RSS
Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett Can't Take Anonymous Twitter Criticism; Issues Subpoenas For IDs
from the let-me-introduce-you-to-the-constitution dept
What is it with various state Attorney Generals and their difficulty in understanding the law? And why is it that those same AGs always seem to be running for higher office when they do? We've already covered how Andrew Cuomo (who wants to be NY's governor) appeared to ignore the law in bullying ISPs. And then there's Richard Blumenthal (who wants to be one of the Senators from Connecticut) who continues to ignore Section 230 safe harbors for Craigslist in grandstanding against the company. Then there was South Carolina's Harry McMaster (who tried to run for governor), who also ignored Section 230 in threatening to put Craigslist execs in jail.
Now we can add to the list Pennsylvania's Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate), Tom Corbett, who apparently is so thin-skinned about people criticizing him, that he's subpoenaed Twitter, demanding it reveal the "name, address, contact information, creation date, creation Internet Protocol address and any and all log in Internet Protocol address" of two anonymous critics who are using both Twitter and Blogger to criticize him.
One would assume that, as Attorney General, Corbett is familiar with the First Amendment. One would also hope that, as Attorney General, Corbett is familiar with the long list of decisions in the caselaw protecting the right of anonymity especially in situations where it involves criticizing a politician. Apparently not. Corbett also appears to be unfamiliar with the basic tenets of The Streisand Effect... and how trying to unmask these critics is only serving to draw significantly more attention to their criticism of him.
How do you get to be Attorney General if you don't even understand the basics of the law? And how do you become a politician if you can't stand people criticizing you?
Now we can add to the list Pennsylvania's Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate), Tom Corbett, who apparently is so thin-skinned about people criticizing him, that he's subpoenaed Twitter, demanding it reveal the "name, address, contact information, creation date, creation Internet Protocol address and any and all log in Internet Protocol address" of two anonymous critics who are using both Twitter and Blogger to criticize him.
One would assume that, as Attorney General, Corbett is familiar with the First Amendment. One would also hope that, as Attorney General, Corbett is familiar with the long list of decisions in the caselaw protecting the right of anonymity especially in situations where it involves criticizing a politician. Apparently not. Corbett also appears to be unfamiliar with the basic tenets of The Streisand Effect... and how trying to unmask these critics is only serving to draw significantly more attention to their criticism of him.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In addition, you also show that you are willing to waste tax payer money going after a critic.
Legal justification or not, this violates common sense. It is no different than how the producer of Hurt Locker reacted to a letter - emotional and over the top.
If someone reacts like this to the small stuff, don't say you didn't have a warning sign of what an a** he was going to be at a higher office. There are always warning signs or key character issues and for some reason we the public choose to ignore them.
Freedom
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:There are always warning signs or key character issues and for some reason we the public choose to ignore them.
Couldn't be more true.
2 of my favorites:
“Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance.”
"The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling."
— Robert M. Pirsig
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
right mike?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Continue the hypocrisy, TAM.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Crack me up - good one !
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What's worse than a lawyer? A politician.
What's worse than both of those put together? Exactly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Im in PA...and sad
What a pu**y! This country is becoming a bunch of thin skinned pansies. Ohh someone said something bad about me. OMGI have to sue. Wouldnt you think that being a Politician, it would be par for the course, to have ppl disagree with you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be so hard..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
in my opinion he is
WE DONT WANT YOU PARTICLES EMANATING BACK TO US FORM THE SUN
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
In today's political climate, if you don't have a thick skin you can probably count on a rather short political career.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not commenting on the merits of any of these cases, but it's annoying as hell for a "journalist" to act like he knows the law so well and it's *so obvious* that these Attorneys General are acting contrary to the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope.
r does he just think he knows the law applicable to these cases better than the Attorneys General he's criticizing?
Fascinating. Can you point me to the law that says only lawyers are allowed to comment on the law?
FYI, I was alerted to this story by a practicing lawyer (a rather well known one). I usually run legal questions by a group of lawyers who I know. None of them seemed to have problems with this or call into question my ability to weigh in on this subject.
You do.. but, oddly, you don't make a single factual point. You just make vague assertions that since I'm not a lawyer I shouldn't be allowed to give an opinion? Fascinating.
I'm not commenting on the merits of any of these cases, but it's annoying as hell for a "journalist" to act like he knows the law so well and it's *so obvious* that these Attorneys General are acting contrary to the law.
Aha. In other words, "I have no basis to make these accusations, but I'm going to just toss out an ad hominem because I don't think anyone other than lawyers should be allowed to make statements about the law."
Lemme guess. You're a lawyer?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course not. I never said you should be thrown in jail or subject to liability, just that it's annoying as hell for people who don't really know that much about a topic to act as if they know *more* than those who do.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and to share your opinion. That doesn't mean you're entitled to do so without anybody critiquing your standing and/or style of doing so.
It's just annoying as hell to listen to couch potatoes comment with extreme hubris and supposed authority on how the professional ball players should tweak their arm movement or foot placement--as if it's soooooo obvious. Same goes for viewpoint biased tech bloggers.
Look, I'm not here to say that these suits are meritorious. I'm here to say that acting like lawsuits and legal matters are *clearly* unmeritorious and only an idiot would think otherwise does a disservice to your readers (and, as I've hit over the head a million times, is hugely annoying).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That implies, falsely, that I don't know much about the topic. I do.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and to share your opinion. That doesn't mean you're entitled to do so without anybody critiquing your standing and/or style of doing so.
Nor did I suggest otherwise. But, normally, if you want anyone to take your criticism seriously, it should have a basis. You even admit that you don't know. You just don't think I should opine because I'm not a lawyer.
It's just annoying as hell to listen to couch potatoes comment with extreme hubris and supposed authority on how the professional ball players should tweak their arm movement or foot placement--as if it's soooooo obvious. Same goes for viewpoint biased tech bloggers.
Fascinating. Despite the fact I've been well-versed in these issues, regularly talk to and work with lawyers in the space for well over a decade, you still assume I don't know what I'm talking about... and present not a single shred of evidence to support that point.
Look, I'm not here to say that these suits are meritorious.
Um. Ok. That's so convincing.
Your argument is I shouldn't comment because I don't know what I'm talking about... and you know this because... well, actually you don't. You are admitting you are ignorant of the topic, and you just ASSUME I'm ignorant as well?
Fascinating. I really hope you're not a practicing lawyer, though I fear you are.
I'm here to say that acting like lawsuits and legal matters are *clearly* unmeritorious and only an idiot would think otherwise does a disservice to your readers (and, as I've hit over the head a million times, is hugely annoying).
If it's accurate, it does no such disservice.
You have yet to prove that it is inaccurate. You have only proven that you have a screwed up sense of what my own expertise is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll check back.
Your credibility as a writer diminishes when you misrepresent your commenters' statements and your own prior comments.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, and then admitting that you had no idea if my comments were accurate or not. Perhaps I'm missing something, but that seems like a straight up admission of ignorance over the point being debated. If you were not ignorant, you would know whether or not my comments were accurate.
If you are claiming you are not ignorant of the topic, yet you are claiming I should not express my opinion on this subject... but then your refuse to offer a SINGLE SHRED of evidence as to why I'm wrong (other than the tangential claim that I am not a lawyer -- which makes no direct statement on my knowledge of the subject), I'm sorry if it is difficult to take you seriously.
I do wonder, though, as a lawyer, if any judge lets you get away with such specious arguments in court. "Your honor, I have no evidence why the witness is wrong, but you cannot trust him because I don't like his profession."
Your credibility as a writer diminishes when you misrepresent your commenters' statements and your own prior comments.
I misrepresented nothing. Everyone can read your comments and see.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(1) There's no liability on Twitter's part because of Section 230.
(2) There's probably no slander or libel claim that would withstand the First Amendment UNLESS you can show that the anonymous Twitterer is intentionally lying (or recklessly disregarding the truth) -- as opposed to simply being mistaken. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). That's hard to show.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Doesn't count, according to "Guest." Only practicing lawyers can comment on the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While you try to backpedal in your later comments, "a moron in a hurry" would have little trouble detecting the innuendo in the quoted question.
If you are concerned about people misinterpreting your comments, please consider writing better comments.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
re
i will say, however, that I am an experienced software engineer. This gives me the right to use the computer and comment on this site. If you are NOT an experienced software engineer, you have no right to post here. And don't ever use your computer again.
I'll be watching...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
PA AG Corbett
There are possible legitimate motivations, IMHO albeit remote: The Grand Jury is investigating, in some manner, the pending “Bonus Gate” (#bonusgate) prosecutions of some PA Lawmakers and their staffs. Or, not-yet-public information about pending prosecution or investigations is appearing in Tweets or blogs.
Nevertheless, if this is an attempt to silence opponents; an appropriate November headline “Corbett’s Campaign – Hoisted with its own petard”
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
is this the Tom Corbett who raped his daughters?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still stupid! Corbett's being excoriated on the front page today.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100521_Corbett_assailed_over_Twitter_sub poena.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment