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
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
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.
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.
--
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
This is really scary.
--
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 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
Individual uses service to send threat. (not cool)
Annoy.com's claim was that the Police/Authorities did nothing to establish that the communication in question was in fact a threat, and not just a joke. If you read the original card, while crude, vulgar, offensive, and perhaps harrassing, it makes no reference to force, only to sexual activities. Not that I'd be happy to receive something similar.
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)
Prosecutors asked that the proceedings be closed forever, and not just that they're investigating some alleged threat, but every aspect of the case. Why didn't the prosecutors ask that the identities of the parties involved, and perhaps the exact nature of the threat, be closed for a limited time (how long did they expect to be investigating this alleged threat)?
And Annoy.com was not allowed access to parts of the prosecution's legal arguments about why Annoy.com should comply. In other words, they were told that if they wanted to respond, they had to do so blind-folded!
A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)
I found no mention of when the prosecutors dropped their request, but my impression was that they lost interest in pursuing the original investigation after much less than a year, while still maintaining that Annoy.com was not allowed to talk about it (perhaps a matter of saving face?).
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).
It was unjust that the gag order was indefinite and overly broad, when arguably a much narrower gag order would have sufficed. After all, if Annoy.com publicly said "investigators want the identity of one of our users whom they claim threatened someone", do you really think that would narrow things down enough to tip off the subject of the investigation, given the sort of people who apparently use Annoy.com in such huge numbers?
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