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

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

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!

Then why do we even have the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is full of "Congress shall make no law...", why bother? Why not a "Bill of Government Rights" full of "Congress shall..." and "Congress may..."

Also, it is a local government seeking this guy's ID, not the Feds. So, I think this would fall under reserved to the States . Your words, not mine.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[ArcherB]

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.

With that clue, it looks like you get what you pay for!

Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights? If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house? If I have free speech, Inherently, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? What's the point?

Re:END MODERATOR ABUSE

[Evil Adrian]

I agree