You may have noticed that people on WWL enjoy remaining anonymous. The editors of WWL tend to believe that anonymity in the legal field can lead to increased reporting of the absurd actions of the Nevada legal industry. Need further proof of the value of anonymity, see the Nevada State Bar's anonymous phone number for reporting ethical violations.But there are also arguments that anonymity in our society can be dangerous, leads to libel and leaves people free to write things they wouldn't if without anonymity. Case in point, this week the U.S. Attorney's office subpoenaed Review-Journal records related to anonymous comments, which allegedly threaten the attorneys and jurors in a current criminal tax trial (RJ):
Las Vegas business owner Robert Kahre and others face federal tax fraud charges
for paying contractors with gold and silver U.S. coins based on the precious metal value of the coins but using the much lower face value of the coins for tax purposes. . .
Jury members, [AUSA Gregory Damm] and Christopher Maietta, another government attorney, are the subjects of online comments that might be construed as threats . . .
The tone of the comments (RJ):
One commentator said, "The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds." . . .
Readers' online feedback, mostly anonymous, is almost entirely pro-Kahre. Some comments personally attack Damm. One, for example, calls him a "socialist, fascist
Mormon" and a "Nazi moron."
The RJ and the ACLU have teamed up to resist the subpoena. (RJ) However, yesterday the RJ decided to continue to challenge the subpoena, but will release information to the U.S. Attorneys from the two most allegedly violent comments so that authorities may identify who they are and where they live. (RJ)
Hmmm . . . the side of me that posts under a pseudonym is concerned. The side of me that doesn't think attorneys and jurors should be shot for prosecuting tax evaders is a fan of the subpoena. What do you think readers?
I think that any subpoena for information should be specific and not a fishing expedition. I do believe, though, that they've finally come to their senses and restricted their subpoena to those that they are particularly interested in - the dangerous ones for which they can more easily justify such requests.
ReplyDeleteAnonymity which encourage disclosure of facts is good anonymity.
ReplyDeleteAnonymity which permits a person to say something about someone or something else that they wouldn't otherwise say to that persons face (probably for fear of being punched in their own face) is bad anonymity.
Wikipedia is the perfect example of anonymity. Wiki contributors remain anonymous, and Wiki stirred up plenty of slander cases. But people turn to Wiki for almost all their questions these days . . .
ReplyDeleteI can't decide how Wiki makes me feel about anonymity though.
I live life pretty openly on the internet, between three blogs, FB, twitter, etc. However, in these comments, I am anonymous. It's hard not to be anonymous in some places. If we all came out of the closet, it would be nothing but cheerleading. This town is too small and it is too easy to make enemies...
ReplyDeleteI don't think the subpoena should be allowed. I usually don't say this, "GO ACLU!!!" The Internet is the last place where free speech is truly free speech. You have the ability to express opinions, discuss thoughts and degrade or insanely insult whomever you want. The statements made in this case do not involve situtations of insighting violence. They are figures of speech.
ReplyDeleteAre we headed down the road of our neighbors, Canada, where they have instituted their HRC's (Human Rights Courts) all over the country shuting down newspapers, magazines and individuals for statements that are opinionated with passion and offensive to some.
Free speech protects the most grotesque speech and its intentions at all times. That is the very foundation of free speech, not matter the offense. Free speech is only challenged in fraud, defamation, incite to violence (actual) and assault. So, the use of an idiom on the Internet is not a violation of free speech and should not be the basis for a subpoena to allow for a breach of anonymity.
I fear once we socialize health care, which I am actually in favor of in a limited capacity, we will see the HRC's in the US. Watch out Internet, here they come.
If you think I'm crazy, as most of you do, go to YouTube and look up: Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn. Take a listen. These are not conservative kooks. They are more aligned with the ACLU than with our friend Mr. Limbaugh. This is actual and spreading to the U.S., slowly. For those of us with family is Canada, we know the realities and it is scary. For those of you that don't care, well, that's typical of a U.S. Citizen.