Can Twitter Be Legally Compelled To Turn Over Your Account Info?
19/05/10 12:20
Interesting case regarding Twitter and privacy issues. Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Attorney General and current Gubernatorial candidate, has issued a subpoena to Twitter asking them to provide any and all subscriber information about two Twitter accounts. Apparently @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA have been criticizing Corbett on a personal blog and on Twitter. The subpoena requires Twitter to "testify and give evidence regarding alleged violation of the laws of Pennsylvania."
This case could set an important legal precedent regarding a person's ability to criticize elected officials anonymously. Clearly the speech itself is protected by the 1st Amendment, but the question of anonymity is more complex. Courts have ruled consistently that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission the U.S. Supreme Court stated
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
However, subpoena's have been issued and upheld in court cases where an injured plaintiff's need to identify the speaker outwieghs the speaker's 1st Amendment rights to free, anonymous speech. A good explaination of the law on the issue can be found here.
With widespread use of the Internet and Social Networking sites, privacy is becoming an increasingly difficult issue. It will be interesting to see how the court rules in this case because most of the comments alleging violations of the law were made on the person's blog, and not on Twitter. Blogger (Google's blogging tool) had not been subpoenaed at the time the article was written.
This case could set an important legal precedent regarding a person's ability to criticize elected officials anonymously. Clearly the speech itself is protected by the 1st Amendment, but the question of anonymity is more complex. Courts have ruled consistently that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission the U.S. Supreme Court stated
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
However, subpoena's have been issued and upheld in court cases where an injured plaintiff's need to identify the speaker outwieghs the speaker's 1st Amendment rights to free, anonymous speech. A good explaination of the law on the issue can be found here.
With widespread use of the Internet and Social Networking sites, privacy is becoming an increasingly difficult issue. It will be interesting to see how the court rules in this case because most of the comments alleging violations of the law were made on the person's blog, and not on Twitter. Blogger (Google's blogging tool) had not been subpoenaed at the time the article was written.
0 Comments