NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech 406
Ponca City, We Love You writes "A New Jersey blogger is fighting for his right to blog anonymously and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked a Superior Court judge in New Jersey to preserve the blogger's free speech rights as he faces legal threats from local government officials. On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township's purchase of polluted land in 2005. The decision to file suit was met by a lively debate in the regional press and among local bloggers. One blogger who was particularly critical of the Township was datruthsquad. Attorneys for the Township issued a subpoena to Google demanding that the identity of this anonymous critic be turned over, along with datruthsquad's contact information, blog drafts, e-mails, and 'any and all information related to the blog.' Despite repeated requests from EFF to explain how this could be anything other than an attempt to out a vocal critic, attorneys for the Township have refused to withdraw the subpoena and informed EFF that it can go to court to object to the subpoena. In a motion to quash the subpoena, EFF has asked the court to block the township [PDF] in its attempt to uncover the identity of 'daTruthSquad' and allow the blogger to continue to write about this or any other issue without being forced to identity him or herself."
Can you feel it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You are free to say anything you want (Score:3, Interesting)
In New Jersey, being identified as the person who outed corrupt officials could be lethal (mob).
That was dumb... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, if the blogger turns out to be a public employee of said township, he/she would prolly be fired. Then again, the nanosecond after they did such a thing, esp. after outing him/her in such a public manner, would likely put themselves at substantial legal risk.
But the main point for the township being stupid by doing it is this: what was once a thing that could be scoffed at as 'some guy on the Internet who knows nothing about this'... now has credence, credibility, and a firm aura of truth; all of which has now been granted to him/her/it by the township's idiot legal team.
Personally, if Congress wants to do something useful (well...), they could work on something legislative-like that would prevent government-as-plaintiff in a civil suit from ever being allowed to out any anonymous posting, publication, or what-have-you.
Man - some people just can't grok the concept of not using every tool they have for a difficult problem, simply because they're all there and sitting in the toolbox.
Re:That was dumb... (Score:4, Interesting)
The township can make the guy's life hell-- can make his friend's lives hell so he loses his friends (assuming it is a guy).
Ben Franklin would have been outed very early in his career under this standard.
invasive and non-invasive postings (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That was dumb... (Score:3, Interesting)
But with lawyers involved, thats not how it works. They would ignore him for awhile, giving the coworkers better performance reviews (not bad for the employee, but better for the others) ensuring the others get promotions. They would slowly change the scope of work of the employee, to set them up to fail. They would also start doing LOTS of random audits of his department, writing him up for making a personal call, hitting their banks website, etc. So that they will have a paper trail in the employee's file showing they were bad. Other co-workers would file complaints about little things, which would get added to the pile, etc. Basically, they will drive the employee so low that they will hate it, and quit.
Re:Can you feel it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Once there are enough of us, we open fire.
Figuratively speaking of course. Violence has never been the way to secure your freedom from a corrupt government.
Re:Can you feel it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone telling you that any whole party in Washington is a cadre of crooks is, in fact, a crook trying to get you to surrender your political power. There are a few crooks, quite a few, but on the whole, many more of them do just as we ask them to, and their best despite that. We have the government that meets our superficial apathetic attitudes towards all things political.
(*gets on soapbox*)
My fellow Americans, do what you do best. Follow the money. There's several trillion dollars per annum tied up in politics, and all that money equals vast power. If we want our country back, we need to put politics back on the table, and drop this 1960's attitude that politics are for weenies and crooks. Politics are important and it is our civic duty to discuss the "State of the Union." All the corporations with lobbyists at Washington know this. We don't bother, because discussions about politics are "unsavory" and politicians are "worthless."
The hippies were wrong. All the governments they formed have faded, or been incorporated. This huge government is still getting larger, and it is critical that its people demand its service.
Sure, we might get into fist fights over it at a party, but everyone needs to put politics back on the table. Now. Fist fights be damned.
--
Toro
Does Anonymity create more or less truth? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You are free to say anything you want (Score:4, Interesting)
And datruthsquad doesn't seem at all libelous or slanderous (from what I read on his blog), so it sounds like a vindictive city council. Which, needless to say, is bullshit.
Re:You are free to say anything you want (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You are free to say anything you want (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL
You have to prove more than just libel...
you have to prove that there was no malice in the intention, that you were not presenting an opinion (that you were presenting your statements as pure facts), and that the statements were false.
IANAL
I'm all for anonymity but what if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Something seems wrong with that. When speaking anonymously its easy to say things because you have no personal accountability for what's said. That can be used for good and for evil. I'm not sure it should be automatically protected.
After all, we'd be outraged if Walmart managers started series of grassroots anti-union blogs in a number of places... "I'm just an anonymous low level walmart employee like you whose against the unionization because... reason reason reason reason... and I'm posting anonymously because I fear retaliation from the union rabble rousers who just want to consolidate power for themselves. I we unionize they'll win, and we'll all lose. And then over the following weeks posted all kinds of stuff criticising the union organizers in every way imaginable."
Each blog would repeat the others and manufacture 'truth by repetition'.
There'd be no way to prove it was management, because of course:
We must protect anonoymous online journalists!!111!
Re:Bearing on the case? (Score:2, Interesting)
Selective Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
This is very likely true. To amplify this point, I can say that in my town (a small town of a little over 1000 homes) there are many laws about all sorts of ridiculous minutiae that are only selectively enforced. These include laws that say, for example, that your trash cans can't be visible from the road (unless it's trash day), regulate the length of your grass, etc. As an experiment, one day I walked around my area of the town (which does not seem to be exceptional in any way) and looked for violations of the ordinances. I found roughly one half of the houses I passed had a violation readily apparently from walking by on the road, and that was only based on the ones I remember off the top of my head. This completely ignores other issues like applying for permits, traffic tickets, etc.
I think most localities have a lot of overly broad, unnecessary, largely unenforced laws like this which essentially mean the government (and other people with influence) have the de facto power to go after whomever they please. Thankfully, at least in my town, it's not currently used too often with too much malice. I'd like to see such laws repealed, but, based on town meetings I've been to, I don't think most other people see it that way.
Re:Can you feel it? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's amusing is that you honestly appear to think you're not an edge case, and that most graduates should be able to put aside $50,000 a year in savings. Apparently you believe that across the board, given a roughly twenty per cent tax rate, that the average wage of a college graduate is bearing in on $100,000.
Wow.
Really?
Let's take a wee peek at MIT. Hardly a bottom of the barrel college, and bear in mind they only offer figures from 2003-2005. In 2003, of 115 four year graduates surveyed, not one made more than $94,000. The median was $54,000. 2004, still, no-one had topped a $100,000 salary, though the median climbed slightly. In 2005 a MIT graduate could expect to make $59,000 their first year out of college.
And yet here you are, lambasting people for not being able to save $50,000 their first year out of college? I'm impressed.
Re:You are free to say anything you want (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, if the RIAA has taught me one thing, it's that cases can be brought against John/Jane Does where it can be decided that there is enough merit to do so, and then the name can be subpoenaed. Granted, it seems that threshold is pretty low.
In short, if they haven't tried to bring a case of libel against 'daTruthSquad' as a John Doe, the subpoena is probably a chilling tactic.
No, I didn't read the article, and IANAL. This is
Silence Dogood anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Silence was particularly fond of ridiculing Harvard. She complained that it had been ruined by corruption and elitism, and that most of its students learned nothing there except how to be conceited.
This was the first of many of Benjamin Franklin's hoaxes.
So I'm guessing some of the founding fathers of our nation and at least this Signer of the Declaration of Independence would have this guys back.
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_dogood.htm [pbs.org]
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/dogood.html [museumofhoaxes.com]