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.
You have missed the entire point of what I said.
I do not deny the civic duty, never have. Twitter representatives will have to comply. Twitter accounts are personal accounts and not bloggers in the sense of what Net denizens have come to know bloggers as (ie, Drudge, etc). Twitter must give up the names of paying customers who criticized a politician.
This article and all a dozen or so others I have read point to the Twitterer’s criticizing the AG and how he uses the Grand Jury process for his own political gain. Not criticizing a specific investigation or that they would have ‘inside’ knowledge of political corruption (being currently or formerly investigated) itself.
Politicians use their offices for their own personal gain. Not all but too many. Seeking out two individuals who criticized a sitting AG for their criticism of that AG’s use/misuse of the powers of hie/her office ... have nothing to do with an ongoing political corruption investigation.
The reader must understand the article as it is written. Quote: “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.” End quote.
When constituents are dissatisfied or CRITICAL of sitting politicians it does not mean they must never voice those opinions, thereby remaining silent. Actions like this could cause every person in the US to be brought before a Grand Jury for criticizing any politician.
All the articles I have read make it sound as though the sitting PA AG can not take criticism (Twitter subpoena - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100519/1031479492.shtml)
One of the anonymous bloggers actually was interviewed (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/twitter-subpoena/).
Some interesting ‘ (http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/tom-corbett-twitter/):
Some choice tweets that may have gotten the @CasaBlancaPA account owner in trouble:
- “Is it wrong to mix campaign work with taxpayer business? Apparently not when Tom Corbett does it bonusgate #pagovrace” (tweet, blog post)
- “Corbett erupts at campaign event; security tries to eject questioner #bonusgate #pagovrace” (tweet, blog post)
- “Quiz! Who sputters with indignation over failure to recuse from cases involving contributors? #bonusgate #pagovrace” (tweet, blog post)
Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/tom-corbett-twitter/#ixzz0oZN8begJ
Tweets’
If the AG is seeking a libel/slander action that is a civil action. A Grand Jury is a criminal action and process. Grand Jury’s are not used in civil cases or in that process. This is not in the furtherance of a criminal investigation of corruption ... it really and logically appears to be a politician out to find and possibly punish those who criticize him.
It is interesting to not that the sitting AG is also a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania in the upcoming election.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Sam Rohrer.
Twitter is a free service to anyone who signs up, like Facebook, so they don’t have ‘paying customers’—does the law make a difference between the two?
I don’t know. I don’t do Twitter and don’t know of anyone who does.
It is legal to issue a subpoena for a Grand Jury to obtain information regarding an on-going investigation.
It is not legal to to issue one for a vindictive politician to get the true names of people who criticize him. Since PA does not have a criminal libel law.
Since Grand Jury deliberations are secret ... the citizen may never know the truth.
[Snip from http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/05/tom_corbett_subpoenaes_twitter.html]
An example of some of the tweets that appear on the @CasaBlancaPA account include accusations that Corbett mixes campaign work with taxpayer business and that Corbett allegedly attempts to intimidate people who ask questions about campaign ethics.
Corbett is a witness in a federal lawsuit that alleges Corbett fired a Attorney General’s office attorney/whistleblower who accused Corbett’s Financial Enforcement Section of awarding contracts to collection agencies that improperly cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
Corbett was deposed in the case, which is scheduled for pre-trial hearings in the coming weeks. [Snip]
It looks like he’s caught Democrats blogging full time on the government payroll. Which is illegal.
There’s a funny smell to this episode. It’s like a McCain situation...either reacting stupidly or acting like a wannabe.
1.Gives the DA the opportunity to prove that the anonymous blogger is a state employee and is unrepentant of the crime he is accused of.
2. Sets the precedent that the state has the right to expose critical anonymous speech.
When President Bush locked up Jose Padilla (US citizen) indefinitely with no charges, I continually told my wife “you may trust President Bush with this power, but will you trust President HR Clinton?”
We got a worse president (I think) who will use precedent like these to his advantage.
We can't give this power to our guys either.
Newbie now, I guess- but lurking for years.....
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.