Editor of 'Reason' Discusses Federal Subpoena To Unmask Commenters

mi points out an article from Nick Gillespie, editor of libertarian website Reason, who was recently asked by the federal government to provide identifying information on anonymous commenters from one of the site's blog posts. Not only was Reason issued a subpoena for the commenters's identities, but they were also placed under a gag order, preventing them from even mentioning it to somebody who wasn't their lawyer. Gillespie says the comments in question were "hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary." He continues: To the extent that the feds actually thought these were serious plans to do real harm, why the hell would they respond with a slow-moving subpoena whose deadline was days away? By spending five minutes doing the laziest, George Jetson-style online "research" (read: Google and site searches), they would have found publicly available info on some of the commenters. I'm talking things like websites and Google+ pages. One of the commenters had literally posted thousands of comments at Reason.com, from which it is clear that he (assuming it is a he) is not exactly a threat to anyone other than common decency."

Comments

Fairly clear

[sjames]

It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.

Re:Fairly clear

[ShanghaiBill]

the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect

It is likely to have the exact opposite effect. The readers of Reason are mostly libertarian kooks that are already highly prone to conspiracy theories. Actions like this are just throwing gasoline on the flames.

Disclaimer: I am somewhat of a libertarian kook myself.

Re:Fairly clear

[Noah Haders]

here's the problem though. there's nothing remotely illegal about the statements that were made. almost all speech is protected under the first amendment, especially speech about political matters. There are some specific exemptions, including making imminent and specific threats. So something like, "I'm going to go to this judge's house at X address on Y date and do this thing". The commenters didn't do that.

So it's clear on its face that the comments are free speech and not actionable. so why was the govt looking into taking action? that is the question mark.

Re:Fairly clear

[buybuydandavis]

Reason has no responsibility to police its comments, so the govt leaning on them won't push them to do so. It could send a chilling effect among internet commenters, but only if people knew about it, so what was the gag for?

The point is to abuse Reason with legal process so that they shut down their comments sections, eliminating a forum for people who generally disapprove of government power. Also, naturally, to terrorize commenters and make them all think twice about communicating this disapproval in public.

Re:Fairly clear

[buybuydandavis]

here's the problem though. there's nothing remotely illegal about the statements that were made.

So it's clear on its face that the comments are free speech and not actionable. so why was the govt looking into taking action? that is the question mark.

Why? BFYTW.

The government hardly confines it's abuse to those who actually break laws. Government thugs abuse their enemies, high among them being those who highlite and oppose government thuggery.

Re:Fairly clear

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Keep in mind: Greece is a poor state with rich citizens!

what does this mean?

It means that we Greeks, as citizens, have personal income AND wealth (tangible and intangible) that is beyond of our state's reach - in other words, we are extreme tax-evaders (e.g. 1/3 to 1/2 of our economy is "gray/black")!

Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

Didn't want to put this partisanship into the submission, so here it goes. In my opinion, this is yet another battle in war of Statists against Libertarians — and all the rest of us.

Pick your side...

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

There isn't a great deal of difference to me between a government or a multitude of corporations making themselves privy to an increasing share of our personal lives, especially given the extent to which they're all in bed together.

There are two obvious differences. A government has far more power and a captive revenue stream. A corporation doesn't get to just take a significant fraction of your paycheck whether you like it or not.

Second, there are a multitude of corporations which is a tremendous dilution of power. Sure, if all those huge corporations were to act in concert to screw you over, then you're pretty fairly screwed though still not as badly as if a government were doing it. But why would they do that, unless some powerful agency, like a government, is coordinating the assault?

Or, for that matter, the chilling effect of a subpoena vs. the chilling effect of payment processors shunning activity they disagree with.

The former can force you to engage in certain behavior by people with guns, like talk about your subpoena.

I find this sort of argument silly because it pretty much equates the power to throw you in jail or to shoot you and leave you in a mass grave, with the power to toss a few extra monthly fees on your phone service or go through a few years of your grocery bills. There is a huge qualitative difference which is ignored.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

If a strip-club can not turn away a transgender entertainer, then you can not be averting your eyes from "her" either â" and it would be manifestly bigoted of you to not stick your dollar-bills right next to "her" penis.

Save this one for more bigoted audiences. The misanthropy hurts your argument. It's also fallacious in principle; no one is forcing strip clubs to hire anyone, period. Not ugly girls, nor blacks, nor guys in dresses, nor trannies, nor anyone. I understand that you spare few in your hatred for your fellow man, but recognize that this is a separate topic, an unpopular piece of bigotry, and that the idea of treating transgender people as if they were people has very little to do with statism.

Also, FYI, there aren't many girls with dicks that have any interest in getting on stage in front of a bunch of straight males. No one's asking you to get on that stage either, but if they did you probably would say no: you'd want a receptive audience. Gay guys also generally don't want to shake their junk in front of straight people either. It's all very funny until someone gets killed by a bigoted asshole like you.

I thoroughly loathe and despise your views. I have some wonderful arguments against them. But I get more out of having an elevated discussion (and carrying my point) than rolling in the mud with a pig. Don't be that pig. Dragging in bigotry against gays, blacks, transgender persons, whatever, is not going to help your argument, and is going to alienate people who (god help them) might otherwise agree with you. If, however, what you actually want is to piss people off rather than engage their reason, by all means continue -- you'll have a wonderful career on Fox.

All gag orders should have an expiration date

[gurps_npc]

And it should be no more than 1 year, except under extreme circumstances.

If the cops think you are planning something and also think they know about it more than 1 year in advance, they should arrest you in that year. If they can't prove anything after that 1 year, then most likely they never had anything real in the first place - or are so incompetent that having you find out about the subpoena wouldn't matter anyway.

Seriously can anyone think of ANY criminal action that the government finds out about, gets a subpoena, takes more than one year before they publicly move - and the criminal knowing about the subpoena would hurt in any way?

FIFA is a great example the corrupt people knew about the investigation and did nothing.