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."

Comments

You are free to say anything you want

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Beavertank]

Ok, but before you get to dig through all of my personal information and destroy my anonymity you have to prove libel occurred.

Were the things I said injurious to the character and reputation of a person/organization? Were the things I said untrue?

If the answer to either of those is no you can take your accountability and go straight to hell.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[module0000]

IANAL.
Do you have to be present in the courtroom yourself, or can your attorney represent you without your actual presence being required in this type of suit?
Would a judge not see through their attempt to forcibly his/her anonymity by getting him to show up in court?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[vertinox]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.

The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous.

Throughout western history the ability to publish works anonymous has brought about great social changes during great repression by central authority. Eramus was often thought to have written works criticizing the Pope for his militant ways during a time when such texts would result in torture and/or burning at the stake.

Many of the Founding Fathers wrote works with pseudonyms in order to escape persecution from British authorities. In Eastern Europe during Soviet Occupation, anonymous pamphlets, shortwave radio broadcasts, and later fax machines were the only way to speak out against the repression.

Libel and slander are a bad thing, but they are small price to pay for having anonymity that lets you speak the truth when things are really that bad but you fear for your life or your family.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Mr. Underbridge]

Indeed...I don't think it should be considered a tort if Lewis Black calls George Bush an asshole.

According to the Supreme Court decision in Falwell v. Flynt, that wouldn't be susceptible to libel because no one would interpret that literally to mean that George Bush is actually a sphincter. However, if you say that George Bush has embezzled a billion dollars, that would be libel if it's not true.

That's not to weigh in on this case, but there's some delineation between obvious insults and actual slander.

Post Anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit that we should all Post Anonymously to this thread in support.

This one matters...

[CodeShark]

To the extent that "all government is local", this is a very important case, because while Uncle Sam may be great big and far away, if you are in a small city or town and are critical and can be outed via a simple subpoena, then what's to stop the local city or town government from instructing the local chief of police to make sure you get more than your fair share of traffic tickets, building inspectors from condemning your home, power co. operators from playing with the juice, in short any or all other governmental or quasi-governmental person who stands to benefit from a critic being silenced from engaging in a pattern of harassment, deception, etc.?

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.

Who do they think they are?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Can you feel it?

[PrescriptionWarning]

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.

Re:Can you feel it?

[PrescriptionWarning]

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"

Par for the course

[Billosaur]

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.

Re:Can you feel it?

[tjstork]

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.

The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[khasim]

What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.

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.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[EngMedic]

Marbury v. Madison

[The constitution] organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is gravely important that you do it." - Ghandi

Re:Can you feel it?

[mrchaotica]

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!

Re:Can you feel it?

[davetd02]

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.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Grandiloquence]

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