Slashdot Mirror
NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech
Ponca City, We Love You writes "A New Jersey blogger is fighting for his right to blog anonymously and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked a Superior Court judge in New Jersey to preserve the blogger's free speech rights as he faces legal threats from local government officials. On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township's purchase of polluted land in 2005. The decision to file suit was met by a lively debate in the regional press and among local bloggers. One blogger who was particularly critical of the Township was datruthsquad. Attorneys for the Township issued a subpoena to Google demanding that the identity of this anonymous critic be turned over, along with datruthsquad's contact information, blog drafts, e-mails, and 'any and all information related to the blog.' Despite repeated requests from EFF to explain how this could be anything other than an attempt to out a vocal critic, attorneys for the Township have refused to withdraw the subpoena and informed EFF that it can go to court to object to the subpoena. In a motion to quash the subpoena, EFF has asked the court to block the township [PDF] in its attempt to uncover the identity of 'daTruthSquad' and allow the blogger to continue to write about this or any other issue without being forced to identity him or herself."
But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.
I submit that we should all Post Anonymously to this thread in support.
That said, with both the EFF and Google being against the subpoena, I don't really think that this stands a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving the legal challenges. And if the Superior Court judge gets it wrong, I would still see this going all the way to SCOTUS for resolution before the blogger would be outed.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
They should realize they are some small city government in New Jersey. They seem to think they are China. Only to China, Google and Yahoo will dutifully genuflect and bend over. Not to New Jersey.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You are being just as bad as the apathetic by taking on a cut and run mentality. I'm sure the founders of this country would hate you even more for being aware of the problems and not trying to get them solved. It's one thing to be ignorant of issues and quite another to know the issues and turn away.
maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
Welcome to the Garden State. Never let it be said local officials were ever too happy about having their judgment questioned. When it comes to mayors, school boards, and township committees, N.J. is a hotbed for corruption, and whenever someone calls someone else out, there's always some under-handed move by local government to quash the opposition. The sad part is, despite his campaign promises, out illustrious governor hasn't done a damned thing about political corruption on any level in New Jersey.
I frankly don't think this subpoena has a chance in hell of surviving, but I do feel it's going to have to go pretty far up the chain before it gets choked off. NJ just has the kind of effect.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
"Freedom of Speech" has never meant "Freedom for Responsibility." The right to speak your mind does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your statements.
It is important that anyone speaking out, or even breaking the law, understand that there are possible consequences, and assess whether on the balance they still wish to move ahead. Obviously datruthsquad has a rather sketchy understanding of the law, and is now being threatened for his actions.
Rather than trying to find some cloak of invisibility he should be preparing his defence with his lawyer.
Assuming that he can actually defend his statements.
Three Squirrels
maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
You read the B of R the wrong way. The government can't go after you because the Constitution doesn't give it the power to search digital works. The BoR only is examples of your rights, not a sole enumeration of them.
This is my sig.
Here's a free clue.
The Constitution is not about listing the "Freedoms" a citizen has.
The People have ALL the Freedoms. Inherently.
The Constitution defines under what conditions the government can infringe upon those Freedoms.
You have it 180 degrees BACKWARDS.
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You could start blogging about it and pretending it'll make one damn bit of difference.
Sure, it won't REALLY accomplish anything, but maybe you and a couple hundred other like-minded bloggers can all get online and whine about it and convince yourselves it matters.
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is gravely important that you do it." - Ghandi
If I wanted to do something about decreases in freedom of speech, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Start by sending a letter to your local congresscritters. If they don't care about your privacy, then vote someone in who does. If there is no one to vote in that cares about your privacy, then get involved in politics. It's not as hard as it sounds. Unless you are in a really large city, there are probably empty board seats on the city council in which you could probably run unopposed.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Hey. Fuck you. You're the prime example of the idiotic reasoning that causes this problem in the first place!
Here's a newsflash: the Constitution does not enumerate all freedoms. It merely reiterates a select few of them!
Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If the answer to either is "no," then I'd say you probably don't really know what you're saying. $30-50K is about average for a college education from a 4-year accredited private institution these days. A bit less if you go to a public school Unless you're willing/able to live with mom and dad for the first few years following your graduation, paying back that loan is a real bitch, especially when the economy ends up in the crapper following 9/11 and there are no jobs available with sufficient pay to both live on and pay back your loan. Then, when you end up not paying, the loan goes into to default, and you can forget about getting a mortgage on a house, getting a car loan, or anything else that 'normal' people do to make themselves financially stable that involves having good credit. Finally, the collection agencies catch up with you and make all kinds of nasty threats and try to force you into repayment programs you can't afford, so you have a nervous breakdown from all the stress.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
My blog
I can't stand living here anymore.
This is hardly the first time in US history that local officials have bullied their way into a legal mess, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The difference is that the Internet makes it much easier for the EFF and other advocacy groups to publicize local abuses that in other eras would go completely unnoticed. The good news is that the court will resolve the dispute between EFF and the government according to our laws and constitution; we have a system of checks so that courts can stop overzealous government from infringing on individual rights. The court is working exactly as it is supposed to -- both sides are presenting their arguments and explaining why their actions are or are not legal.
If you don't remember, the free press in this country has always been in tension with the demands of government. It's a constant back-and-forth that over time has led to a reasonably stable balance of protecting individual rights. The examples go very far back: In 1798 (yes, "seventeen-hundred and ninety-eight") the Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government, on pain of criminal prosecution. Lincoln arrested three newspaper editors for publishing stories he didn't like (two for publishing the story and one because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time) and suspended publication of the same papers for two days. The Sedition Act of 1918 made it criminal to criticize the government during World War I (repealed 1921). The list goes on and on.
National coverage of these issues is good, and the legal system is functioning as it should. One side is demanding more than the legal system can support and the EFF is properly standing up in a fair proceeding to stop it. The right answer isn't to leave the country, but to recognize that this is part of a long back-and-forth over rights that is an important part of American history. Have a sense of proportionality and your urge to flee will lessen. It's important that EFF fight the good fight here, but the fact that we're hearing about the story is a good sign -- it means the press is still doing its job. Anyway, you can do far more good here than in the vast frozen tundra of the far north.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
--
Ever day that passes I think more and more of these words. Over 200 years old and they're dead on. These guys knew what they were talking about. I'm also waiting on the day that "we" reach critical mass. Right now if I were to attempt this. I'd be a terrorist. Right now if I were to get 100 friends. We'd be terrorists. What happens when I get 1000 friends in every city. 10,000 friends. 100,000 friends?
--
Second. Politicians AND citizens seem to have forgotten who is boss. I don't work to serve a politician, a politician lives to serve me. If my boss walks into my office and says "You worthless piece of shit. You're useless. Get out and don't come back." I can't sue him. (Assuming he didn't come on to me, blah blah). I don't have a contract with my company. If at an annual performance review I'm told that I suck. I have to take it. I can't sue him because he doesn't think I'm doing my job right or he's critical of my job. I WORK FOR HIM.
"People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"
Or more to the point:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Also what sort of degree did you get, are you one of the idiots who didn't think or plan ahead and just went for whatever crap they "felt" would make them money? Have you tried moving to get a job? Have you worked your ass (ie: if you have free time you're not trying hard enough) off to make money? Then, when you end up not paying, the loan goes into to default, and you can forget about getting a mortgage on a house, getting a car loan, or anything else that 'normal' people do to make themselves financially stable that involves having good credit. Why would you need to do any of those things, do you have absolutely no financial planning ability at all? Pay for the car in cash, a cheap used car of course. You don't need a house, rent till you've paid off your debts. You're young (assuming you went to college after high school) and such frivolous wastes of money are unnecessary.
As said above, there is no explicit right to anonymity, but I think there's a definitely a case for one, and one should be implicit.
The original post bitched that all of our rights were being stripped away. Personally, and maybe I'm wrong here, I never knew we had a right to anonymity. I looked it up, but couldn't find it in the Constitution (as I said). If we do have the right to anonymity, then I need to go rip my name off my mail box and my license plate off my car! If the fourth amendment means that I can post speech in a public forum anonymously, then my name should not be in the county records as the owner of my address (take that property tax man!!). My marriage license should read "the bearer of this document is married to the other bearer of this document...". I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am!
Assuming that anonymity is a right opens a big-ass can of worms that our system is not ready for. Everything from our jobs and homes and bank accounts to our credit scores and criminal records are tied to our identities. If we have a right to anonymity, then all of this goes away. How can I claim that I am the person who owns my home or that I am the parent of my child after someone sues the government to remove all names from public records? Having an identity is the complete opposite of anonymity. Identity is used to guarantee rights and protect property.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Can we stop using the phrase "cut-and-run"? It's empty political rhetoric coopted by those who associate realism with cowardice.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Specifically, they would have said:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
I wonder if this http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html/ Supreme Court case relates.
"Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation."
I'll post anonymously in keeping with the spirit of things.
On the internet most anonymous stuff is considered noise unless it has very good references. How much credit would you put on a picture of a public official with marker colored mustaches on it in a public bathroom? That level of public pamphleteering is so over used to be pointless... much of the internet is the same way.
Look at Paula Jones of GrokLaw. She? is relatively anonymous so why should we credit her? But we do credit her because she produces official certified documents that are available publicly, if you know where to look. We can independently verify her claims, and then her opinion has value even if we don't know who she is. This is the same as Ben Franklin's early writings in secret, under a pen name as well as several others at the time of the American Revolution.
My opinion is that an anonymous site like this is either childish noise, or it's accurate. If public officials are after it for "noise" they could simply request it to be removed and show Google facts that support their position. The need to "out" this poster means somebody is hitting the mark, and being taken seriously.. In that respect they should answer the requests to the satisfaction of the public and this guy will go back to being noise. If the person does have real dirt, then they would be a protected whistleblower.
Given the situation, where a public body bought "poisoned" land, and it appears the lawyer did not do due diligence, there is a good deal of criticism in order as Federal and State laws don't protect the local government from responsibility.. they could be sued for millions tomorrow by the EPA even though they just bought the land! It's been 20 years of these environmental laws and a lawyer not presenting this evidence is either extremely negligent or in on the deal with somebody that owns the property perhaps on the council... there's not a lot of middle ground for "simple error" here.