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
I think we should all post anonymously.
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
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?
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.
Gotcha!
You just talked about the case. "They'll throw the book at you, kid. Get while the getting's good."
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
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
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.
- 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?
--
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.
--
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?
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
Frankly I don't think thats your decision to make. Or this company's. You have no idea what the context of the message was, what the context of this case is, or anything else. If the sender of the message was identified, he/she/it would have had the opertunity to be confronted with all evidence of the case and present a defense. You have no more right to try him/her/it and find innocence than anyone would have to find guilt without that proceeding.
I'm really not seeing the point of all of this. The university says "we have a problem can you help us?" the company said "no". Fine, their ethical decision. Then it becomes an actual case where the government says "Help them" and they still say "no". No longer their ethical choice to make, no longer OK. They get some sort of contempt charge and a gag order so that publicity about this discovery won't contaminate the larger case or lead to further annonymous harrassment. These obstructionists turn it into a big case and take so long that the person claiming harrassment just gives up and gets on with his her its life and they think thats a victory.
I don't see anything to get our panties in a wad over, except maybe a group that thinks they can take over for the court system.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
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
No longer their ethical choice to make, no longer OK. They get some sort of contempt charge and a gag order so that publicity about this discovery won't contaminate the larger case or lead to further annonymous harrassment. These obstructionists turn it into a big case and take so long that the person claiming harrassment just gives up and gets on with his her its life and they think thats a victory. Well, so what if someone sends you a threat by snail mail? You can hardly sue the mail company for that, as they don't have the information anyway.. Why shouldn't anonymous mail/cards/whatever not be possible on the internet, just because the information IS available?
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 don't see anything to get our panties in a wad over, except maybe a group that thinks they can take over for the court system.
The point is that the constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, yet the courts seem to feel perfectly fine *prohibiting someone from mentioning in public that they are being sued*.
The merits of the lawsuit aren't the issue. The merits of the order prohibiting annoy.com from mentioning who was being harassed aren't the issue, either. Prohibiting them from saying that they were being sued is flat out *wrong* --- it violates not only free speech, but the very notion of a fair judicial system: you can be sued, and lose, and *never be able to tell anyone*?
And it's not just a matter of the harm done to annoy.com --- how can there *possibly* be public control of the judiciary, how can we hold judges accountable to the people for their performance, if we can't even find out what they are doing?
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.