Slashdot Mirror
Annoy.com Gag Order Lifted
A reader writes "Annoy.com, the web site that pushes the first amendement envelope, has emerged victorious in their most recent court ruling. Haven't heard of the case? That's not surprising. The magistrate's gag order covered not only the details of the case, but also the very existence of the case. Read details in this SF Gate Article or this annoy.com release."
Paragraph 7 of the Magistrate's June 16, 1999 Order prohibited ApolloMedia from discussing not only the details of the government's investigation and the content of the order with anyone until authorized by the court, but also the very existence of the order and its application.
Does this bother anyone else? I didn't even think this was *legal*! I know that if I were involved in this sort of case, I'd want as much publicity as possible... this is scary.
- fader
...is this
--meredith
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
Annoy.com Claims Victory for Free Speech
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.
I think we should all post anonymously.
Wasn't this an X-Files episode?
You're a day and a dollar late. But you stand for everything that sucks about Slashdot now. Just a bunch of tree hugging hippies looking for karma.
-=God Hates Me=-
You can tell that they have been down for a year -- they still have a "Channel it to MS Explorer" button on their front page.
Reminds me of that "man frozen for three years" episode of South Park.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
404 Item Not Found
The article or page you requested was not found. If this link was sent to you via e-mail or posted on another website, it was probably incorrectly formatted.
If the link that gave you the error appeared on one of The Gate's pages, please mail us and let us know at webmaster@sfgate.com.
Are we sure the gag order isn't still in effect?
--Shoeboy
NO talking about the case for you! I can't imagine being taken to court, and not even having the freedom to inform the public about it. Have there been any other cases where a gag order such as this was mandated?
Maybe there are (was), and we just haven't heard of it.
-=God Hates Me=-
I'm a bit surprised. As will be seen from the replies this story gets a gag order really riles people. I would have thought that the moment any information about this got out everyone who cares about these things would have got to hear about it. How come someone didn't let slip what was going on? How come nobody posted anonymously to slashdot when it all started? Can a gag order served on people who have an interest in not keeping quiet be more succesful than a national lab's attempts to keep details about nuclear weapons secret?
--
-- SIGFPE
and is a Federal judge in Texas.
This is incredible. Has it ever happened before that a gag order prevents even discussing the case?
Oh say does that star spangled banner still wave
O'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave?
shaking in my boots.
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
It seems to me that U.S. case law is taking an ominous turn with all the stuff that's been going on regarding insulting messages being said anonymously. Shouldn't slander and libel be reserved for people and/or organizations that make official statements that are libelous and/or slanderous?
Let's say I have a friend named Joe. One day, Joe asks me to put up some flyers for him, and I don't ask what they are, nor do I look at them longer than it takes me to put up the flyers. Am I then liable for their content? Or am I legally bound to reveal that it was Joe who asked me to put them up?
Summed up, my feelings are, "If you're a duck, shed water." I think most people take anything they read that's posted anonymously with a large grain of salt. After all, an anonymous post shouldn't really be perceived to have a lot of credibility, should it?
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.
I am getting really sick of living in the "United States of America". Our guarantees of freedom are being tread on daily. And who is looking out for us? Not the media, that's for sure. The mainstream media continues to hand feed us whatever the "authorities" deem the correct perspective on these issues are. How many people have to be prosecuted twice? How many "gag" orders have to be put out? How often will written speech (such as links) be made criminal? And now hacking is a felony in some places? What the fuck? HOW LONG WAS MITNICK IN PRISON? HOW LONG WAS WILL ANY OF US HAVE TO SPEND IN PRISON BEFORE WE CAPITULATE TO THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM OF "LAW"?
If you want to know more about the legalities of the lawsuit, check out the link given in the article: http://www.ejournalism.com/usapollo/. There's a LOT of material there.
--
This is really scary. To have a government case against you, and to not be able to tell anyone about it unless the government gives you permission. YIKES! Talk about a police state!
There's your true freedom of speech. When racists and homophobes and xenophobes can communicate their beliefs without fear of backlash, that's when the system is actually working FOR the little guy. Don't get me wrong, I really dislike racism, but think about it. If I was a conservative lawmaker, I might be inclined to deny racists freedom to discuss their beliefs in a public forum just because of liability, if not also for moral reasons. Same thing goes for religious lawmakers, and big buisness lawmakers ... and NERD lawmakers (none yet, but it will happen). The fact that ANY issue, quite litterally, can be discussed in a public forum is a TRUE example of freedom of speech; and in that context, I think the internet will--in only a few years more--put a VERY high standard on that freedom. Just some stuff to think about.
-Forager.
student of animation and the fine arts
Although i feel the gag order was a little much I think that there was ledgitimate reason for the justice system to attempt to find the originator of a threatening letter. As with a phone call which can be traced when a leagal need is properly established, I also think that this kind of information should be passed on once a proper legal need has been established. However I do not beleive there exists a system for establishing this need like there is for the telephone system. On a side note I wonder why a person so intent on keeping his senders anon doesn't just purge the logs weekly, then he would need only to say to the police "I deleted that info, sorry."
One of the things that stood out when I took figure drawing class, was to try to make part of the image "wrong", do something that annoys the viewer. it will keep him or her glued to it, intrigued. Sense then, I've always had some admiration for works that explicitly try to annoy you in some way. usully it's more suttle. Annoy.com is REALLY annoying. it's blinks, it shouts furphanitys, and it's crawling on IIS 4 due to ./.
Would i say annoy.com is art? as much as it bothers me i have to say yes. it will be hard for me to forget that site, it HAS effected me somehow, i didn't like it, but it has changed me. i'm a different person for clicking on that link (ok maybe this is going to far).
i'll just say that the courts we're right.
-Jon
this is my sig.
It's one thing to be prohibited from talking about the details of the case (which is not at all unusual), but it's another thing entirely to be prohibited from talking about the existence of the case.
Can you imagine? One minute everything is up and running, the next minute, gone, with no explanation or warning.
That's just one virtual step before becoming one of the "Disappeared."
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
- The United States
... analogized the situation to "keeping telephone wiretaps, telephone trap and trace devices, search warrants, arrest warrants, mail covers and other investigative techniques 'under seal' until such time as the investigation has concluded."
In that situation, the government is trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from specific people who are suspects in a criminal case.In this situation, it seems like the government was trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from everyone. How could they think this wouldn't be a big deal when the news finally broke?
--
Authorities, who believed the message was a threat that carried criminal intent, asked Fein for the sender's identity. Fein's policy in such situations: ``We're not going to turn over anything unless we're ordered by a court.'' So the U.S. attorney's office in Houston filed suit. (The attorney handling the case did not return phone calls seeking comment.)
A magistrate in Texas issued the gag order, and Fein fought it -- taking his fight first to U.S. District Court and then seeking emergency intervention from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees appeals from Texas. Fein lost at every turn.
Does this mean the police never got the court order for the person's name? The whole fight through court was about the gag order? Or was he fighting the court order for the person's name?
The two paragraphs above almost seem to be missing a paragraph in between them that explains how they went from pursuit of the person's name to the gag order.
On their website, when you click censure (where you can post anonymous postcards, what this was all about), there is a warning :
WARNING
It has come to our attention that certain people have been using annoy.com to deliver what some might consider to be threats of physical violence or harm to others.
Do not mistake our commitment to freedom of speech for a license to abuse our service in this manner.
We plan to cooperate fully with law enforcement agencies in whatever efforts they make to find you and punish you - even if it's some renegade authoritarian dictatorship that might crucify your stupid ass if they catch you.
Free speech and annoy.com are not about harassment and definitely not about harm or violence. If you think for a second we will allow cowardly idiots to spoil our free speech party you are making a mistake. A huge mistake.
Just wondering what they mean with "some renegade authoritarian dictatorship that might crucify your stupid ass if they catch you". In light of these events I mean.
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
Couldn't ApolloMedia have made an out-of-court agreement with the US to give them the identity of the sender, and ended the yuckiness then and there?
Instead, ApolloMedia went through a year of hell and fought for their right to free speech without any support from other people.
I think that's beyond words. Infinitely commendable.
--
The release on the Annoy.com website is still accessible. Maybe the other site got itself ./ed and decided to take off the page, although that's very doubtful. Probably just a glitch.
This is my take:
Individual uses service to send threat. (not cool)
Police need to determine who sent threat, ask ISP/Annoy for identity of individual who made threat. (cool)
ISP/Annoy says no, show me warrant. (cool)
Police/Authorities apply for warrant/legal-ruling requiring that ISP/Annoy disclose identity of individual who made threat. (cool)
Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it. (cool, it's under the eye of the judiciary, and ISP/Annoy has ability to comment/be-involved in legal proceedings to protect their anonymous users from un-necessary discloser)
ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool).
A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)
ISP/Annoy swaggers around boasting "gosh aren't we the greatest, standing up for our 'ideals' against 'the man'", meanwhile allowing someone to get away with making a threat of violence against someone else. (also NOT cool)
Bunch of people foaming at the mouth display their ignorance of anything deeper than 'obvious' by raving and rantin on about how 'injust' it is that the proceedings were 'hidden'. (lamers).
This place used to be full of insightful people, where the hell did they go?
I can understand why the judge wouldn't want the details of a court case discussed in public.. but why would a judge restrict talking about the very existence of the case... I haven't read all the details about this case but did the judge provide any reasoning (even if it's full of BS) as to why he did what he did.... i can understand that the prosecutor would want to keep this case quiet (so that the ACLU, etc don't get involved) but why would the judge do this??? 11oh8.
The URL in article was wrong. Here's the right URL: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle /archive/2000/09/14/BU108292.DTL.
Enjoy it, and don't think there's a conspiracy everywhere.
It was ordered quiet so the verdict would be impartial. They didn't want a big media event and all kinds of publicity to hamper the trial.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The point of publicity is not to sway the courts, they are supposed to be above all that.
The point is to ensure the govt can't do things in secret, like this vary case. Look at the UK's new Regulation of Investigatory Powers (?) law -- if the govt demands your secret keys, you can be thrown in jail just for telling anyone about it.
The danger isn't a lynch mob. The lynchers can always be brought to justice. The danger is a govt so infatuated with itself that it throws people in jail and forbids the press from reporting it. How the hell is family or friends or anyone supposed to stand up to a repressive govt when you can't tell anyone?
--
Infuriate left and right
I had always thought that the internet was allowing the voices to be heard from those countries dominated by their governments. I guess it's time to take a look in our own backyard, we've got one of those governments. ;(
"Slain" would do. Unless you're going for a mythological touch and hope to have the new slashdot reborn from his bloodied corpse.
This site seems a little one sided at first glance. I looked at of the stuff under the "Abortion" option, and was somewhat suprised to find that everything was pro-abortion, anti-right-to-life. Somewhat od considering the site proclaimes to be an advocate of freedom of speech: both the pro and anti abortion proponants are exercising freedom of speech. So I am a right wing conservative--flame me, I am used to it .
I agree, wish we'd see more people sticking to their guns, even if they fail, at least the SOB's would feel a resistance at least.
Fear the government that fears your guns. Fear the government that fears your computers. Remove them from my email.
Apparently it was all about a this greeting card sent to some unknown person. Subsequently the local and federal government jumped through hoops to get the identity of the sender.
In addition, they playerd a lot of dirty tricks to issue this gag order.
So who the hell was it that received this greeting card? Obviously it was somone really important.
Quote: "Then there were the politics of privacy and the Internet that interestingly relates to the upcoming Presidential election. Privacy is a front page issue that has provoked the attention of the candidates for President of the United States, one of whom is a member of the Administration that sought and defended the order and gag order, the other is from the very state and city where federal and local officials joined efforts to deploy federal investigative resources regarding an unpleasant communication aimed at a local person."
Can you say conspiracy?!?
Theoretically, Apollo could reveal the identity of the person who received the greeting card, but they don't probably because they want to look righteous:
"We said then, as we do now, that we would use our own journalistic integrity and moral judgment to make such a determination rather than be compelled to do so by an order of the court. And today, we continue to choose to refrain from publishing the name of the alleged victim, despite having fought and won the right to do so."
Anybody want to dig up this dirt where Apollo won't?
wildmage
------
wildmage
Memoirs of a Mad Scientist
It's a shame this one got modded down as a troll, since it's actually the most relevant first post I've seen in a long time. The South Park phenomenon has some interesting parallels to the principles behind annoy.com. Just like Marilyn Manson and Eminem, back to Alice Cooper and Ozzy: say anything, insult everyone, see who responds in anger, set yourself up as a martyr. That's how the game's played.
Doesn't work all that well if you post AC, though.
-jpowers
-jpowers
AZspot
SWPM, seeking mature, stable country. Must respect individuals rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, religion, freedom from self-incrimination, warrantless search and seizures, intimidation through unwaranted prosecution. No crime-against-no-person laws, please.
Federal judges are appointed by the president. G. W. Bush is not, and never has been the president. So he didn't appoint that judge.
Any bets on whether the judge was appointed by a Republican or Democratic president? Shall we start a pool on which one? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If an order preventing someone from making others aware they're being sued doesn't scare the knickers off you, then I don't know what would. A good parallel (IMHO) is the US Gov't refusal to pay for hostages. They know that once they start doing it, everyone becomes a target. This is not being paranoid, it's a very logical conclusion that you're more than welcome to argue with.
Same here - once we start saying that people cannot even acknowledge that they're being sued, you set a very dangerous precedent. It is not a leap of faith to demonstrate that this can be used in ways that are contrary to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment is a RIGHT to free speech, not a PROBABILITY of free speech. And therein lies my/our problem with this action.
Also, coolness does not begin and end at the doorstep of your opinion. I don't think you're un-insightful because you disagree with me, but you could use some growing up.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Now the interesting question. Did the gag order forbid these people from getting in contact with someone who might come to their aid? If not being allowed to make a press release kept the ACLU from getting interested, I'd say there is a pretty serious problem.
Or if it kept them from working with the EFF.
Or if it kept them from starting a defense fund...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I have to admit that this is in fact the first comment that I posted on /.
Nevertheless I think it is off the utmost importance I do so.
Why?
Because I if I want to say fuck, I want to do so. Everyone know that when I type f*ck, it's fuck that I mean to type. Why not do so then?
Everyone should have their right to express themselves the way they want to, not prehibited by law. (Of course this does _not_ include childabuse etc, since this affects children in a way that will influencenses the rest off their lives in a profound way.)
The way certain things/opinions are restricted nowerdays influences our opinions and do not reflect everyday-live.
This is _very_ dangerous and will influence the lives off our children and the way they handle life.
Please let everyone make their mistakes, do not try to prevent them from making yours!
You can tell how desperate they are by counting the number of times they say "innovate" in their press releases.
How do legislators think that banning profanity/slander/theft/rape/incest/etcyougettheid eabynow is going to fix anything? People that do this, we even have our own ACes here, are people that NEED HELP. Most communities fail to understand and help other people. We need to figure out why.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
--
The realistic, and easy, solution to this is for Annoy.com not to keep track of its users at all. After all, an ISP that is not aware of information can not be forced to reveal it. Then, when the cops show up, all the ISP has to say is "Sorry guys, we do not collect any information about our users. There is no way to find out who sent what piece of email." End of the story... The cops can then attempt to obtain a wire tap, to find out about future nasty-grams sent from the ISP, but that's more difficult, and usually has to go through a federal judge.
Thalia
The judge is Magistrate Judge Marcia A. Crone of the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas. You can see her info here.
The phone number given for her btw is #(713)250-5840. Call and complain.
She is also up for reappointment as of August 16 for a new 8 year term. Unfortunately comments were due March 15 -- conveniently well before the gag order expired & anyone in the public became aware of her egregious actions.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
I think Jesse Helms is obscene and indecent. Can I get a restraint against him appearing in public?
Kris Felscher
Kris Felscher
We've got enough youth, how about a fountain of "smart"?
Why, you may ask? Bill Clinton and congress passed a law recently making it a felony to annoy them! Of all the fucking nerve. Supported, no less, by a whole bunch of folk, who in our opinion, are fucking indecent and annoying themselves - to say the least. So now it's payback time. We bring you the perfect tool to annoy them back! And as often as you like!
Some might call it subversive. We call it democracy.
I found the above text at a link on the annoy.com web site here .
To me, this passage immediately brings **TWO** questions to mind:
(1) If the acts that the web site were not just facilitating, but encouraging were in a "gray area" of legality, why didn't they do a more effective job of CYA (cover your arse)??? (2) When in the **HELL** was a law passed by congress declaring the act of "annoying" prominent politicians illegal???The first question is easy to answer, (a) because they can and (B) because it is good for publicity (which equals traffic). Additionally, I personally like this idea because it pushes the limits of free speech. You know, the first amendment...the one that the government attempts to walk on CONSTANTLY.
The second question, however, has left me puzzled. When in the fuck and, more to the point, why in the fuck was a law limiting MY access to sending prominent political entities written communications created and passed through legislature. I apologize for my vulgarity, but this is one topic that really upsets me. How can we call ourselves a democracy if we limit people from communicating their views to the elected officials in power. Then there are the questions of who decides what is "annoying" or "harassing"??? What are the penalties??? Was the government attempting to identify the "anonymous user" who wrote the letter in question to seek prosecution???
All in all, I suppose I should be surprised. If the government can order a business to keep secret that fact that they are being persecuted, what would ever lead me to believe that I have a right to communicate to the people I helped get elected.
- Pissed Off J
It's MY-way or the HIGH-way!!! - my father
Um, the government does, in fact, admit there is a base at Groom Lake, aka Area 51. They just won't say what it's for.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yeah, lots of people did things that were good and not so good in this case. There is plenty of this crap pie to go around. Bottom line is that if they really wanted to get around the gag order they would have and should have filed an appeal. The most obvious grounds that I can see (non-lawyer that I am) is the fact that they are legally obligated to tell current and potential investors about things that might affect thier business, like LEGAL CASES PENDING for instance. Obviously you can't follow both the law and the gag order at the same time.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
...that this doesn't get on the nightly news?
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
A court case like this clearly has potential to impact future business, however if the company was prohibited from mentioning it in filings would they end up with a choice of being screwed by the judge for violating the gag order or being screwed by the SEC for misleading filings?
-- fencepost
fencepost
just a little off
SOMEONE MODERATE UP YARDLEY'S ARTICLE!
Secondly, I think a letter-writing campaign is in order. If 200 letters are received speaking critically of this judge for seriously oversteping judicial perogatives as well as good sense, then even if the comment period is over, they will be listened to.
Especially if they all accuse the judge of extending the gag order for such a large length of time in order to help protect her own reappointment.
Please join me in this!
Write me at mike.chermside@destiny.com.
-- Michael Chermside