Google Files First Amendment Challenge Against FISA Gag Order

The Washington Post reports that Google has filed a motion challenging the gag orders preventing it from disclosing information about the data requests it receives from government agencies. The motion cites the free speech protections of the First Amendment. "FISA court data requests typically are known only to small numbers of a company’s employees. Discussing the requests openly, either within or beyond the walls of an involved company, can violate federal law." From the filing (PDF): "On June 6, 2013, The Guardian newspaper published a story mischaracterizing the scope and nature of Google's receipt of and compliance with foreign intelligence surveillance requests. ... In light of the intense public interest generated by The Guardian's and Post's erroneous articles, and others that have followed them, Google seeks to increase its transparency with users and the public regarding its receipt of national security requests, if any. ... Google's reputation and business has been harmed by the false or misleading reports in the media, and Google's users are concerned by the allegation. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities. ... In particular, Google seeks a declaratory judgment that Google as a right under the First Amendment to publish ... two aggregate unclassified numbers: (1) the total number of FISA requests it receives, if any; and (2) the total number of users or accounts encompassed within such requests."

Comments

why not just publish them?

[Trepidity]

The usual way First Amendment cases are decided is that someone exercises their right to free speech, the government tries to stop them, and they challenge that attempt at restraint in court. E.g. rather than suing for a declaratory judgment that you have the right to publish a James Joyce book, you just publish it, and then defend yourself if the government tries to come after you.

Re:why not just publish them?

[EmagGeek]

Except in this case, the government doesn't just come after you. They come after you and disappear you to a small beach community in Cuba called Guantanimo Bay, where you sit and rot without charges or even counsel for decades on end.

That's what happens when your government can't be bothered to follow its own laws.

Re:why not just publish them?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is safer for Google, and they can guarantee a case gets filed with a definite answer. The government might just chose not to pursue the case, and then there would be no precedent set. Google is "fighting the good fight" here.

Re:why not just publish them?

[Trepidity]

If you're a nobody, perhaps, but do you really think the government is going to kidnap Google executives and render them to a black-site prison without trial?

Re:why not just publish them?

[Grog6]

I really had hopes for America.

We've Tried the first two boxes:

Pundits Railed against the Orwellian "Patriot Act". (soapbox)

Voting in Obama to fix the wrongs that were going on, but he became the motherfucking Emperor to Dick Cheney's Darth Vader. :facepalm: (ballot box)

If the Supreme Court says this shit is all Constitutional... (Jury Box)

America has sold more Ammo over the last eight years to its citizens than were used in WWII.
Ammo plants are one of the few industries in America running full out. :)
Veterans returning from the war are seeing how their government is treating them; many are homeless, and suffering ptsd.

We will see a change; either people will pull their heads out of their asses, or they will be removed.

I just hope the people in charge realize it before it's too late; when shit happens, all the denials in the world aren't going to help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
.

Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

This a plot by the corporates to establish more precedent for Citizens United v FEC by getting the courts to once again uphold first amendment rights for non-persons.

Enjoy figuring out where to stand on this one, Slashdot. :) If you have to write a 1500 word essay to explain your reasoning, you lose.

</troll>

Re:Uhm Yeah

[icebike]

But it hardly matters, because sooner or later it reaches the Supreme Court, and there is this little matter of the Constitution involved.

True, but the supreme court can be wrong, and they have been in the past.

Funny thing about the Supreme Court being wrong... Its sort of like Paple Infallibility.

They are right when they make a decision (because our constitution pretty much pronounces that to be the case) and
they are just as right when they overturn their prior decisions, as they frequently do.

In the fullness of time FISA courts are going to be found unconstitutional. Precise predictions as to WHEN are not possible, but
either that happens or the United States of America ceases to exist. Some say it already has.

Re:Uhm Yeah

[icebike]

From TFA:

Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders

So its not even out of the FISA court yet, and when it does leave the FISA court, its not going to district court. It goes to the court of appeals.

And its not likely going to the 9th Circuit either, and you can thank your lucky stars for that.
The 9th circuit gets bitchslapped more than any other circuit for just being wrong.
The 9th approved warrant-less GPS tracking. Bitchslapped by SCOTUS.

Way too many of 9th Circuit rulings have failed constitutional muster, and bolstered big government over reaching.

Re:They'll probably be silenced for national secur

[berashith]

this sounds a lot like the visit Kim Dotcom received. I keep thinking about him lately, and wondering if he just wasnt going to play ball, and had the perfect platform for "enemies of the state" to take advantage of.

Re:Trying to save face

[oztiks]

I'm not surprised by this. I have a friend whose an activist / environmentalist and he keeps telling me about how awful the world has become and how the Govt is taking away heritage listed rainforest for it's own financial desire. My response to him was clear. Go to the open forums that are held discussing the future of certain lands and ask the hard questions to the face of the people who are taking active part in the corruptive activities. See I have a theory why things are the way they are.

It isn't that world has "become" a bad place and all these shady goings on have started, oh no, the world "is" a bad place and it's because nobody knows what they are doing is wrong. Consider what the internet has done here with the whole Snowden situation. The internet is shining a light on the dark crevices on our society and we are seeing all the huddled groups of cockroaches who are used to the darkness step into the light for first time.

Isn't it better to assume that Google's employees simply followed the rules of their predecessors as their predecessors perhaps thought (being patriotic and all) that what they were doing at the time was the best thing and had the best of intentions?

What Snowden did was ask the tough questions and Google answered those tough questions with a "Golly you're right!". Don't crucify Google for having a moral sense when asked because those who are in positions of power that steal only do so because they get away with it, no one questions it and therefore "it's obviously okay to do". When they find out it's not 99% of the time they back peddle, usually without any argument.

Re:Uhm Yeah

[quarterbuck]

They are right when they make a decision (because our constitution pretty much pronounces that to be the case) and they are just as right when they overturn their prior decisions, as they frequently do.
They are just a bunch of people. They make mistakes too , better that they correct it rather than sticking to their (or their predecessors) wrong view point.
Anyway, all the courts really do is to ensure that laws are interpreted and applied consistently. They cannot ensure that the laws are correct or that they are always mutually consistent. i.e. if the congress made a law that says 1+1=3, the court says that it is OK and that the country has to interpret it as such. Later if the congress says 1+1=5, then the court has to either invalidate both laws or find one to be wrong.

Good example is the metadata issue. Courts ruled earlier on that addresses on the envelope were not secret and could be searched by the government. But everything inside the envelope was obviously private. It seems like the executive branch has stretched that interpretation to mean that metadata of emails are public (i.e. from:, to: etc.) even if the email never left a service provider (an email from hotmail to hotmail never goes through any public server, but government collects it anyway). Now the court has to either re-interpret the law or provide more detail on what the court meant earlier in the 1800s when they said that addresses are not private.