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

[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

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I agree, they seem over the top. but imma provide a bit of knowledge, maybe you'll find it interesting. Much of 1st amendment law is controlled by a landmark, precedent-setting case, brandenberg v. ohio which laid out definitions like "imminent threat exemption." This superceded the often-misunderstood "fire in a crowded theater" idea from the 1910's. The three components of the "brandenberg test" are intent, imminence, and likelihood. The troll comments fall short of imminence and likelihood, at the very least.

Very interesting link - it supports my claim "in the USA free speech is respected and protected more than anywhere else in the world (much more than Europe for example)"! This case (mentioned in the Slashdot story), is one of those that (because of different ethics) a Greek/European like me can examine/understand only after reading links like the one you provided, so thanks.

A question for you, no trolling, what's it like in Greece with the fiscal stuff? is everybody freaking out? is it like being on an out-of-control freight train?

Don't worry Sir, i understand very easily when someone is trolling and when just asks a reasonable question about the situation.

People here are calm, considering the situation. While we had about 1/4 of our GDP/GNI vanishing, Greeks have a social net based on family that protects almost all from dramatic financial situations... e.g., no one is starving, the images with those waiting for some food are from illegal immigrants that the international media display just for drama!

Technically we are 5 days before declaring bankruptcy (in reality we have one more month before this bankruptcy becomes legaly valid). Greece is in a situation where we can declare bankruptcy (i.e., stop repaying our debt), continue public spendings at current levels (since we have a state's budget surplus), and staying in the EUROzone (i.e., using the "Euro" currency - our EU membership is not an issue even if we had to leave EUROzone) - this solution would be problematic because we could not fund our economy (we can not print Euros!), so if we declare bankruptcy the most logical and likely is to leave EUROzone (but not EU) so we can print Drachmas (our national currency, which we can devalue so our economy can start "moving"). Things are not so dramatic as most/all the international media describe, but are not good also - most Greeks (including myself) want to just continue using the Euro, but many Greeks (not me!) believed our current, 4 months old, (ridiculous) left-wing goverment that promised staying in EUROzone AND relaxing austerity... i am very pro-austerity and pro-EU/EUROzone, i hope that in the next weeks our current goverment will loose the support so our previous goverment can take control again, continue repaying the loans and you know... do what it must be done. Keep in mind: Greece is a poor state with rich citizens!

A legal answer

[WorldWarPi]

One reason for issuing a subpoena is to establish a provable and authenticated origin and chain of custody.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

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

Actually, the difference is vast: for a corporation to compel either you or another corporation to reveal any data, it has to win legal case — or, a least, convince a judge to issue a subpoena. The government has been gradually lowering this bar for itself over the years — recall the "National Security Letters" (and how easy they are for the government to obtain).

And that's when it bothers with the legal process at all — often it can simply just bust in and take your stuff (without warrant), seize any property on mere accusation of it being used in a crime, and confiscate bank accounts without even an accusation, only suspicion , or, as was the case with Reason.com, demand your "voluntary" cooperation or else...

But my point was not, that the government ought not to investigate legitimate threats against judges and public officials — even hard-core Libertarians would agree, that this is, actually, a proper role of the government. The point is, this particular investigation was patently illegitimate — the "threats" were bogus and hyperbolic and DoJ could not possible have hoped to ever win a conviction.

Their intention was to simply harass the dissenters by hitting them with subpoenas and giving them threatening "talking-tos". The prosecution, in other words, was malicious. That's the disgusting part.

The aspects of Libertarianism that relate to being largely left alone to pursue our lives appeal to me [...] The eagerness of Libertarians to remove regulations on corporate behavior

But there is no difference! What's good for the goose, is good for the chicken as well:

• If a corporation can not discriminate on race or age in hiring a secretary, then you can not discriminate on same in hiring a babysitter.
• If a corporation's employees can vote to obligate their employer to only hire from the same union they just joined, by what logic should your local supermarket be unable to vote itself into becoming the sole legal source of groceries for you?
• If a strip-club can not turn away a transgender entertainer, then you can not be averting your eyes from "her" either — and it would be manifestly bigoted of you to not stick your dollar-bills right next to "her" penis.

Even more obvious examples abound. For example, the EPA considers any billabong in the US to be under its control and protection — so both private citizens and corporations alike now need a Federal Government's approval to build anything on their property, if it happens to have a lake, a stream, or a swamp, however small...