The ACLU doesn't represent good, decent, law-abiding folks, so there's likely much more than meets the eye here.
Posted on 05/20/2010 12:39:53 PM PDT by pillut48
Harrisburg, Pa. - The state attorney general's office has issued a subpoena threatening officials of the social networking service Twitter with arrest unless they reveal the names of two bloggers who have been critical of Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation.
The subpoena orders Twitter's custodian of records to provide "any and all subscriber information" pertaining to the accounts "bfbarbie" and "CasablancaPA," including name, address, contact information, creation date, and Internet protocol address.
The accounts have criticized Corbett's use of grand juries, suggesting he used the investigations for political gain and to go after political opponents.
The Twitter representative was supposed to appear before the statewide investigating grand jury on May 14 to "give evidence regarding alleged violations of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The court document does not specify what crime is being investigated.
The subpoena, issued May 6, further states that failure to attend may result in an arrest warrant for contempt of court. It is not clear whether Twitter has turned over the information.
Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union told Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV that the court action "raises grave concerns about abuse of the grand jury process to retaliate against political critics and opponents." He said Americans "have a right to criticize government officials and to do so anonymously."
Corbett, who won the Republican nomination for governor Tuesday night, told the television station that he doesn't have any problem with people criticizing him on Twitter. He refused to discuss the nature of the subpoena, however, stating that the investigation prevents him from discussing the matter.
The state attorney general's office has issued a subpoena threatening officials of the social networking service Twitter with arrest unless they reveal the names of two bloggers who have been critical of Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. The subpoena orders Twitter's custodian of records to provide "any and all subscriber information" pertaining to the accounts "bfbarbie" and "CasablancaPA," including name, address, contact information, creation date, and Internet protocol address.
Papers please
The ACLU doesn't represent good, decent, law-abiding folks, so there's likely much more than meets the eye here.
An interesting theory I’ve read is that the subpeona calls for the records to be produced at the sentencing for Cott tomorrow. The AG’s office knows that Cott is the blogger but in court you need proof so they need the confirmation from Twitter. If nothing else it will help keep Cott from saying how remorseful he is when he begs for leiniency.
"Any subpoena seeking to unmask the identity of anonymous critics raises the specter of political retaliation," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and one of the lawyers representing the Twitter users. "It's a prized American right to criticize government officials, and to do so anonymously."
Slander, libel, false witness (perjury), treason, and inciting a riot are all examples of speech that is NOT protected by the first amendment. Rush Limbaugh was smeared with phony wikiquotes that cost him the right to bid on a football franchise.
No. Anyone can say anything. Make comments about an investigation into corruption or any other crime which suggests you might be involved in either and yeah, you might be called to tell what you know to a Grand Jury.
Hadn’t seen this before, wonder what is next. Maybe no elected official can be criticized.
Suppose Holder was going after Muslim radicals. Suppose someone, perhaps someone connected to CAIR, started mouthing off about the investigation. The state has no right to call those who are obviously intent on derailing the investigation before a Grand Jury and get them under oath?
The Soviet Union stayed up as long as it did because this "free speech...a witchhunt to silence us" schtick was used.
If I were commenting on an investigation and I got called to testify, I would be eager to do so.
So he’s going after corrupt elected officials and their cronies, these scumbags decide to use twitter to post some stuff and now he wants to subpoena twitter records to get their identities.
There would only be ONE reason for doing this:
someone working for him is leaking grand jury testimony/evidence through twitter... which would be totally against the law.
From what I understand, the only people barred from sharing grand jury information are the prosecutors. Others are encouraged not to disclose what happened, but it isn’t against the law if they do.
Absolutely. They are very afraid if he becomes Governor. I bet he will do a Chris Christie on the Unions. That is the financial center of Rat power in PA.
If I’m commenting on an investigation and privy to it ... I could see this action.
Now if I am saying things only the investigators know ... then I expect to get my butt hauled in.
If I am spouting off my opinion ... then no.
These comments on the Internet should be sufficient for the AG or PD to know they are uninformed talkers or a person of interest.
You don’t play this card just because you have the power to do it! That’s all I am saying.
Holder is an idiot and a half-wit, as well as a party operative. Him I could expect this from just because of that. Is the PA AG the same. I don’t know.
Facts presented are really slim to none.
I don’t see being called to testify before a Grand Jury as punishment. I see answering the subpoena as a civic duty.
Right now, no one knows what testimony has been heard, what evidence gathered. Its all sealed. So...there is no basis to claim this is inappropriate; if he’s doing it just to harass.
It is possible, you know, these people are on the payroll of or somehow related to those under investigation for crimes.
“The court document does not specify what crime is being investigated. “
The author tells us that the AG is going after a couple people who said bad things about him, and people fall right into their trap of assuming that saying bad things about him is the reason he is after them.
The author could have said he was going after a couple people who breathe air, which would be true. But would that mean he’s got a thing for people who breathe, or would it just be two facts presented in a way to convey what the author wanted to convey?
If he actually issued a subpoena to Twitter, the case is closed against him as far as I am concerned.
If he’s investigating leaks from grand jury testimony using Twitter, then he seems to be justified.
But what if nothing that has been twittered actually ends up on this Corbett-criticizing blog ? Or what if he’s just using the possibility to get information on, or pressure, a political critic?
Corbett and his lackey running mate Cawley are hand picked machine RHINOs.
BUMP for ACLU and everyone that supports this: “It’s a prized American right to criticize government officials, and to do so anonymously,”
No. I just reacted to that post.
“It’s a prized American right to criticize government officials, and to do so anonymously,”
You would cry the first if Obama wanted to know your identity for criticizing him.
OK. About an inch and a half of slack, and maybe for a day or two.
But no more, and no longer.
Did you read any of the links libtard!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.