Penn. AG Corbett Subpoenas Twitter For Bloggers' Names

Dthief writes with this from Pennsylvania's ABC27 News: "The state attorney general's office has issued a subpoena threatening officials of the social networking service Twitter with arrest unless they reveal the names of two bloggers who have been critical of Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union told Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV that the court action 'raises grave concerns about abuse of the grand jury process to retaliate against political critics and opponents.' He said Americans 'have a right to criticize government officials and to do so anonymously.'"

Comments

FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like they need a great big kick in the democratic ass.

Re:FP

[sopssa]

Seems like they need a great big kick in the democratic ass.

Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating someone? From the stories I've read this person might be corrupted. Why is he threating with arrests instead of responding to those claims? Unless of course, he is corrupted person.

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating someone?

Apparently you haven't RTFA or done any other checking.

The particular Twitter ID's in question are linked to an ongoing corruption case against a number of Democrat politicians/operatives, and it's suspected that a defendant in that ongoing case has been tweeting & blogging anonymously about the prosecutor & AG and the investigation itself.

In many courts/proceedings, revealing proceeding-related information or attempting to poison the proceedings outside the courtroom is cause for prosecution and/or contempt-of-court charges.

If this is true and the AG has probable cause to legitimately suspect criminal actions have taken/are taking place, would he not be remiss if he did nothing?

This submission appears to be quite partisan and one-sided, as well as sparse on the facts and context.

Strat

Re:FP

[trum4n]

I live in PA. Corbett is a corrupt asshole who should spend the rest of his life in jail, and he wants to be Governor. I agree with all of your facts, but guy is still a chicken-fucker.

Re:FP

[Jafafa Hots]

But what if the twitterer ISN'T at all connected to the investigation?

What if they are just a person who reads the papers and is pissed off, or who hears rumors from others or whatever?

Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?

Re:FP

[BatGnat]

Have you tried watching COPS while reciting to yourself "innocent until proven guilty" every time they arrest someone?

America is NOT the land of the free....

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear trum4n,
Please contact us with an address at which you can be reached during business hours.
Thank you.

Re:FP

[_xen]

Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating [sic.] someone?

Nobody is proposing to disallow anyone's free speech here. They just want to know who it was that said it. This is about the constitutionally unprotected right to anonymity.

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

But what if the twitterer ISN'T at all connected to the investigation?

What if they are just a person who reads the papers and is pissed off, or who hears rumors from others or whatever?

Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?

If he can get a subpoena, that means he will have had to have had a judge look at the evidence and decide the facts do, indeed, merit his request.

Does a person have to be tried & convicted before evidence of his crime can be subpoenaed?

That seems a bit backwards, but some people will justify an amazing amount of hypocrisy to defend their ideology & leaders. And, yes, I'd say the same things if the (R) & (D) tags were reversed, as it isn't about the party, just the crime(s). Just as I say that GWB screwed up a lot of stuff and I disagreed with many of his administration's actions and policies.

Strat

Re:FP

[slick7]

So basically, what you're saying is the corrupt have rights and the honest, whether they reveal corruption within the corruption about the corrupt have no rights whatsoever?

There ain't no foxes in this here chicken coop and we'll sue anyone who says otherwise.

Re:FP

[b4upoo]

Usually this sort of legal nonsense is reserved for nations that have lost their minds. I am not convinced that the government of Pennsylvania is at all sane these days. The right of an attorney general to investigate is clear. The right of that attorney general to involve third parties under threat of arrest is not clear at all. This is perverted law at best.

Re:FP

[slashqwerty]

You are thinking of a warrant which requires a signature from a judge. It is quite common for lawyers as "officers of the court" to have the power to issue subpeonas on their own. It is also common for prosecutors and Attorneys General especially, to have such power. I'm not familiar with the situation in Pennsylvania but if a court is involved it is probably just a clerical matter that a clerk rubber-stamps.

Re:FP

[dunng808]

Free speech does not require a judge's determination. The right to free speech trumps an investigation into leakage. The investigators will just have to find another way. This always pisses off the cops on Law and Order, but it is one of the safeguards built into the American Constitution intended to limit government power.

Re:FP

[Cassius Corodes]

I'm not sure that this is about free speech. If the blagger, once identified, has nothing to do with the proceedings, nothing will happen to him. If he has then there will be legal consequences. Nothing here that impinges on free speech.

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

So basically, what you're saying is the corrupt have rights and the honest, whether they reveal corruption within the corruption about the corrupt have no rights whatsoever?

There ain't no foxes in this here chicken coop and we'll sue anyone who says otherwise.

The submission and your assumptions are incorrect. The subpoena has to do with another ongoing investigation into corruption in which it is suspected that the defendant(s) has engaged in possibly illegal actions regarding the proceedings through the use of Twitter and a blog.

Or is it OK now for politicians you like to break the law, and not OK for a politician you don't like to follow the law, particularly when following the law hurts your favored politician/ideology?

Some animals are more equal than others.

Strat

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing will happen to him.

Nothing that a few weeks in the hospital can't fix, anyway.

Re:FP

[Aeternitas827]

It won't impinge free speech, but eventually it all gets unsealed, and their identities go public for anyone who can fill out a FOIA request to find--and being that the Library of Congress is now archiving tweets, there's no way to guarantee that something that was said previously (even if the accounts never get used again) won't someday come back to bite them in the ass. Thus, this whole thing creates a bit of a sticky situation.

Re:FP

[Aeternitas827]

There's a larger problem with the whole thing, though; he is being investigated, and yet he is issuing a subpoena related, possibly, to that investigation. There's only a few possible motives for him doing such a thing, and not many of them are to help along the investigation of himself. Thus why independent prosecutors exist, and should be used for this sort of thing; the investigation of Clinton is about the closest situation I can think of at the moment--his AG couldn't be in on it because he's a Cabinet member, appointed by and serving at the leisure of the President--thus, easily influenced by him, making him possibly ineffective at the job.

Re:FP

[Mr.Bananas]

This submission appears to be quite partisan and one-sided, as well as sparse on the facts and context.

You must be new here...

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

but guy is still a chicken-fucker.

I have no idea whatsoever.

I'll have to leave it to your apparent expertise.

Strat

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

This submission appears to be quite partisan and one-sided, as well as sparse on the facts and context.

You must be new here...

Heh! As soon as I posted that and looked at it, I thought to myself; "...in three...two...one..." :D

Strat

Re:FP

[Aeternitas827]

If you then make it a condition that no AG or politician that may be under some kind of investigation can perform essential functions of their office (and for AG, investigations & prosecutions are a major part),...

This isn't a case of may be under investigation--this guy is under investigation, and this is a critical difference. If it were limited to, say, wrongdoing by someone in the AG's office, not the AG himself, it would be a wholly different matter.

then you've effectively shut down nearly all oversight and curbs on corruption.

Thus why Special (or Independent) Prosecutors exist; and in this instance, this manner of party could be selected by the PA Legislature to remove all doubt that s/he is tainted by the AGs office. There are safeguards for this sort of thing, it's fairly difficult to think that a large number of persons, even if the Legislature is heavily in favour of his party, would blithely ignore ethics to ensure it all goes smoothly for the party.

Why does it seem like every time a conservative, with no clear and/or credible evidence of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the investigation in question,

Party affiliation aside, the fact is if the evidence were either clear OR credible, the need for an extensive investigation is obviated; that's the point of an investigation is to obtain clear and/or credible evidence to move to the courts. And in any case, once the spotlight turns significantly, for an official in any position of trust or authority on a matter--whether an Attorney General, a judge, or a Chief Executive--recusal is proper even if only to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. When it looks like you might be hiding something, the fact is, that's what the court of public opinion is going to arrive at. Take the case of Rod Blagojevich, for example; to be technical, he was impeached by the Illinois House twice (a technicality of the Senate not being able to try after the first, due to the end of the term; this required the articles be re-presented by the new House)--the votes to impeach, and the vote to remove, were overwhelming in their majority, with few people even in his own party, whether elected officials or common folk being on his side. It's not always about party lines, as you indicate, particularly when you're using your position to cover things up.

Re:FP

[Venik]

Congrats, you are an idiot.

Re:FP

[therealkevinkretz]

Huh? If it "come[s] back to bite them in the ass" and makes people think twice before speaking up, then free speech will have been impinged.

Re:FP

[L4t3r4lu5]

That's... Kind of how the system works. You suspect a crime has been committed, contact the police, and they investigate. In this instance, subpoenas for the identify of a blogger are totally justified in investigating possible contempt of court charges.

Do the police magically know who is committing a crime as soon as you report it where you live? It must be awfully safe around there.

Re:FP

[tehcyder]

Free speech does not require a judge's determination. The right to free speech trumps an investigation into leakage. The investigators will just have to find another way. This always pisses off the cops on Law and Order, but it is one of the safeguards built into the American Constitution intended to limit government power.

I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous". If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?

Re:FP

[Skapare]

... or what? You gonna threaten CmdrTaco with arrest?

Re:FP

[Demonantis]

Maybe he should have thought about what he said before he said it. The concept of free speech has nothing to do with identification. This issue could never have been seen. It used to be that most authors were readily identifiable. Free speech only ensures that you can't be prosecuted by the government for what you say.(Not the norm in a lot of countries) I kind of feel terrible that gutter sniping has become the norm and that people feel that anonymity is required for free speech. Maybe the states really doesn't have free speech if people fear retribution for what they say.

Re:FP

[tophermeyer]

Not any more than one could expect otherwise. Free Speech protections don't include any measures to protect you from backlash from some stupid or defamatory things you say; it simply protects your right to speak freely. The process the GP describes is little more than a publicly accessible archive. Not dissimilar to video/audio recordings (except in terms of public accessibility). People are still bitten in the ass by spoken speech.

Re:FP

[Smallpond]

The situation in Pennsylvania is that I wish Molly Ivins were still alive to write about a worse state government than Texas.

The accounts have criticized Corbett's use of grand juries, suggesting he used the investigations for political gain and to go after political opponents

In other words, he is using a grand jury to go after people who have accused him of abusing his power.

Re:FP

[jandersen]

Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?

I wasn't aware that any person had the right to anonymous speech. This is from Wikipedia:

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

Can you show me anywhere in relevant legislation where it says that a person has the right to be anonymous? Freedom of expression is a legal guarantee that you can't be prosecuted under criminal law for expression you views - but you still need to have the courage to express your views in the open, as opposed to behind people's back.

You may be thinking of "whistleblowing" - but there is no universal, legal protection for whisteblowers. Perhaps there ought to be, but that is beside the point - the fact remains that there isn't.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the attorney general should delegate the investigation to someone who is acceptable to the opposition party, as his involvement in this situation would (in my mind, granted) constitute a conflict of interest.

Call me crazy.

Re:FP

[Bakkster]

I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous".

It is, in certain cases. Here are several examples.

If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?

That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.

In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.

Re:FP

[squiggleslash]

It's an established principle because limiting anonymous speech would, indeed, have the effect of limiting speech. To not protect anonymous speech but to claim to be still supportive of "Freedom of speech" would be a little like banning printing presses but arguing that you still support Freedom of Speech because, well, people can always talk to one another.

It's always been the case, in any regime, no matter how liberal, that intimidation and discrimination that follows the expression of certain viewpoints will result in those viewpoints not being expressed unless the protection of anonymity is provided. Long after the US became free, anonymous and pseudonymous journalism remained a bastion of debate, and nothing has changed to suggest that the same principles do not apply today.

Re:FP

[nbauman]

It won't impinge free speech,

Actually it will. It's known as "chilling effect." If you know that it's possible for your anonymous political speech to be identified, you're less likely to criticize powerful people who can take retaliation against you.

Re:FP

[nbauman]

Free Speech protections don't include any measures to protect you from backlash from some stupid or defamatory things you say; it simply protects your right to speak freely.

Actually it does. That's the reason why the Supreme Court upheld anonymous speech. (I'm too lazy to look up the case.)

The Constitution protects anonymous writing because the people who wrote the Constitution published anonymous writing.

I don't want to have to go to court to prove that my writing isn't defamatory. I'd rather that they couldn't find me in the first place.

Re:FP

[nbauman]

I wasn't aware that any person had the right to anonymous speech. This is from Wikipedia:

Can you show me anywhere in relevant legislation where it says that a person has the right to be anonymous?

Bakkster just did above.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1659634&cid=32292314

Re:FP

[tophermeyer]

If I remember correctly its been several cases, most notably was a ruling that prevented a local government from forcing door-to-door religious salespeople from registering their real names before trying to convert residents. Generally the opinions have been that anonymous criticism of government is a good thing.

I'd rather that they couldn't find me in the first place.

Though I agree with the sentiment, these bloggers lost that ability when they gave their personal information to Twitter to set up their accounts. If they truly desired to speak anonymously, they shouldn't have coughed up personal information to a third party so easily. The individuals are not being forced to identify themselves, Twitter is being forced to identify their users. AFAIK, Twitter has no obligation to protect their anonymity.

For what its worth, my understanding of this situation is that their postings fall squarely into the realm of political criticism. The AG is (IMO) acting like a whiny child.

Re:FP

[slick7]

A man once said (I believe, Lazarus Long), Priests and politicians should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
I do not care for any politicians since they all have something to hide in their past that would make them unsuitable to hold political office.
The people most capable of running this country are smart enough to not get involved in politics.

Re:FP

[AmiMoJo]

Does Twitter even collect the information they want? Can't you just lie on the sign-up form?

Re:FP

[loners]

Nothing will happen to him in the courts.
His tires might get slashed. Power turned off in middle of winter for unexplained reasons. The concern here is a corrupt politician is using the courts to identify his vocal opponents so he can illegally harass and intimidate them into being quiet.

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

nothing will happen to him.

Nothing that a few weeks in the hospital can't fix, anyway.

Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.

Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets, then go on to cry on TV about how dangerous/violent their opposition is, and that they are somehow the ones to blame for violence. How "Progressive" of them, eh?

"Loudly accuse your opponent of all the dirty tricks you yourself use even if they do not" has been a mainstay of Progressive tactics since it's birth, along with silencing opposition by any means necessary.

It's a fact demonstrated again and again throughout history; the larger a government is, and the more a government provides, the less freedom there will be and the more dissent of any kind will be silenced/punished.

What the Tea Party/Town Hall protesters should do is keep a stash of various union T-shirts, buttons, and caps. Then, when the thugs start rolling the buses in, pass out identical shirts, buttons, and caps to Tea Party members with bullhorns with orders to sow mass confusion among the thugs with conflicting commands, etc before they can hurt anyone.

That would make a totally hilarious YouTube video! :D

Strat

I disagree!=Troll.

Looks like the Progressive astroturf mods aren't in any danger of being unemployed, though the Progressive politicians will find themselves suddenly "in the private sector" after this coming November.

Strat

Re:FP

[BlueStrat]

There's a larger problem with the whole thing, though; he is being investigated, and yet he is issuing a subpoena related, possibly, to that investigation. There's only a few possible motives for him doing such a thing, and not many of them are to help along the investigation of himself. Thus why independent prosecutors exist, and should be used for this sort of thing; the investigation of Clinton is about the closest situation I can think of at the moment--his AG couldn't be in on it because he's a Cabinet member, appointed by and serving at the leisure of the President--thus, easily influenced by him, making him possibly ineffective at the job.

If you then make it a condition that no AG or politician that may be under some kind of investigation can perform essential functions of their office (and for AG, investigations & prosecutions are a major part), then you've effectively shut down nearly all oversight and curbs on corruption. If you're a political player that thinks you may be on the investigative radar, just get the officials behind it embroiled in some meaningless charges. If the investigation gets too close, just scream about "possible conflicts".

Technically, *any* investigation *may* touch upon some other matter or investigation. How does one know unless one investigates? If it could be proven he had some foreknowledge that the investigation he launched had ties to his own investigation...well, there are already-existing policies and laws to handle such things for this exact reason, right?

Normally, if an AG/prosecutor/etc starts an investigation and it comes to light *after* the investigation starts that there may be a conflict he was previously unaware of, he would recuse himself and the case/investigation/prosecution continues. If a state AG cannot investigate anyone from the other party, that would give free rein for that party to be as corrupt and criminal as they want without fear.

Why does it seem like every time a conservative, with no clear and/or credible evidence of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the investigation in question, is in charge of an investigation regarding a Progressive, the cry is "there is nothing to prove he is NOT violating ethical/legal standards and should be attacked/investigated/prosecuted!" and when the shoe is on the other political foot, any suggestion that there may be conflicts of interest/corruption is viciously attacked, even when there is video/audio/blatant evidence that the suspicions are true?

Personally, I feel that those on the Progressive Left that scream the loudest and are most outraged when they are investigated for blatant corruption, etc are that upset & vocal not so much because of what an investigation may reveal, but they are outraged because of their arrogant attitude that THEY are on the ones who investigate OTHERS, and how dare they? THEY are only dumb hicks "clinging to their God and their guns" that should be electing us as rulers for life, like our good Progressive friend Hugo!

The USA was a great nation long before Progressiveism, and if we survive, will be a great nation again without it.

Strat

Wow, the Progressive astroturf/modding operations must be in full panic mode these days trying to silence all the voices asking inconvenient questions and pointing out inconvenient facts.

Again, I disagree!=Troll.

Strat

Re:FP

[jandersen]

Bakkster just did above.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1659634&cid=32292314

So what you are saying is that because certain legal cases support this principle, that makes it the law? I can't claim to have studied American law in any detail, but have always assumed that the separation of power was fundamental to any modern, democratic society. If what you are implying is correct, then that is not true for the US - since in that case judges also become legislators.

In my own coutry, the role of a judge is to interpret existing law, taking into account precedent, and to rule accordingly; the purpose, of course, being that a judge shouldn't be allowed to make it up as he goes along. A very valid point, in my view.

Re:FP

[nbauman]

So what you are saying is that because certain legal cases support this principle, that makes it the law?

Yes, that's the way the law works. U.S. law is derived from English law, and English law is based on the development of legal cases over time. In the U.S., judges additionally have to interpret the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, which applies here.

You just have to understand the law. Go to the library and look up a book on introduction to the law.

On this point, you can read the book, Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study, by Karl Nickerson Llewellyn.

Separation of power means that the judiciary can strike down laws if they violate the Constitution, which is the highest law.

The legislature is one power. They pass laws. The judiciary is a separate power. They strike down laws if they violate the Constitution.

Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of George Carlin "You have no rights"

Re:Carlin

[sortius_nod]

For all the rhetoric of "free speech" and "liberty", it's amusing that the US government and corporations have the power to circumvent anything so long as you push it through the courts.

Re:Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

We (read:American people) are losing our rights daily. In the wake, a socialist, dependent, welfare state, devoid of personal responsibility is being created. All the while, China is slowly loosening the reins. It's economy grows and grows as do its power and international influence. All the while America, seeking pure political, social and religious ecumenism, dies day-by-day.

If it's ever to get better, it must get much, much worse first.

Re:Carlin

[Peach Rings]

Well obviously. Someone has to decide whether or not things are legal, and that someone is the judicial branch. Of course, they must follow procedure set poorly by the legislature. It's hard to know who's really to blame (just maybe the bloggers themselves have committed a crime) until the details come out.

Re:Carlin

[russotto]

George Carlin is a crazy old anarchist stand-up comedian, not someone you should ever take seriously on political philosophy...

Technically, he's scattered ashes at this point. Which still makes him a better choice to take seriously for political philosophy than any political pundit.

Re:Carlin

[Spatial]

The best comedy is a product of cutting insight.

Re:Carlin

[MindlessAutomata]

Political philosophy? Isn't that the branch of philosophy dedicated to thinking up rationalizations for democracy?

Re:Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Well obviously. Someone has to decide whether or not things are legal, and that someone is the judicial branch. Of course, they must follow procedure set poorly by the legislature. It's hard to know who's really to blame (just maybe the bloggers themselves have committed a crime) until the details come out.

And that SOMEONE is the individual.. both before they say or do something, and afterwards.

That is the way life is, in spite of your worn out rhetoric and propaganda, which is nothing but a poorly written script, by whoever your effeminate *boss* is.

People don't do or not do anything (ie. follow another man's *rules* or *laws*), unless they want to. Most of the time people do whatever they want.

And when they do *keep* the rules, it is because it is something they would do anyway, or for *show* because they feel they are being watched.

The fact that the government(s) do whatever they want, and expect EVERYONE else to follow rules that are impossible to know, let alone *keep* is more proof of this.

*THE LAW* is NOTHING but a moving target, constantly changed, interpreted, annulled, found to be *illegal* and otherwise discarded, even by the system that it is built and run by (Judicial).

It is simply, as EVERYONE knows, a tool to keep political dissidents to a minimal.

And a *blogger*, any, can NEVER be guilty.. of expressing their opinion or theories.

You sound like a lieyar (lawyer).. who needs to go back to school another 6 years, in order to learn how to twist things around some more, because your ability to do so, without being noticed, or effective, is quite poor.

Re:Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Political philosophy? Isn't that the branch of philosophy dedicated to thinking up rationalizations for democracy?

No, generally it's used for fabricating rationalizations for anything but democracy.

See Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez.

Re:Carlin

[Jaysyn]

George Carlin is a crazy old anarchist stand-up comedian.......who was dead right 95% of the time.

There, I fixed that for you.

Re:Carlin

[therealkevinkretz]

Satire (along with humor) is a powerful and effective tool. To dismiss one of its most skilled practitioners of it as "crazy" is ignorant. I disagreed with most of Carlin's politics (he practically opposed property rights) but he was a genius at pointing out the hypocrisy and futility of things sacred, secular, and bureaucratic.

Re:Carlin

[mcgrew]

You have the right to remain silent.

Oh wait, that should be "you have the right to shut the fuck up and you damned well better not criticize a government official. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. BTW, your papers please!!"

I miss America and its freedoms. I wonder where the hell it went?

Re:Carlin

[tophermeyer]

And a *blogger*, any, can NEVER be guilty.. of expressing their opinion or theories.

Unless those opinions and theories are libelous, hate speech, or represent credible imminent threats against another person. Americans enjoy a limited form of free expression, but there are some things that we are not able to freely express. That is a price we pay for enjoying the common protections of a civilized society; we give up the freedom to slander others in exchange for the protection from slander from others.

Re:Carlin

[mcgrew]

Yes, Carlin was a stand up comedian; people will listen to someone who makes them laugh and ignore someone who bores them. Comedy can be, ironically, deadly serious. Lenny Bruce's comedy put him in jail, and there's little that's more serious than jail.

Leonard Alfred Schneider (October 13, 1925 - August 3, 1966), better known by the stage name Lenny Bruce, was an extremely influential and controversial American stand-up comedian, writer, social critic and satirist of the 1950s and 1960s, whose comedy revolved heavily around the social stigmas and taboos of the era in which he lived. His 1964 conviction in an obscenity trial was followed by a posthumous pardon, the first in New York state history.

Comedy can, is, and has been used to affect societal change.

As to "anarchist", that's just ignorant. When he was alive they called him a communist, and that was equally ignorant.

And "crazy", that's ignorant too -- he was crazy enough to win five Grammys for his comedy albums, crazy enough for one of his comedy routines to be at the center of a US Supreme Court case, crazy enough to make shitloads of money. Crazy like a fox.

The first of his 14 stand-up comedy specials for HBO was filmed in 1977. In the 1990s and 2000s, Carlin's routines focused on the flaws in modern-day America. He often commented on contemporary political issues in the United States and satirized the excesses of American culture. His final HBO special, It's Bad for Ya, was filmed less than four months before his death.

Carlin placed second on the Comedy Central cable television network list of the 100 greatest stand-up comedians, ahead of Lenny Bruce and behind Richard Pryor.[3] He was a frequent performer and guest host on The Tonight Show during the three-decade Johnny Carson era, and hosted the first episode of Saturday Night Live.

"Crazy" is not a synonym for "smarter than you".

Re:Carlin

[SleazyRidr]

so long as you push it through the courts.

So basically you're saying that the government can do anything provided that it's been confirmed to be legal by the very people who are put in place to determine the legality of what people do.

Shocking.

Re:Carlin

[Peach Rings]

Don't conflate crazy with unsuccessful. Go watch some videos of him and notice him pacing around the stage unshaven, in sweatpants, bloodshot eyes, ranting and shouting into the microphone at the audience.

Re:Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Details? This is /.

I'm going to form my opinion BEFORE details come out, when I can rely on a vague summary and fail to RTFA.

Re:Carlin

[Harry Coin]

Don't conflate crazy with unsuccessful. Go watch some videos of him and notice him pacing around the stage unshaven, in sweatpants, bloodshot eyes, ranting and shouting into the microphone at the audience.

Interesting that you focus on his appearance, not the substance of his monologues. You also seem to be unaware that nearly all performers are performing in character on stage. If you don't like his shtick, fine, but trying to use it to pretend he was crazy just makes you look ignorant. Do you believe that Steven Colbert is an arch-conservative?

But...

[cottandr]

Twitter doesn't store personal details. Even putting a name in your profile name is optional. How can they provide information they don't even collect?

Re:But...

[palegray.net]

They're probably not really expecting to get the names of the bloggers from Twitter. More likely, they're looking for all account data for these accounts (including login source IP addresses), and will follow up with subpoenas issued to their ISPs for their real names.

Re:But...

[SomeJoel]

Twitter doesn't store personal details. Even putting a name in your profile name is optional. How can they provide information they don't even collect?

That's for the courts to decide!

Re:But...

[commodore64_love]

Maybe they'll provide the IP address..... not that it really matters. The PA General Attorney is abusing his power by trying to silence bloggers he does not like, in violation of the State Constitution (see below). It's pretty typical of the Rendell administration. His has been the most corrupt of the last twenty years.

.

Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels - "The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

"No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases."

Reservation of Powers in People - "To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."

Re:But...

[AuMatar]

Typical of the Rendell administration? Nice spin there- the attorney general is doing this, and he's he republican nominee for governor.

Re:But...

[commodore64_love]

>>>the attorney general

Whose boss is "Speedy Gonzalez" Rendell. He is responsible for the actions of his underlings in the Executive Branch. Plus even without this AG story, Rendell's administration has still been corrupt.

*
*That was reference to his speeding on I-83 (twice), and then telling the cops he can't be ticketed because he's the governor. Yeah. Corrupt.

Re:But...

[commodore64_love]

>>>That was reference to his speeding on I-83 (twice),

Turns out I was wrong. Rendell has been caught speeding *multiple* times. For some reason he thinks he's above the law? :-| QUOTE: "In 2004, state troopers clocked Rendell's trooper-driven car exceeding 100 mph on the turnpike. That made him the butt of David Letterman's list of the "Top Ten Signs Your Governor is Nuts."

"Rendell hasn't hit the brakes" (March 22, 2009)

"His trip speeds between the Harrisburg East and Valley Forge exits, the stretch of the toll road he uses most often, have estimated speeds ranging between 48 and 93 mph...... It found one instance on a Sunday morning when his car averaged an estimated 99 mph traveling between the New Stanton and Warrendale interchanges of the Pennsylvania Turnpike." CONTINUED - http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1237675211322200.xml&coll=1

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>the attorney general

Whose boss is "Speedy Gonzalez" Rendell. He is responsible for the actions of his underlings in the Executive Branch.

In Pa the attorney general is elected, unlike the US attorney general. It is an independent department.

Re:But...

[AuMatar]

Attorney general positions don't answer to the governor. They're an independent elected position answering to no one. Rendell is not his boss, and has no say over anything he does. I'm not going to comment on whether or not Rendell has other issues, but pinning anything his AG does on him is pure lies and misdirection.

This is the case in many, if not all states. Which is why the republican AG of a very very democratic state (Washington) is suing over health care reform, which is supported by the governor and majority party..

Re:But...

[falconwolf]

Nice spin there- the attorney general is doing this

Perhaps you missed where GP says "The PA General Attorney is abusing his power by trying to silence bloggers he does not like". GP is wrong about blaming the Rendell admin though, the Constitution of Pennsylvania does not say the governor picks the Attorney General.

Falcon

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

His nickname is Fast Eddie. At least get that right.

As other posters have pointed out, the PA AG is completely independent of the PA Governor. In this instance, they are not even of the same party.

Re:But...

[BUL2294]

I'm not going to comment on whether or not Rendell has other issues

...because you're afraid of them finding out who you are?

Re:But...

[Prof.PatPending]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but as someone who travels the Turnpike daily, from Philly to Harrisburg, MOST of the folks on the road are going 80-90 MPH! Unless they see a cop by the side of the road, of course.

Re:But...

[Doc Ruby]

No, the governor does not control the attorney general. The attorney general is independent, though there is some influence. It's why attorneys general are independently elected, not appointed by the governor, nor can they be fired by the governor (at least not without quite a high political cost).

It's also how this attorney general is a Republican, though Rendell is a Democrat, and the AG is running to replace the governor when he retires - against Rendell's favored Democrat.

Nice try trying to blame a Republican's abuses on a Democrat, though. The Republican Party thanks you.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out I was wrong.

What a surprise...

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup- I was just on the Turnpike (passenger) from D'town to H'burg East the other day. We were doing 80 and many many people FLEW by us.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the folks there don't represent state law.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

State secrets hiding crime
Oath breakers abusing their office
Shitting on the constitution

Throw these motherfuckers out of office already

Re:But...

[zippthorne]

I think the implication (*average* speed in excess of 90 on one trip) is that he's not slowing down for cops, because he doesn't need to.

Since "slowing down for cops" is a pretty big change in velocity (10mph is worse at the top than the bottom due to v^2...), I'd bet that it's also a significant cause of accidents, which isn't helped if there are people who don't follow the herd because they have a special relationship with the police.

Re:But...

[corbettw]

"No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury

That's the devil in that detail. If he can persuade a jury that the tweets in question were "maliciously or negligently made", then he will not have violated the Constitution of PA.

Re:But...

[idontgno]

There is no chilling effect. Now move along, Citizen. The next Rendell-cast starts in 15 minutes. You do not want to miss it.</Combine Civil Protection voice>

Re:But...

[orient]

I don't see a violation of the Constitution, according to the text you have quoted. Please note "the printing press" and "publication of papers". The Constitution only refers to words printed on paper and a GA-friendly judge might interpret the Constitution ad-literam.

Re:But...

[jahudabudy]

"In 2004, state troopers clocked Rendell's trooper-driven car exceeding 100 mph on the turnpike.

Uhm, your quote says he wasn't the one driving. Rather, a "trooper" (presumably state trooper) was driving. How does this reflect negatively on the guy in the backseat?

What an..

[Anonymous Coward]

Attorney General Tom Corbett as an ass!

Hope he doesn't read /.

Wow.

[Jaysyn]

Wow. Way to go authoritarian police state. Let's not even try to hide it anymore.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of the USA. Our founding fathers had the foresight to make sure the populous was armed so that when the abuses of power started to go too far, the government would fear its citizens, and not the other way around.

However, in this situation, the simple, peaceful, and correct solution is to simply appeal to a higher authority.

Re:Wow.

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Please, the US has been a mercantile empire from day one, the American Indians found out all about that. Adventurism has continued from that beginning all the way through to today, take a look at what Smedley Butler had to say about it, I mean when you have a father and son as president, how far away from an official aristocracy are you? You couldn't miss the signs, the entrenchment of power ironically made possible by the very freedoms espoused so strongly there, the massive military expenditure, the exclusive clubs for the wealthy in ivy league colleges, etc.

Theres nothing simple, and trying to pin things down as black and white, us and them, usually ends in disaster, but nobody can deny the trend of current events.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. John Adams and John Quincy Adams sure defined the Presidency as an aristocracy, didn't they? Bastards.

Re:Wow.

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I dunno, would you say an example from over 150 years ago or one from 2 years ago would be more relevant here?

Re:Wow.

[lennier]

The existence of two separate father-son presidencies in 150 years suggests that perhaps nothing much has changed in terms of the concentration of political power over that time.

New boss class, old boss class, same boss class?

Re:Wow.

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

This ignores the enormous technological and societal changes that have taken place in the interim. The concentration of power is facilitated by the dual focus of technology and technology-enabled media, along with differences in educational potential which are by this stage inbuilt into the system. Things are not the same now as they were then, far from it. There are solutions to the problem but they require considerable improvements in education and awareness.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

New boss class, old boss class, same boss class?

And don't forget one fish, two fish, red fish blue fish.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's see, we have the Arizona Reichland, the Idiocracy of Texas, and now the People's Republic of Pennsylvania. And folks were worried about states' rights.......

Re:Wow.

[Sique]

Actually it's the Reich von Arizona or the Arizonischen Reichslande.

Re:Wow.

[CrazyDuke]

Or, that they are at the same level in a wave form trend. Lets see, John Adams was the 2nd president. Before then, there was massive reorganization, an internal war, and outright tyranny. If the trend is symmetrical, that would make Obama the last president of the US as we know it.

Oh, and it could have little or no bearing at all.

Re:Wow.

[wurble]

I live in PA and I've been following the Bonusgate scandal for a while. There are numerous Republicans and Democrats getting nailed for corruption in this case. The current investigation is into politicians who have been using public funds (read: taxpayer money) to fund their own campaigns and to pay campaign workers (usually friends and relatives). Millions of dollars stolen to fund campaigns, nevermind how much of that "campaign" money was then pocketed. This is stuff that makes Ted Stevens look saintly. Both sides of the isle here, this is a rather broad corruption scandal. The guys involved are VERY high up on the totem polls of their respective parties.

Corbett is making a lot of enemies during this process. What you are seeing here is not a violation of PA law, not an infringement of free speech; it's a spinjob by the very very powerful scumbags that Corbett is nailing in this case. The Twitter accounts are being used by defendants in the case (and those working for the defendants) to poison the well for the trial. That's illegal. Corbett is issuing subpoenas for these two. If it turns our they are in fact defendants or working for defendants, then that means the law is being broken. If not, then it just means an investigative line was incorrect; it happens.

What is sickening is how much the media has bought into the whole freedom of speech violation bullcrap. These are agents of corrupt politicians who have been stealing from the public for years and have been using Twitter to mess with the jury pool and derail the investigation. These are not noble people voicing their political opinions. These are corrupt scumbags breaking ANOTHER law in order to get away with breaking a hundred others. And now that the AG has caught wind of what they are trying and is doing what is in his power to stop this new illegal tactic; they are fighting back with a spin campaign against him.

There is a very serious corruption problem in Pennsylvania right now. The AG is making a huge breakthrough in eliminating a large chunk of that corruption. Given the power and influence of those being brought down, any attacks on the AG and the AG's office should be viewed with intense scrutiny and suspicion.

I expect to be modded down for this post. Corbett is a Republican and Republicans don't seem to be too popular here on slashdot. Hopefully there are people who can see through the smokescreen and understand what is really going on in this situation. This media story is a load of spin from very powerful and extremely corrupt politicians who are looking for every single trick in the book to avoid being convicted of the serious crimes they've committed.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up. corrupt politicians are spinning their jury poisoning by trying to make corbett look like a censor and you idiots are falling for it hook line and sinker

Link to subpoena?

[T Murphy]

I doubt this is going to work. There's no way a lawyer could write a subpoena in under 140 characters.

Re:Link to subpoena?

[Speare]

"Vern, a feller gave me this. What does 'subpoena' mean?"

"Well, shoot, Jimbob, all them fancy words is about the Latin. See here, 'Sub' means underneath, and 'poena' is what you call yer, well, yer tacklebox. So what this means is, they got you by the balls."

Re:Link to subpoena?

[game kid]

It's simple, really: All your account holder are belong to @TCorbett. You are on your way to #arrest. You have no chance to escape law make your time #hahaha

Re:Link to subpoena?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he could use twitpic!

Let me be the first say

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Let me be the first say that Tom Corbett is an asshat. He is also the Republican nominee for Governor of Pennsylvania. One has to wonder how much of this is motivated by his candidacy.

Re:Let me be the first say

[commodore64_love]

Oooo.... two Republican candidates (Corbett, Paul) have shot themselves in the foot in just the last day. Maybe they're trying to lose on purpose?

"Corbett, who won the Republican nomination for governor Tuesday night, told the television station that he doesn't have any problem with people criticizing him on Twitter. He refused to discuss the nature of the subpoena, however, stating that the investigation prevents him from discussing the matter."

Re:Let me be the first say

[Anonymous Coward]

"One has to wonder how much of this is motivated by his candidacy."

Regardless of the motivation, only a fool would now vote for this asshole, after he has
made it clear he will abuse power.

Hey Tom Corbett : FUCK YOU.

Re:Let me be the first say

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious anti-R and pro-D bias on the part of Slashdot moderators.

So? We're up front about it. Do you WANT us to be perfectly beige dullards? Would take all the fun out of it, methinks.

Re:Let me be the first say

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, now I know who to NOT vote for.

-PA Voter

Re:Let me be the first say

[AuMatar]

You got modded down for being flat out wrong. The AG is elected and not a part of the governor's administration- he's independent. The governor couldn't make him do anything if he wanted to. You're trying to spin the story and blame the other party, and the mods caught you.

Re:Let me be the first say

[Loadmaster]

You get modded down because the AG does not answer to the governor. You are trying to say Asshat Rendell is making Asshat Corbett do things. That is not how the AG of a state works. The AG is elected by the people and not appointed by the governor. AG Corbett is his own man and needs to be held accountable for things he does of his own free will. Unless you have proof that Rendell is forcing Corbett to do things then you are simply blaming Rendell for Corbett's actions.

Re:Let me be the first say

[Surt]

>>> (Score:3, Insightful)

This bias on this forum is interesting. Kozar says "Tom Corbett is an asshat" and oh yeah he's Republican. He gets modded up. I say that Corbett's acts are typical of the Governor's last several years of corrupt administration..... I get modded down.

+1 for noting a Republican is corrupt
-1 for noting a Democrat is corrupt

Obvious anti-R and pro-D bias on the part of Slashdot moderators.

Well duh, this is news for nerds, the mods aren't stupid.

Re:Let me be the first say

[linzeal]

These are dangerously insane and insular individuals who have just emerged from their cave-like echo chambers long enough to realize that the real world is far more complex than what can be solved by the Bible and maybe 2-3 other books. Their aversion to the benchmark of a good governance, pluralism is severely lacking in both of these individuals to the point where if given the opportunity there is no doubt in mind they would both subvert democracy to implement their hopelessly misinformed ideas of what the government should do.

Re:Let me be the first say

[commodore64_love]

Most of their ideas come from the Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Do you consider him to be a "malformed" person as well?

Re:Let me be the first say

[quadrox]

Any of you two-party twits ought to be modded down. If you haven't figured out that you get royally screwed by both your parties yet you're stupid in my book.

Join their twitters!

[iamhassi]

Here's the two people he's requesting subpoenas for:
http://twitter.com/bfbarbie
http://twitter.com/CasablancaPA

Let's see if we can make them go from 300-500 followers to 3,000-5,000.

I can't believe he's making such a huge stink over someone with a few hundred followers.

Re:Join their twitters!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand what Corbett thinks he is going to accomplish with this as the Streisand effect since the age of Twitter is impossible to stop.

Re:Join their twitters!

[stonedcat]

One of them is up to 600 or so, saying before they had 40 followers.
The other is either blocking followers or twitter has blocked the ability to follow them..

Re:Join their twitters!

[dreemernj]

I think CasablancaPA only had like 50 followers this morning. Its at 600 now. This could be the greatest thing that has ever happened to their cause.

Re:Join their twitters!

[mgblst]

Can you also not read, the story explains it all. It may be all lies by the governor, but at least address that before you go of on some bullshit.

Re:Join their twitters!

[just_another_sean]

I just went and followed them both. CasablancaPA is up over 850 followers at the moment.

Not sure about the blocking you mentioned, I was able to follow them both (after turning of NoScript for their pages that is).

Elsewhere...

[The MAZZTer]

...two twitter users frantically edit their profiles and strip out their personal information.

Jurisdiction?

[Andorin]

According to Wikipedia, Twitter is based in California. Why is the attorney general of Pennsylvania threatening Twitter's higher-ups with arrest? There must be something here I don't know.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[palegray.net]

Nothing is going to stop PA's AG from issuing an arrest warrant for someone who is out of state. Now, CA may or may not decide to honor any extradition requests (should they be filed) for such warrants, and states have different rules about what they will or won't extradite for in the first place. However, having a warrant out for your arrest anywhere isn't really good for executives' images, and it might be kinda bothersome to have to avoid layovers in Philadelphia every time you fly somewhere on the east cost.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is a great way to find people to sue or imprison. It's a boon to blowhards everywhere, but especially ones in government. How could Tom Corbett possibly be an impotent man when he can sue Twitter? How could Italy not be one of the most important countries in the world if they can convict Google employees? You see how it goes.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[slimjim8094]

He is an idiot.

I'd like to tone it down a bit, but he *can't* arrest them, and he *can't* get all pissy because somebody called him names ON THE INTERNET. Therefore, he is an idiot. I don't even know what he did that they're name-calling over, but in light of his idiocy it's likely he deserves it.

Guess you should sue Slashdot now, huh? That's not fair - I'll give you a hint. I'll be in PA sometime in the next few months... good luck.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Issue an immediate APB for anyone skinny, or who anwsers to the name of Jim, or is a snack made of meat of unknown origins.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[masterwit]

At least they won't threaten to cut the power in LA...

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is a tool for unlocking doors on older cars.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[sconeu]

And they had to withdraw that threat. Seems that DWP co-owns the power plants...

Re:Jurisdiction?

[znerk]

...it might be kinda bothersome to have to avoid layovers in Philadelphia every time you fly somewhere on the east cost.(sic)

Not really... if you lived anywhere east of the Mississippi, you'd know that everything routes through Atlanta. No, really. Flying from New York, NY to Cincinnati, OH? 3-hour layover in Atlanta.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they had to withdraw that threat. Seems that DWP co-owns the power plants...

So now LA is going to be selling their stake in those power plants in order to carry through with their boycott of all things Arizona?

What? They're NOT?!?!

Re:Jurisdiction?

[palegray.net]

Heh. I'm from Atlanta (lived there for the better part of 20 years), spent time in the Navy (plenty of flying there), and now live in Absecon, NJ (54 miles from Philadelphia). PA layovers may not happen quite as often as the Atlanta variety, but they're not exactly rare, either.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[masterwit]

Seems that DWP co-owns the power plants...

And the federal government regulates these...was amusing though to see the network news channels freak out a bit. On another note, the next time LA gets a rolling blackout due to an inadequate power grid, every LA resident will still be thinking "What if? Ah no way, they couldn't have..." :)

We know how this is going to end.

[Giranan]

Hey, Mr. Corbett? Let me teach you about a little something called the Streisand Effect.
Something tells me you're going to be very well acquainted with it in a day or so.

Re:We know how this is going to end.

[1 a bee]

IANAL, but isn't Mr. Corbett himself abusing his office here? And in doing so, isn't he exposing himself to criminal liability?

If so, this might culminate in something much more unpleasant than simply the Streisand Effect.

--
Corbettifect: Prosecution of a corrupt official exposed by the Streisand Effect.

Re:We know how this is going to end.

[Rogerborg]

isn't he exposing himself to criminal liability?

Who's going to prosecute him?

This is why Attorney General is the most powerful office in any State. Forget the State legislature, forget Governor: he who controls the prosecutions runs the show.

Re:We know how this is going to end.

[wurble]

The role of PA AG is very limited. Corbett's ability to prosecute is limited mainly to corruption in state government and organized crime. He cannot prosecute violations of state law committed at the local level; that's for local DA's. In fact ironically, municipalities in violation of state pre-emption laws cannot be prosecuted for that violation until the local DA takes them to court. Since the local DAs are usually the original source of those laws violating pre-emption in the first place, good luck getting that to happen.

In fact, the AG's lack of prosecuting violators of state pre-emption is a huge source of criticism from people in the Republican party against Corbett because few people understand just how limited the PA AG's powers are with respect to prosecution. The AG office is actually a fairly new one in PA. The office didn't even exist prior to 1980.

The ACLU moves into the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see the ACLU FINALLY start dealing with tech issues. After all, it was their stubborn refusal to recognize hi-tech issues which resulted in the creation of the EFF (look up the history of Steve Jackson games and the EFF).

Twitter subpoenaed

[falconwolf]

That's kind of old, according do ACLU helping keep Twitter users' IDs secret in Pa. a judge will decide whether the subpoena is thrown out.

Falcon

Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[TiggertheMad]

He is looking for the names of people who have criticized him? Really? Because I am pretty sure that by doing this, half the Internet will be speaking poorly of him. And I for one, am drinking the cool-aid.

Fuck Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. Fuck him in his stupid ass. He is fucking clown shoes.

Come get me Tom. I dare you.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[Anonymous Coward]

fucktomcorbitt.com is available.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Republican voter in PA. I won't be voting for Corbett because of this. I hate the Rendell administration something fierce, but Corbett's actions are just stupid. Way to lose young conservatives, asshole. Not only because of the freedom of speech aspect, but even if somehow, somewhere he is correct according to some obscure reading of the law, the fact that he went after bloggers with the same powers granted to him as AG for other purposes at a minimum indicates poor decision making skills and a case of being a micromanager/control freak regarding his public image.

PA unfortunately has a history of being behind the times, even a history of this. A number of years ago, the state AG, also a Republican, had a list of sites he wanted blocked. Of course, no one independent could review the list to make sure legit sites weren't also being blocked.

(We also have a history of some asshole judge, I think now retired, throwing people in jail for missing jury duty. Also a conservative.)

*sigh* Every party has their stupid politicians, the Dems have plenty, but damn man, what the HELL are you doing? Somewhere on your prosecutional discretion list should be "abuse of power?" and "conflict of interest?"--could have saved you from looking, scratch that, being a fool.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[Kozz]

Fuck Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. Fuck him in his stupid ass. He is fucking clown shoes.

The beauty of what you said right there is that it is protected free speech and not libelous. Unless your final use of "fucking" is intended as a transitive verb rather than an adjective. Which is actually funnier.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit don't stop there! We also just had two judges get into deep shit recently for getting kickbacks for throwing kids in jail (um.. not making that up really, yeah, they'd get sent to a treatment facility to deal with shit like a first offense of petty shoplifting). Hell, the only US Pres from PA? PPPpppprrrobably the worst president we've ever had. We had Bud Dwyer, of internet infamy, who shot himself at a press conference (I guess it never was determined if he was corrupt or not, but the guy killed himself before the whole investigation got to the point where he'd be thrown out of office in disgrace; suicide provided his wife and children with his pension). We've got I-99, one of only two mis-named Interstate highways in the nation (the other being in California and not following the numbering convention by necessity, as all options available were already taken. I-99 just "sounded cool").

Yeah, people from PA who strive for positions of power are not to be trusted.
Your average Pennsylvanian, however, is good people. We're home of the FIRST people who rebelled against the US Gov't! Shay's Rebellion hell yeah. also they moved to Kentucky, so Kentucky's pretty cool too.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[EQ]

Hey asshole, RTFA. Its not critics, its that the Twitters apparently are part of a grand jury corruption investigation target - revealing confidential information that is being discussed by a grand jury - which *is* a crime if they are a party to that grand jury. The secrecy of grand juries is vital to their function in cases like this. Revealing information can tip off criminals ot possible source of information and point them to evidence that could be destroyed to damage any case. Basically, the Tweets are interfering with the functioning of a legit grand jury and the AG wants to know if they are doing so criminally. He is well within his powers to do so.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[mgblst]

Yeah, half the internet, the half that can't read a story, and just accepts whatever they are told without doing any research.

Yeah, the moron half of the internet. In between posting pictures of their cats and writing messages in the name of their cats to other morons pretending to be some other cat.

Just wait til we get Ark 3 ready to launch.

Re:Really Tom? Bloggers hurt your feelings?

[Anonymous Coward]

revealing confidential information that is being discussed by a grand jury

I don't see that in the article.

Revealing information can tip off criminals ot possible source of information and point them to evidence that could be destroyed to damage any case.

Well, it seems that wasn't the case. They believed the defendant made the twitter posts.

Soon

[TheMeuge]

And, given the other story on Slashdot today, he'll soon be able to have his office look up the DNA records of the people once he identifies them.

"Hello, Somebusiness Inc? Hi, this is the Attorney General's office. We're very interested in one of your employees, Mr. X. No sorry can't tell you - it's an active investigation. But you know what's interesting... he's pretty likely to get heart disease, his insurance payments and absences are going to go way up. Oh, and his son has ALS, did you know that? He's probably going to take lots of time off soon to take care of him. Yeah, it's tough to have an employee like him, even without a criminal investigation. Oh, did we say criminal investigation? We weren't supposed to mention it. Oh well, bye"

Missing but pertinent data...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the original article fails to point out is that the AG is already pretty certain of the person behind the twitter account, he's a former aide who was convicted on corruption charges and is now facing sentencing.

The AG's office is trying to identify the twitterer to show that the former aide is attempting to pass blame off on others, most likely in the hope that he'll recieve a reduced sentence.

Don't get all anti government here (just yet)!!

[MarkvW]

If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that grand jury proceedings are being UNLAWFULLY disclosed to the public via the twitterers, then the Attorney General is merely doing his duty. Secrecy of grand jury proceedings is absolutely vital to provide fairness to the targets and to the witnesses. Reputations can be destroyed by a leak of grand jury information. The movie 'Absence of Malice' is a good illustration of how the grand jury process can be abused by illegal leakages and result in damage to innocent people.

On the other hand, the secrecy of the grand jury process gives the prosecuting attorney ENORMOUS power that can be abused by bad men or women.

Before I jump on the "enemy of freedom" bandwagon, I'd need to see the tweets. If it looks like they have an 'inside man' in the grand jury room, then I am totally on the side of the Attorney General. On the other hand, if they're just complaining about his behavior based upon what witnesses have reported about their own testimony (that's legal), then you can count me in among the haters.

There's just not enough information available yet.

I do hope Twitter moves to quash the subpoena. That way the Judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings will have to examine the prosecuting attorney's actions. If twitter caves in, then nothing is private on that website.

Re:Don't get all anti government here (just yet)!!

[Attila Dimedici]

Thank you, you point out a very good point. There is not yet enough information to determine if the AG is trying to suppress criticism or if he is legitimately going after someone trying to poison the grand jury process. Either could be the case based on the information currently available. So far, I see a bunch of people jumping to conclusions that Tom Corbett is in the wrong and a few people saying, "Wait a minute, let's wait to see the rest of the story before we reach a conclusion." The latter is the closest anybody is coming to defending Tom Corbett, as it should be based on the info so far available, although the people condemning him should be a little more circumspect until the facts all come out.

Re:Don't get all anti government here (just yet)!!

[rearden]

IANAL but I work for some! It depends on who is doing the leaks. The members of the grand jury are usually not restricted from speaking about the proceedings, just witnesses, and others involved in the process. So... if the person(s) doing the tweeting are on the Grand Jury or being told by people on the Grand Jury then he is barking up the wrong tree and likely to be burned by this. The best way for a judge to handle this (as far as I can see) is if the subpoena is not on its face baseless then the judge should request the info, review it him/ her self and see if it warrants further action. That way at worse some people at Twitter and the Judge know who the people are. Not the AG or anyone who can retaliate/ strike back. If the judge find there is cause based on who the person is the issue can be carried forth in the appropriate way: the courts, the bar association, etc.

Re:Serious question...

[Ethanol-fueled]

Only in the sense that he's a big, big troll.

Jursidiction

[mgessner]

IANAL, so how does the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania subpoena someone who's not a resident? Can't he just give them a raspberry and tell the to fsck off?

America, land of the free!

[timmarhy]

just don't say anything critical of a public offical, make a joke about someones race or gender (unless they are a white male, then it's fine), fly with your laptop or shoes, be part of a muslim group, photograph a public building or dare to say the word fuck on tv.

Your State may vary

[RingDev]

AGs have different powers and restrictions in different states.

In Wisconsin for example, the very conservative AG has been blocked from joinging the anti-mandate lawsuit by the very liberal Governer and Legislature.

-Rick

I wonder if they will subpoena blogspot next?

[Arker]

At least one is quite a blogger.

Re:I wonder if they will subpoena blogspot next?

[palegray.net]

As they're dealing with people whose full-time job is to do such things, I'd say the likelihood is high that any service these folks can be linked with might receive some paperwork.

I am bfbarbie!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am bfbarbie!

Re:I am bfbarbie!

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too and so's my wife!

Attorney General Tom Corbett:

[Culture20]

There is no better way to dissuade people from being critical of a public corruption investigation than to be publicly corrupt. ...Or does it mean that no investigation is really needed now?

I am CasablancaPA!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am CasablancaPA!

Re:Serious question...

[PopeRatzo]

That Attorney General, is he a member of the G.N.A.A. ???

He's a Republican. Draw your own conclusions. I'm kidding of course, as a Republican he wouldn't dream of being in an association that has anything to do with the letter "N".

The other bit of information that doesn't appear in this summary is that he just won his parties nomination as candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. About this, I am not kidding.

It's a very interesting story, and worth examining. His office just released a statement that he has reason to believe one of the twitter accounts that he's trying to subpoena belongs to the defendant in a case he is prosecuting. He doesn't mention anything about the other account. But since there aren't any threats alleged in these tweets, just a lot of the usual political criticisms and slams, it would seem that his cause of action, if any, would be regarding libel, which would be civil court. Instead, he uses the criminal law enforcement powers of his office to subpoena two twitter accounts, which seems to pretty much violate the First Amendment. His case would seem to question the right of anyone to make an anonymous comment on the Internet, which might be of interest to readers of Slashdot.

He's been accused of using the powers of his office to advance his political career before, and also of corruption and overreaching his constitutional powers in prosecuting a lot of Democrats and a very few Republicans. This incident is some pretty dangerous stuff, though, if you care about free speech.

Re:But... I did this too - honestedits

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted anonymously on blogs, twitter and youtube regarding a Canadian incident where the former Attorney General of Ontario was the driver of a vehicle that was involved in the death of a cyclist. Security cameras showed something unpleasant about the ex AG's actions. Anonymity is essential for whistle-blowing at that level.

-honestedits

Re:But... I did this too - honestedits

[palegray.net]

Anonymity is extremely important. On more occasions than I can count, I've espoused the virtues of (pseudo)anonymous communications techniques, coupled with strong encryption. Note that this shouldn't be construed to say I believe people should be absolved of being held accountable for their actions if they do something wrong. I do, however, acknowledge that under certain circumstances (repressive regimes for example) local law may not be in line with what the rest of the planet finds remotely reasonable. Like everything else that involves people, these things require careful consideration and deliberation amongst the citizens affected by them.

Current Count of Followers?

[zero0ne]

Anybody have a current count of their followers now?

Blocked at work :(

Anonymity

[tpstigers]

Americans 'have a right to criticize government officials and to do so anonymously.'

Do they? We have a right to free speech. Where are we given a right to anonymity?

Re:Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Right here, bitches: Inalienable.

Re:Anonymity

[Vegeta99]

A right to free speech also includes the right to NOT speak. ie, say my name.

Re:Anonymity

[Chowderbags]

Nature.

Where is government given the power to take it away?

Re:Anonymity

[tpstigers]

Nature.

Really? Which part of living naked in trees equates to privacy?

Re:Anonymity

[mcgrew]

Living naked in trees is nature, but nature does not equal living naked in trees. A horse is a four legged animal, but a four legged animal is not a horse.

We are endowed by our creator with inaleable rights; in short, the big bang endowed us with those rights. I.e., nature.

Re:Anonymity

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well, you could group it under that damned annoying 1th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If anonymous criticism is considered a power, then it should be reserved to either the States or the people. As you so astutely pointed out, the power of anonymous criticism is not delegated anywhere in the Constitution and, thus, the federal government cannot claim ownership of it. Thus, it is left to the States or the people. I don't know what sort of precedence rulings exist that may determine whether it is for the States or the people, but technically the 10th probably does cover the power to anonymous free speech.

It's important to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not documents that explicitly list available rights. Rather, they are documents that explicitly list the powers available to the federal level governments and all else is left to the lesser powers (States and people). While this is only a slight semantic difference, it is an enormous difference in terms of political philosophy and intent.

Re:Anonymity

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Missed a typo: 10th amendment, not 1th. Sorry for that.

Re:Anonymity

[tpstigers]

Actually, I'd argue that a right to anonymity was purposefully left out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Human society pretty much depends upon a lack of anonymity to function. If people are relieved of personal responsibility, the social order has very little keeping it together (if you doubt this, just look at any situation in human history in which the rules were removed - riots, wars, blackouts). We are not, by nature, moral creatures. Morality is something that must be imposed, either from within or without. Unfortunately, most people need it to be imposed from without. I do not doubt that the Founding Drunkards were painfully aware of this.

Re:Anonymity

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well, with regards to this:

We are not, by nature, moral creatures. Morality is something that must be imposed, either from within or without.

Current evidence suggests you are entirely wrong. Apparently, we are born with some form of innate morality. Or, at the very least, we have a tendency towards altruism and fairness.

With regards to this:

Human society pretty much depends upon a lack of anonymity to function.

I would submit the internet, in all of its glorious, pre-facebook anonymity days, as evidence that society can, and does function with anonymity. The way I figure it, the internet really is a society in and of itself. The internet allows for exchange of goods and services, enables the communication of ideas, has its own slang and languages associated with it, and, demonstrably, had its own set of rules and laws that were followed even when it was young. Those factors, would suggest that it is, indeed, a society. Back when chat rooms were still popular and young, back when ebay was just getting off the ground, and back before everyone had a myspace/facebook page to identify themselves, anonymous and pseudo-anonymous folk would get together in chatrooms, forums, and on auction sites and partake in near anarchic social interactions. While many of those interactions were trollish, flamebaitish, and ridiculous, there were a large number that were positive, contributory, and, often, pleasant. If there hadn't been, then everyone would have gotten sick of the internet and stopped using it a long time ago. That obviously didn't happen. People stuck it out, figured out ways to improve existing services, and now we have the internet today. And believe it or not, it still has its unspoken rules of etiquette and such. For instance, typing in all caps is considered inappropriate. L337 speak is considered a sign of immaturity. And screwing someone out of a deal on e-bay could get you banned from that service entirely.

While you may argue that destroying anonymity is what enabled this evolution, I would argue that the society was founded on anonymity and worked well when it did exist. As such, making the claim that a society needs a lack of anonymity to function, in my opinion, is wrong. Perhaps limiting anonymity makes for a better society, but that is a subjective judgment that hinges on a person's interpretation of better.

Furthermore, if you want other examples of social interactions that function well with anonymity, take a look at the Victorian era Masquerade balls. Those functions, in fact, valued social interaction above all else, yet, they allowed for anonymity. There are other examples, like, say, the Secret Societies of the Ivy league schools that also allow for anonymous, social interaction but are successful. So I would claim that your assertion is demonstrably false.

That said, your first sentence with regards to anonymity being left out of the Constitution deliberately doesn't address my original point, or, at best, confirms it. The Constitution was written as an explicit agreement to what the federal government could and could not do. Thus, if anonymity was not mentioned, it was intended to be left as a right to the States and/or the people due to the very nature of the document itself. So if it was purposefully left out of the Constitution, then it was purposefully left as a right to the people or the States.

Re:Anonymity

[tpstigers]

You're right. In fact, I think the most common statement in the Victorian Era was something along the lines of: "You're six feet tall, smell of cloves and talk with a lisp, but that tiny mask you're holding over your eyes makes it impossible for me to discern who you are."

Tom Corbett is stalins bed buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate venue for Tom Corbett to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he is a scum of the earth asshat than to attempt to silence his online critics.

Please hurry back back to North Korea... Kim jumble ill misses U.

-AC

Hello, how are you doing?

[Montezumaa]

I am one of those bloggers and there is not one fucking thing that Corbett can do to me. The gloves are off, whenever he is ready to come on down and do something about this. He just needs to remember that "when you mess with the bull, you get the horns".

Re:Hello, how are you doing?

[tpstigers]

Good for you. Now call him and tell him your name and address so he can take you up on your offer.

Re:Hello, how are you doing?

[Montezumaa]

I am, in the morning.

Republican

[Doc Ruby]

Tom Corbett is a Republican.

Re:Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Democrats never abuse power. Only Republicans.

Re:Republican

[Doc Ruby]

Typical Anonymous Republican Coward: A Republican abuses power, and the only thing you care about is making sure you say "Democrats, too!", though there's no Democrat in this story.

Karl Rove, is that you?

Attorney General Tom Corbett is a

[Anonymous Coward]

Attorney General Tom Corbett is a right wing nut job. He's abusing his position, and his mother dresses him really funny. I think he may also be drinking on the job, a wife abuser, and a distributor of kiddie porn. Now Tom, come and get me you Muther!
Sincerely, Anonymous Coward!

Re:Serious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm kidding of course, as a Republican he wouldn't dream of being in an association that has anything to do with the letter "N".

Or "G" for that matter.

One reason for telling lies is to troll

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason for telling lies is to troll. When someone makes such an egregious lie in an emotive subject, that's trolling.

Tom Corbett's real identity revealed

[Skapare]

After a brief 175 microsecond investigation, we have now discovered that Tom Corbett has been posting online on Slashdot heavily as some dude named Anonymous Coward.

AG and Republican Goobernatorial Candidate...

[ElmoGonzo]

Corbett isn't just the Attorney General who filed suit against the President trying to get a federal law (that hasn't even gone into effect yet) declared unconstitutional. Corbett is also the Republican candidate for Governor. If his skin is this thin, he's going to have a rough patch coming on. Corbett is also a Goober.

Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.

Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets,

Interesting the way you just make up facts.

Re:Citation needed

[BlueStrat]

Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.

Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets,

Interesting the way you just make up facts.

Make up facts? O RLY?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=seiu+beats+black+man&aq=0

I don't *have to* make up things about Progressives and their SEIU brownshirt enforcers. The reality is usually far worse than anything I could make up.

I guess it's dangerous for a black man to wander off the Liberal/Progressive "plantation". I can just hear Obama now; "what we have heah....is a failure...to communicate..."

The worst part is that these violent, racist SEIU thugs ended up being charged with...wait for it...disturbing the peace! Not assault OR battery, which this clearly was, nor were hate-crime charges brought which, last I knew, beating someone while screaming racist epithets at them qualifies for. Nor are any unions going to be charged with any RICO or other organized crime charges which AFAICT would be what those laws were designed for.

Oooh, that's right! Silly me! Those laws are for oppressing the proles & little people, not Progressives and their union enforcer-goons. Gotta keep those blacks from getting uppity and wandering off the Liberal/Progressive plantation!

Some animals are more equal than others.

Strat

The Subpoena!

[ukemike]

The subpoena as well as some comments by one of the twitter-ers can be seen here: - http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/tom-corbett-twitter/

Since when do we have a right to anonymity?

[Raconteur]

Even if we (legally) do (I doubt it), it is a reprehensible practice. I use an avatar here, but I don't hide my identity, nor should anyone. Hiding behind an electronic curtain while firing live rounds is ridiculous. If you can't say it on a street corner or on television, don't say it. This practice is the genesis of political unrest. We need privacy in some aspects of our lives, political dissent and discourse is NOT one of them. If you can't believe in your views enough to stand by them in public, keep your trap shut.

lords vs serfs

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS is what the massive databasing of citizens is really about: silencing and punishing anyone who might criticize the current regime or expose its criminality. No matter how advanced technology becomes, the people in control of it will always be some combination of Dick Cheney and Frank Burns (MASH).

"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman, United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981