By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 12:44pm
Twitter just filed its brief appealing a June decision by a New York criminal court judge requiring the company to give the Manhattan District Attorney detailed information on the communications of Twitter user Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protester charged with disorderly conduct in connection with a march on the Brooklyn Bridge.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 2:07pm
A New York criminal court judge has issued a decision denying Twitter’s motion to quash a court order requiring it to produce information about one of its users pursuant to a subpoena that the District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan issued in connection with the prosecution of an Occupy Wall Street protester.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 2:52pm
We filed a friend-of-the-court brief today in New York state court in support of Twitter’s efforts to protect the constitutional rights of one of its users. As we posted earlier this month, Twitter took a great step to defend its users’ rights by filing a motion to quash a subpoena that the District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan issued in connection with the prosecution of an Occupy Wall Street protester.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 12:59pm
Twitter has filed a motion in state court in New York seeking to quash a court order requiring it to turn over information about one of its users and his communications on Twitter. This particular case involves a Twitter user, Malcolm Harris, who is being prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan for disorderly conduct in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protest that occurred on the Brooklyn Bridge last year.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 8:09am
“I Like Ike” is one of the most well-known and catchiest political slogans of all time. According to a decision that was issued by a federal judge in Virginia a few days ago, however, the modern-day equivalent—saying that you "like" a political candidate by using Facebook's "like" feature—is not even worthy of the protections of the First Amendment. That decision is wrong, whether you like or dislike Facebook.
The court’s decision appears to be premised on its belief that pressing a button to say that you “like” something—in this case, a candidate running for election to be a city’s Sheriff— is not “substantive” enough to be protected by the First Amendment. In the court’s words: “[M]erely ‘liking’ a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection . . . It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The Court will not attempt to infer the actual content of [the plaintiff’s] posts from one click of a button on [the candidate’s] Facebook page.”
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 4:12pm
Today we're filing an appeal in the legal battle over the records of several Twitter users being sought by the government in connection with its WikiLeaks investigation. In this latest round, we’re again fighting to make public the government’s efforts to obtain Internet users’ private information without a warrant.
The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation represent Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir. In a November ruling, U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady refused to unseal or publicly list any court orders or legal motions concerning our clients in the case, including any government orders issued to companies other than Twitter. These secret orders and these secret court dockets prevent our clients from having the chance to protect their constitutional rights by challenging the orders, as we did in the Twitter case.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 3:21pm
Our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to pass copyright laws. A current Supreme Court case and new ACLU friend-of-the-court brief are a reminder, however, of why our courts need to have the ability to ensure that Congress uses that power in ways that are consistent with the other parts of the Constitution, including the First Amendment.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 6:08pm
The government appears to be up to its old tricks again. As Mozilla General Counsel Harvey Anderson reports, the Department of Homeland Security recently requested that Mozilla take down a Firefox add-on that helps users access information on the Internet. DHS apparently told Mozilla that the MafiaaFire add-on at issue circumvents a court order entitling DHS to seize certain domain names in an attempt to prevent individuals from accessing websites allegedly engaged in copyright infringement.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 9:28pm
Free speech on the Internet is a big winner today. The Supreme Court earlier announced that it will not hear the government’s latest appeal of the ban on enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the federal law that would criminalize constitutionally protected speech on the Internet in the name of protecting children. That means that this case is now finally over, and that the lower courts’ rulings that COPA is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment are final. This is a terrific result, and the end of a long, hard-fought battle to keep the Internet free of government censorship.
By Aden Fine, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 10:30am
Toni Locy, a former reporter for USA Today, is the latest example of what has become an all-too familiar trend over the past few years: judges forcing journalists to disclose their confidential sources. Ms. Locy, who wrote about the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, Read More»
