues in the case, the DOJ lost both. First, it argued that since it was the FISA Court, and not the DOJ, that classified the statistics, the challenge should be under FISA's jurisdiction and not the court that it's in. The court here, disagrees, and points out that Twitter is not challenging a specific FISA ruling, but rather the aggregate data.
The Government does not identify any order of the FISC addressing, as a general matter, publication of aggregate data about receipt of legal process, the crux of the matter before the Court here. Likewise, Twitter’s Amended Complaint does not challenge any prohibition on disclosure in any individual FISC order, FISA directive, or NSL. Rather, Twitter contends that the Government’s reliance on the FISA non-disclosure provisions as a basis for prohibiting disclosure of aggregate data about legal process directed to Twitter violates the First Amendment. Nothing in the Amended Complaint would require the Court to interpret, review, or grant relief from any particular FISC order or directive.The other DOJ argument was that Twitter did not have standing regarding the Espionage Act. Twitter, in its lawsuit, was seeking declaratory judgment that it is not running afoul of the Espionage Act in publishing such data. It did this because the DOJ had warned Twitter that publishing such data might violate the Espionage Act. Seems fairly straightforward, right? But the DOJ told the court that Twitter's concerns are "merely speculative" and thus it had no standing on this issue. The court isn't buying it:
The Court finds that the allegations here—that Twitter presented the draft Transparency Report it planned to publish to the Government and that the Government informed Twitter that it could not publish the information because it is classified—are sufficient to show an “imminent” injury to establish Twitter’s standing here. The Government’s contention that the threat of prosecution is low because there are other avenues of recourse for Twitter to challenge individual nondisclosure orders simply does not address the issue here, reporting of aggregate data. The motion to dismiss the Espionage Act claim on these grounds is DENIED.Of course, it's the First Amendment claims that are the main show here -- and without them, the rest of the case is pretty limited. It seems likely that Twitter will file an amended complaint now, arguing that the classification was improper, but then it just becomes a fight over classification, and the government is pretty good about screaming "national security!!!!" at the top of its lungs whenever people challenge classification decisions. The alternative, of course, is that Twitter could appeal the First Amendment decision and see if the appeals court thinks the judge here got that part wrong. Either way, I imagine we'll find out soon.
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: doj, espionage act, first amendment, fisa court, fisc, national security letters, nsls, transparency, transparency report, warrant canary
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bullshit!!
Freedom of the press is just that! Nothing the Government does is protected from the 1st!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bullshit!!
It is too bad that president Clinton did not think to classify the whole Monica Lewinski thing as a state secret. Isn't that what state secrets are for? Oh, but that was before 9/11.
It seems like 'state secrets' and 'classified' are being applied to more and more trivial things every day. Next it will be what the junior assistant white house janitor had for lunch.
If you're doing nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bullshit!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious that people inside the government with security clearances have that obligation. They must handle classified materials properly. But when you send a warrant to a company, how can you maintain they have an obligation?
I can see exceptions where a company with government work has cleared people and the proper security in place. (That ranges from a simple security container -- a approved locking file cabinet -- up to a full SCIF.) But we are talking the general case where no one at the company has agreed to keep government secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At best the government can only claim this authority over actual employees of government and even then, when laws are broken that power is voided because the government employee has a greater duty to the citizens to report foul play in government.
In fact all forms of secrecy that leads to foul play in government directly or indirectly causing the breaking of law should be prosecuted as treason. And the reason is because any government agent conducting itself in any way that will clearly lead to criminal breach of law reveals that it means to betray its citizens whom ARE THE COUNTRY!
To many ignorant people believe that the Government is the country when this has never, and will never be true!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/emp-alert-2-n-korean-satellites-now-orbit-over-u-s/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A nuke IS the device you need to get up there to generate an EMP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"never received such a request"
Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: GMacGuffin on May 3rd, 2016 @ 12:45pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: GMacGuffin on May 3rd, 2016 @ 12:45pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The judge is clearly as afraid of the government as the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or are the NDA's you have to sign just another case of trying to tack on more charges to the same crime that we see in other areas of law enforcement? They make you sign the thing so that in addition to charging you for disclosing the secret they can pile on the charge of violating the contract you signed that said you wouldn't disclose the secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IANAL
And +1 on the comments about "a person subject to secrecy obligations"? As a layperson I would presume it to be people who have been given clearance, and thus would not apply to anyone at Twitter. However I'd love to know the legal definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL
The US Constitution is a document of two major parts, The Articles which establish the Powers Granted to the Government and its Branches, and the Bill of Rights which establish rules that the Government is NEVER allowed or only CONDITIONALLY allowed to even touch with law.
In this case the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights makes it clear. When it comes to the Government, The People have a RIGHT to Freedom of the press. This is not lost just because those people happen to be working at Twitter! The idea that a Business just because it is a business creates the concept of the 3rd party doctrine which says all the government needs to do to remove ALL of your rights and privacy is to make sure that you cannot work, live, eat, or exist without the involvement of a 3rd party in some form or fashion where the government says you have freely given your information so that they can take without warrant!
Today's Americans are hugely ignorant and I dare say the Founder's would dare not have even attempted to create this nation were they surrounded by the ignorant cowards that exist today! Just the way the American Education systems wants them! Ignorant of the Constitution and Ignorant of their heritage and duties to Liberty! Instead its, sit down shut up and do as we say... oh and don't offend anyone... that is bad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IANAL
If you support the constitution you must be a terrorist, so says the DHS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL
Not new, no. "Person" in a legal context means something more like "entity". That's why there's the term "natural person" to distinguish an actual human from other things the law refers to as persons, such as corporations (I don't known if there are others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see it now...
Judge: The DOJ.
Twitter: ... the same group that classified it in the first place.
Judge: The very same.
Twitter: ... lovely.
Judge: Good luck!
Twitter: Now you're just twisting the knife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Government probably doesn't want headlines like
Ironically, the article is is based on numbers released by the same government that wants to gag Twitter on the same topic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those are classified stats?
This judge is off their rocker. This can be used to ensure that no one speaks about anything because the government can deem it classified. That's is the very definition of violation of freedom of speech and press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those are classified stats?
The judge is the one who told Twitter they could challenge the classification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]