Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Annoy.com Gag Order Lifted 113

Posted by Hemos from the release-the-speech dept.
A reader writes "Annoy.com, the web site that pushes the first amendement envelope, has emerged victorious in their most recent court ruling. Haven't heard of the case? That's not surprising. The magistrate's gag order covered not only the details of the case, but also the very existence of the case. Read details in this SF Gate Article or this annoy.com release."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Annoy.com Gag Order Lifted More

Annoy.com Gag Order Lifted

Comments Filter:

  • Prohibition from discussion (Score:3)

    by fader ( 107759 ) <fader@@@hotpop...com> on Friday September 15, 2000 @01:46PM (#775620) Homepage
    Paragraph 7 of the Magistrate's June 16, 1999 Order prohibited ApolloMedia from discussing not only the details of the government's investigation and the content of the order with anyone until authorized by the court, but also the very existence of the order and its application.

    Does this bother anyone else? I didn't even think this was *legal*! I know that if I were involved in this sort of case, I'd want as much publicity as possible... this is scary.

  • The correct link... (Score:5)

    by msnomer ( 226842 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @01:47PM (#775621)
    ...is this [sfgate.com]

    --meredith
  • this is terrifying! what the hell is a magistrate anyway? This is the equivalent of being tossed in a cell without anyone, family, friends or anyone else, know that you're in jail.

    I thought this is why we considered China a repressive country...
  • The URL in the article didn't work, but I found it.


    Annoy.com Claims Victory for Free Speech [sfgate.com]

    Pope Felix the Scurrilous.

  • In Honor of (and fear from) this Case (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think we should all post anonymously.
  • I quite agree.... I mean, the only time where I think such measures are okay is for the protection of the accused (to prevent a man from being lynched for something they're not sure that he did yet) which I doubt was the case here.
  • In June 1999, the U.S. government ordered ApolloMedia to disclose the identity of a user of annoy.com's e-greeting card service...

    ...the Magistrate's June 16, 1999 Order prohibited ApolloMedia from discussing not only the details of the government's investigation and the content of the order with anyone until authorized by the court, but also the very existence of the order and its application.

    Wasn't this an X-Files episode?

  • You're a day and a dollar late. But you stand for everything that sucks about Slashdot now. Just a bunch of tree hugging hippies looking for karma.

  • Down for one year. (Score:3)

    by Mr_Icon ( 124425 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @01:55PM (#775628) Homepage

    You can tell that they have been down for a year -- they still have a "Channel it to MS Explorer" button on their front page.

    Reminds me of that "man frozen for three years" episode of South Park.

  • Wow (Score:3)

    by Shoeboy ( 16224 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @01:56PM (#775629) Homepage
    404 Item Not Found
    The article or page you requested was not found. If this link was sent to you via e-mail or posted on another website, it was probably incorrectly formatted.
    If the link that gave you the error appeared on one of The Gate's pages, please mail us and let us know at webmaster@sfgate.com.

    Are we sure the gag order isn't still in effect?
    --Shoeboy

  • NO talking about the case for you! I can't imagine being taken to court, and not even having the freedom to inform the public about it. Have there been any other cases where a gag order such as this was mandated?

    Maybe there are (was), and we just haven't heard of it.
  • I'm a bit surprised. As will be seen from the replies this story gets a gag order really riles people. I would have thought that the moment any information about this got out everyone who cares about these things would have got to hear about it. How come someone didn't let slip what was going on? How come nobody posted anonymously to slashdot when it all started? Can a gag order served on people who have an interest in not keeping quiet be more succesful than a national lab's attempts to keep details about nuclear weapons secret?
    --
  • and is a Federal judge in Texas.

    This is incredible. Has it ever happened before that a gag order prevents even discussing the case?
  • Oh say does that star spangled banner still wave
    O'er the land of the free
    and the home of the brave?

    shaking in my boots.

    Anthony
  • "A day late and a dollar short"
  • www.ejournalism.com [ejournalism.com] have put together a central site with the various legal motions and such filed, as well as annoy.com's response to the case.

    It seems to me that U.S. case law is taking an ominous turn with all the stuff that's been going on regarding insulting messages being said anonymously. Shouldn't slander and libel be reserved for people and/or organizations that make official statements that are libelous and/or slanderous?

    Let's say I have a friend named Joe. One day, Joe asks me to put up some flyers for him, and I don't ask what they are, nor do I look at them longer than it takes me to put up the flyers. Am I then liable for their content? Or am I legally bound to reveal that it was Joe who asked me to put them up?

    Summed up, my feelings are, "If you're a duck, shed water." I think most people take anything they read that's posted anonymously with a large grain of salt. After all, an anonymous post shouldn't really be perceived to have a lot of credibility, should it?

    Pope Felix the Scurrilous.

  • Gotcha!

    You just talked about the case. "They'll throw the book at you, kid. Get while the getting's good."
    --

  • More Constituional Treading (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am getting really sick of living in the "United States of America". Our guarantees of freedom are being tread on daily. And who is looking out for us? Not the media, that's for sure. The mainstream media continues to hand feed us whatever the "authorities" deem the correct perspective on these issues are. How many people have to be prosecuted twice? How many "gag" orders have to be put out? How often will written speech (such as links) be made criminal? And now hacking is a felony in some places? What the fuck? HOW LONG WAS MITNICK IN PRISON? HOW LONG WAS WILL ANY OF US HAVE TO SPEND IN PRISON BEFORE WE CAPITULATE TO THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM OF "LAW"?

  • Link (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:10PM (#775638) Homepage
    If you want to know more about the legalities of the lawsuit, check out the link given in the article: http://www.ejournalism.com/usapollo/ [ejournalism.com]. There's a LOT of material there.
    --
  • This is really scary. To have a government case against you, and to not be able to tell anyone about it unless the government gives you permission. YIKES! Talk about a police state!
  • Yeah, I know, it makes no fucking sense. I realized that a little while ago. Oh well.

  • Now that's TRUE freedom of speech... (Score:3)

    by Forager ( 144256 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:11PM (#775641) Homepage
    ``It might sound hokey, but it's unbelievable. You get white racists and homophobic people and black racists who started communicating with each other in a way that allows them to express whatever anger or hatred or fear they have, because it's not punished,'' he said. ``Over time, I've seen people transformed.''

    There's your true freedom of speech. When racists and homophobes and xenophobes can communicate their beliefs without fear of backlash, that's when the system is actually working FOR the little guy. Don't get me wrong, I really dislike racism, but think about it. If I was a conservative lawmaker, I might be inclined to deny racists freedom to discuss their beliefs in a public forum just because of liability, if not also for moral reasons. Same thing goes for religious lawmakers, and big buisness lawmakers ... and NERD lawmakers (none yet, but it will happen). The fact that ANY issue, quite litterally, can be discussed in a public forum is a TRUE example of freedom of speech; and in that context, I think the internet will--in only a few years more--put a VERY high standard on that freedom. Just some stuff to think about.

    -Forager.

  • Re:In Honor of (and fear from) this Case (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So what's to ruin?

  • Although i feel the gag order was a little much I think that there was ledgitimate reason for the justice system to attempt to find the originator of a threatening letter. As with a phone call which can be traced when a leagal need is properly established, I also think that this kind of information should be passed on once a proper legal need has been established. However I do not beleive there exists a system for establishing this need like there is for the telephone system. On a side note I wonder why a person so intent on keeping his senders anon doesn't just purge the logs weekly, then he would need only to say to the police "I deleted that info, sorry."
  • One of the things that stood out when I took figure drawing class, was to try to make part of the image "wrong", do something that annoys the viewer. it will keep him or her glued to it, intrigued. Sense then, I've always had some admiration for works that explicitly try to annoy you in some way. usully it's more suttle. Annoy.com is REALLY annoying. it's blinks, it shouts furphanitys, and it's crawling on IIS 4 due to ./.

    Would i say annoy.com is art? as much as it bothers me i have to say yes. it will be hard for me to forget that site, it HAS effected me somehow, i didn't like it, but it has changed me. i'm a different person for clicking on that link (ok maybe this is going to far).

    i'll just say that the courts we're right.

    -Jon

  • Re:How can you maintain a gag order? (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:17PM (#775645) Homepage
    Perhaps nobody made an anonymous posting about the case because that's what the lawsuit was about in the first place.

    This is really scary.
    --

  • Yeah well, you stand for everything that sucks about Slashdot now. Just a bunch of tree hug ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H arrogant bastards who figure a shrug makes everything okay.

    You messed with a cliche, man, and when you mess with a cliche you mess with me!

  • It's one thing to be prohibited from talking about the details of the case (which is not at all unusual), but it's another thing entirely to be prohibited from talking about the existence of the case.

    Can you imagine? One minute everything is up and running, the next minute, gone, with no explanation or warning.

    That's just one virtual step before becoming one of the "Disappeared."

    • The United States ... analogized the situation to "keeping telephone wiretaps, telephone trap and trace devices, search warrants, arrest warrants, mail covers and other investigative techniques 'under seal' until such time as the investigation has concluded."
    In that situation, the government is trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from specific people who are suspects in a criminal case.

    In this situation, it seems like the government was trying to keep knowledge of the investigation from everyone. How could they think this wouldn't be a big deal when the news finally broke?
    --

  • I think that there was ledgitimate reason for the justice system to attempt to find the originator of a threatening letter.

    I think maybe you should look at what was actually sent [annoy.com] first. Might change your opinions a bit. Tasteless and irritating, but hardly threatening.

  • Actually, it's nothing new. Courts have been been sealing records, not only on cases, but all the details of cases for years. I've most often seen it applied to juvenile cases, but occassionally to corporate cases as well.

    Now, is it right? That depends. Sometimes it is the best thing for both the plaintiff and defendant. After all, along with freedom of information, there is a right to privacy. While it may hinder later court cases in the terms of not allowing other attorneys full access to records, sometimes it is needed.

    Oh yeah, and for the record, IANAL.

    Kierthos
  • Authorities, who believed the message was a threat that carried criminal intent, asked Fein for the sender's identity. Fein's policy in such situations: ``We're not going to turn over anything unless we're ordered by a court.'' So the U.S. attorney's office in Houston filed suit. (The attorney handling the case did not return phone calls seeking comment.)

    A magistrate in Texas issued the gag order, and Fein fought it -- taking his fight first to U.S. District Court and then seeking emergency intervention from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees appeals from Texas. Fein lost at every turn.

    Does this mean the police never got the court order for the person's name? The whole fight through court was about the gag order? Or was he fighting the court order for the person's name?

    The two paragraphs above almost seem to be missing a paragraph in between them that explains how they went from pursuit of the person's name to the gag order.

  • And look here (Score:5)

    by myster0n ( 216276 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:36PM (#775652)

    On their website, when you click censure (where you can post anonymous postcards, what this was all about), there is a warning :

    WARNING

    It has come to our attention that certain people have been using annoy.com to deliver what some might consider to be threats of physical violence or harm to others.

    Do not mistake our commitment to freedom of speech for a license to abuse our service in this manner.

    We plan to cooperate fully with law enforcement agencies in whatever efforts they make to find you and punish you - even if it's some renegade authoritarian dictatorship that might crucify your stupid ass if they catch you.

    Free speech and annoy.com are not about harassment and definitely not about harm or violence. If you think for a second we will allow cowardly idiots to spoil our free speech party you are making a mistake. A huge mistake.

    Just wondering what they mean with "some renegade authoritarian dictatorship that might crucify your stupid ass if they catch you". In light of these events I mean.

  • I know that if I were involved in this sort of case, I'd want as much publicity as possible... this is scary.

    ...which is exactly why gag orders are necessary. Guess what? Trials are meant to be tried in court, not in the media. Or have you forgotten about what happened in a certain case involving Orenthal J. Simpson?


    --

  • Well, in the UK we're about to get a law to do just this.

    The R.I.P. bill is due to become law soon,
    I wonder if I feel moved to change my sig in a while (for whatever reason) I may be liable to 5 years in gaol.
    Any English lawyers out there care to comment?
    Any Scottish Lawyers-will this apply to Scotland too?
    ----

  • Donations anyone? Love? Emails of thanks? (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:37PM (#775655) Homepage
    Wow.

    Couldn't ApolloMedia have made an out-of-court agreement with the US to give them the identity of the sender, and ended the yuckiness then and there?

    Instead, ApolloMedia went through a year of hell and fought for their right to free speech without any support from other people.

    I think that's beyond words. Infinitely commendable.
    --

  • Or, at most, preventing the anonymous sender from knowing that he/she was under investigation. But what more investigation is required than "he/she did it, let's go to court, okay now pay up"? Why is secrecy required? The US didn't know who it was that did it, so they had no reason to suspect that there was a vast conspiracy or ring of drug dealers or anything.
    --
  • The release on the Annoy.com website is still accessible. Maybe the other site got itself ./ed and decided to take off the page, although that's very doubtful. Probably just a glitch.

  • This is my take:

    Individual uses service to send threat. (not cool)

    Police need to determine who sent threat, ask ISP/Annoy for identity of individual who made threat. (cool)

    ISP/Annoy says no, show me warrant. (cool)

    Police/Authorities apply for warrant/legal-ruling requiring that ISP/Annoy disclose identity of individual who made threat. (cool)

    Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it. (cool, it's under the eye of the judiciary, and ISP/Annoy has ability to comment/be-involved in legal proceedings to protect their anonymous users from un-necessary discloser)

    ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool).

    A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)

    ISP/Annoy swaggers around boasting "gosh aren't we the greatest, standing up for our 'ideals' against 'the man'", meanwhile allowing someone to get away with making a threat of violence against someone else. (also NOT cool)

    Bunch of people foaming at the mouth display their ignorance of anything deeper than 'obvious' by raving and rantin on about how 'injust' it is that the proceedings were 'hidden'. (lamers).

    This place used to be full of insightful people, where the hell did they go?

  • Probably, but the people involved are legally not allowed to speak about it.

    -Elendale (personally, if it was me i would tell anyway. My time & money is worth preventing abuse like this)

  • I can understand why the judge wouldn't want the details of a court case discussed in public.. but why would a judge restrict talking about the very existence of the case... I haven't read all the details about this case but did the judge provide any reasoning (even if it's full of BS) as to why he did what he did.... i can understand that the prosecutor would want to keep this case quiet (so that the ACLU, etc don't get involved) but why would the judge do this??? 11oh8.

  • Re:Prohibition from discussion (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:47PM (#775662) Homepage
    It bothers me!

    The US Government sues a group who is on the bleeding edge of free speech advocation, and what does the government do first? Take away as much of their free speech as possible. That almost seems like revenge for advocating free speech!
    --

  • It was ordered quiet so the verdict would be impartial. They didn't want a big media event and all kinds of publicity to hamper the trial.

  • Man have you got it backwards! (Score:4)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @02:53PM (#775664)
    The point of publicity is not to sway the courts, they are supposed to be above all that.

    The point is to ensure the govt can't do things in secret, like this vary case. Look at the UK's new Regulation of Investigatory Powers (?) law -- if the govt demands your secret keys, you can be thrown in jail just for telling anyone about it.

    The danger isn't a lynch mob. The lynchers can always be brought to justice. The danger is a govt so infatuated with itself that it throws people in jail and forbids the press from reporting it. How the hell is family or friends or anyone supposed to stand up to a repressive govt when you can't tell anyone?

    --
  • How the hell are we supposed to find out?? That's the scary part. The government isn't run by us anymore, and hence is no longer accountable to us. :(
  • I know that if I were involved in this sort of case, I'd want as much publicity as possible... this is scary.
    ...which is exactly why gag orders are necessary. Guess what? Trials are meant to be tried in court, not in the media. Or have you forgotten about what happened in a certain case involving Orenthal J. Simpson?

    It's frightening me that you feel this way. Is this a troll? The media had OJ pinned as guilty. Most people believe that he is guilty. The jury made their decision to the contrary despite all the publicity the case got. Your example doesn't support your argument.

    Now the interesting question. Did the gag order forbid these people from getting in contact with someone who might come to their aid? If not being allowed to make a press release kept the ACLU from getting interested, I'd say there is a pretty serious problem.

    I'm buying more guns while I still can.

  • Living in the dark (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I had always thought that the internet was allowing the voices to be heard from those countries dominated by their governments. I guess it's time to take a look in our own backyard, we've got one of those governments. ;(
  • >> Now if you're "getting really sick of living in the United States of America" then allow me to use the tried but true cliche used every now and then: if you don't like it, leave it.

    I'd rather have my country left alone thank you, Just because others are raping the constitution doesnt mean *I* should leave, If they dont like the constitution, let THEM leave, but leave the constitution alone!

    >> I, too, am frustrated by boneheaded judges and greedy institutions. I fear for my privacy and the erosion of my rights. But having done quite a bit of travelling outside of the United States in Europe and Asia I can confidently tell you that I think there is no better place to live on the planet today when you factor in safety, creature comforts, wages, health care, education and opportunity.

    Ok, but when you ALSO factor in Freedom, Liberty, Government, Repression, Opression, and Political/Legal climates, it doesnt look so good after all, AND *THATS* WHY THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED, thank you. Our forefathers didnt come here for "creature comforts."

    So, for those of you that get sick of us "whining" that our rights are being stripped, maybe YOU should go somewhere else, and let us AMERICANS have our Freedom and Liberty intact, If you feel the constitution needs changing, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, and write your own, but leave ours INTACT.

    On a side note, why didnt the lawyers create a leak? it might have gained public sympathy.

  • Katz doesn't have to be slaughtered (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Slain" would do. Unless you're going for a mythological touch and hope to have the new slashdot reborn from his bloodied corpse.
  • I think maybe you should look at what was actually sent first. Might change your opinions a bit. Tasteless and irritating, but hardly threatening.

    Frankly I don't think thats your decision to make. Or this company's. You have no idea what the context of the message was, what the context of this case is, or anything else. If the sender of the message was identified, he/she/it would have had the opertunity to be confronted with all evidence of the case and present a defense. You have no more right to try him/her/it and find innocence than anyone would have to find guilt without that proceeding.

    I'm really not seeing the point of all of this. The university says "we have a problem can you help us?" the company said "no". Fine, their ethical decision. Then it becomes an actual case where the government says "Help them" and they still say "no". No longer their ethical choice to make, no longer OK. They get some sort of contempt charge and a gag order so that publicity about this discovery won't contaminate the larger case or lead to further annonymous harrassment. These obstructionists turn it into a big case and take so long that the person claiming harrassment just gives up and gets on with his her its life and they think thats a victory.

    I don't see anything to get our panties in a wad over, except maybe a group that thinks they can take over for the court system.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • This site seems a little one sided at first glance. I looked at of the stuff under the "Abortion" option, and was somewhat suprised to find that everything was pro-abortion, anti-right-to-life. Somewhat od considering the site proclaimes to be an advocate of freedom of speech: both the pro and anti abortion proponants are exercising freedom of speech. So I am a right wing conservative--flame me, I am used to it .
  • I think there's just a small problem with your reasoning. SP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool). From the website, it seems to me that if the police/authorities managed to convince the court about the need for the identity, ISP/Annoy would provide it. Except that the court was not convinced enough, only enough to gag, but not enough to request it. (if court request information, I think the company/person would be in deep *trouble* if they don't provide) In this case, there wasn't enough evidence that the person's identity was crucial for investigation.
  • I agree, wish we'd see more people sticking to their guns, even if they fail, at least the SOB's would feel a resistance at least.

  • I'm looking at this written statement from the president of Apollo here [pointingfingers.com]

    Apparently it was all about a this [annoy.com] greeting card sent to some unknown person. Subsequently the local and federal government jumped through hoops to get the identity of the sender.

    In addition, they playerd a lot of dirty tricks to issue this gag order.

    So who the hell was it that received this greeting card? Obviously it was somone really important.

    Quote: "Then there were the politics of privacy and the Internet that interestingly relates to the upcoming Presidential election. Privacy is a front page issue that has provoked the attention of the candidates for President of the United States, one of whom is a member of the Administration that sought and defended the order and gag order, the other is from the very state and city where federal and local officials joined efforts to deploy federal investigative resources regarding an unpleasant communication aimed at a local person."

    Can you say conspiracy?!?

    Theoretically, Apollo could reveal the identity of the person who received the greeting card, but they don't probably because they want to look righteous:

    "We said then, as we do now, that we would use our own journalistic integrity and moral judgment to make such a determination rather than be compelled to do so by an order of the court. And today, we continue to choose to refrain from publishing the name of the alleged victim, despite having fought and won the right to do so."

    Anybody want to dig up this dirt where Apollo won't?

    wildmage

  • I'll mess with yer mom.
  • You are right and wrong simultaneously, even if it sounds strange.

    The point is that:
    1) No one guarantees that white racists or black racists will change their ways after fighting in an online forum;
    2) Even worse, they will call their moderate friends and tell something like "Look at this URL how these (black, white) suckers are insulting and slamming us!". I'd say that there is much more chances for a moderate to join extremists after seeing a slur.
    3) There was an old Russian joke about a writer who was asked how many books he has read. He answered: "Zero, since I'm a writer, not a reader" ;-) The same thing is happening here: most of the racists are not interested in listening, only in talking/yelling.
    This is IMHO happening because we have only 2 types of racists: "Idealistic" ones, who made it their career, or the idiotic ones, who are angry at the entire world and stupid enough to think for themselves.
  • It's a shame this one got modded down as a troll, since it's actually the most relevant first post I've seen in a long time. The South Park phenomenon has some interesting parallels to the principles behind annoy.com. Just like Marilyn Manson and Eminem, back to Alice Cooper and Ozzy: say anything, insult everyone, see who responds in anger, set yourself up as a martyr. That's how the game's played.

    Doesn't work all that well if you post AC, though.

    -jpowers
  • So..........you are saying I can follow you around leaving you threatening letters. but untill I actualy kill you i'm not doing anything wrong?
  • ...

    There's still one record he won't publicize: the name of the victim. ``I respect privacy enormously,'' he said.

    Fein said he brings passion to his free-speech advocacy because of his experience living under South Africa's hated apartheid regime.

    ``You could be imprisoned for quoting Nelson Mandela,'' he said. ``That's insane.''

    He said Americans don't appreciate the freedoms bestowed under the First Amendment. He sees any threat as ``serious and not to be taken for granted.'' ...



  • Re:Where are all the rational people? (Score:4)

    by jleader ( 33835 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @03:55PM (#775680)
    A couple points you missed (they were in the ejournalism.com summary, but I don't think they were in the sfgate.com story).

    Individual uses service to send threat. (not cool)

    Annoy.com's claim was that the Police/Authorities did nothing to establish that the communication in question was in fact a threat, and not just a joke. If you read the original card [annoy.com], while crude, vulgar, offensive, and perhaps harrassing, it makes no reference to force, only to sexual activities. Not that I'd be happy to receive something similar.

    Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it. (cool, it's under the eye of the judiciary, and ISP/Annoy has ability to comment/be-involved in legal proceedings to protect their anonymous users from un-necessary discloser)

    Prosecutors asked that the proceedings be closed forever, and not just that they're investigating some alleged threat, but every aspect of the case. Why didn't the prosecutors ask that the identities of the parties involved, and perhaps the exact nature of the threat, be closed for a limited time (how long did they expect to be investigating this alleged threat)?

    And Annoy.com was not allowed access to parts of the prosecution's legal arguments about why Annoy.com should comply. In other words, they were told that if they wanted to respond, they had to do so blind-folded!

    A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)

    I found no mention of when the prosecutors dropped their request, but my impression was that they lost interest in pursuing the original investigation after much less than a year, while still maintaining that Annoy.com was not allowed to talk about it (perhaps a matter of saving face?).

    Bunch of people foaming at the mouth display their ignorance of anything deeper than 'obvious' by raving and rantin on about how 'injust' it is that the proceedings were 'hidden'. (lamers).

    It was unjust that the gag order was indefinite and overly broad, when arguably a much narrower gag order would have sufficed. After all, if Annoy.com publicly said "investigators want the identity of one of our users whom they claim threatened someone", do you really think that would narrow things down enough to tip off the subject of the investigation, given the sort of people who apparently use Annoy.com in such huge numbers?

  • No longer their ethical choice to make, no longer OK. They get some sort of contempt charge and a gag order so that publicity about this discovery won't contaminate the larger case or lead to further annonymous harrassment. These obstructionists turn it into a big case and take so long that the person claiming harrassment just gives up and gets on with his her its life and they think thats a victory. Well, so what if someone sends you a threat by snail mail? You can hardly sue the mail company for that, as they don't have the information anyway.. Why shouldn't anonymous mail/cards/whatever not be possible on the internet, just because the information IS available?
  • SWPM, seeking mature, stable country. Must respect individuals rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, religion, freedom from self-incrimination, warrantless search and seizures, intimidation through unwaranted prosecution. No crime-against-no-person laws, please.

  • I guess it would be politically incorrect to mention that cops who beat up King were tried twice cause first trial did not end with goverment mandated outcome.
  • Federal judges are appointed by the president. G. W. Bush is not, and never has been the president. So he didn't appoint that judge.

    Any bets on whether the judge was appointed by a Republican or Democratic president? Shall we start a pool on which one? B-)

  • Where Rationality Begins (Score:3)

    by quux26 ( 27287 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @04:17PM (#775685) Homepage
    "This place used to be full of insightful people, where the hell did they go?"

    If an order preventing someone from making others aware they're being sued doesn't scare the knickers off you, then I don't know what would. A good parallel (IMHO) is the US Gov't refusal to pay for hostages. They know that once they start doing it, everyone becomes a target. This is not being paranoid, it's a very logical conclusion that you're more than welcome to argue with.

    Same here - once we start saying that people cannot even acknowledge that they're being sued, you set a very dangerous precedent. It is not a leap of faith to demonstrate that this can be used in ways that are contrary to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment is a RIGHT to free speech, not a PROBABILITY of free speech. And therein lies my/our problem with this action.

    Also, coolness does not begin and end at the doorstep of your opinion. I don't think you're un-insightful because you disagree with me, but you could use some growing up.

    My .02
    Quux26

  • Now the interesting question. Did the gag order forbid these people from getting in contact with someone who might come to their aid? If not being allowed to make a press release kept the ACLU from getting interested, I'd say there is a pretty serious problem.

    Or if it kept them from working with the EFF.

    Or if it kept them from starting a defense fund...
  • You said, "Frankly I don't think thats your decision to make. Or this company's. You have no idea what the context of the message was, what the context of this case is, or anything else."

    You should read the article, it says, "a message saying, in less-polite terms, `Tell your husband that I want to f-- your brains out, you slut, while he watches'.

    Then you say, "Then it becomes an actual case where the government says 'Help them' and they still say 'no'. No longer their ethical choice to make, no longer OK".

    The government does not have absolute authority. We the people are the government, remember? That's why it went to court! As you see, the courts made the right decision and upheld the first amendment. This is definately something to "get our panties in a wad over". Any time I have my rights taken away, I take it very seriously.

  • Oh boy, I just can't wait to see who Reno's replacement is going to be. FBI, CIA, KGB, SS? They're all the same. This Apollo Media debacle is a sign that we are travelling down that slippery slope towards a police state. Yes I know "it could never happen here", you keep on believing that, sucker.
  • I have to admit that this is in fact the first comment that I posted on /. Nevertheless I think it is off the utmost importance I do so. Why? Because I if I want to say fuck, I want to do so. Everyone know that when I type f*ck, it's fuck that I mean to type. Why not do so then? Everyone should have their right to express themselves the way they want to, not prehibited by law. (Of course this does _not_ include childabuse etc, since this affects children in a way that will influencenses the rest off their lives in a profound way.) The way certain things/opinions are restricted nowerdays influences our opinions and do not reflect everyday-live. This is _very_ dangerous and will influence the lives off our children and the way they handle life. Please let everyone make their mistakes, do not try to prevent them from making yours!
  • Perhaps they're referring to the riaa in case you "annoy" a few people a copy of decss? :-)

    Gfunk
  • How do legislators think that banning profanity/slander/theft/rape/incest/etcyougettheid eabynow is going to fix anything? People that do this, we even have our own ACes here, are people that NEED HELP. Most communities fail to understand and help other people. We need to figure out why.

    - Steeltoe

  • Re:Wow (Score:3)

    by Enoch Root ( 57473 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @04:38PM (#775692)
    Wow... You just got moderated up for copying/pasting a 404. I'll be damned. Shoeboy, you're my hero!

  • There is no right to privacy. This is a misconception. The word "privacy" does not even appear in the constitution.

    • United States Constitution, Amendment IX
      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Many of the framers of the Constitution did not want a bill of rights because they thought it would end up limiting rights to exactly those rights that were listed. They thought that since none of the enumerated powers of Congress included things like "billet soldiers in private homes" or "confiscate private property without compensation", it was unnecessary to list specific right, and that it would result in the government doing everything not explicitly forbidden. By and large, their fears appear to have been justified. That said, I still think we're better off having a bill of rights than not, especially considering some of the stuff Congress justifies under its enumerated powers, but it's important to keep Amendment IX in mind.

  • I wonder if I feel moved to change my sig in a while (for whatever reason) I may be liable to 5 years in gaol.

    Clever. I always wondered how that provision of the RIP law would work. Clearly, if someone were to ask me (pretending for the moment that I'm in the UK) whether I've been required to provide encryption keys to the government, and I were to answer "I can't say," instead of simply "No," then that is practically telling them that I have. The only way the law can work is if (a) people are required to lie, always answering "No," or (b) people are required to never confirm or deny, always answering something equivalent to "I can't say," even if they have never been asked to provide encryption keys.

  • Makes sense to me. Technically, I'm not in any more danger than usual. If I get upset and sue you, it's like a parent suing the newspaper for causing distress by reporting the latest stuff found in their child's cafeteria food.
  • ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool).

    I have to say that I am rather torn on this particular issue.

    My company just happens to be in a related area because of a "greeting card" type of site that we put together (called pinstruck.com [pinstruck.com]), so I feel I have some right to speak on this and have spent a reasonable time thinking about it.

    My stance as the ISP/Web-Site is that I want to protect a persons anonymity primarily because we don't log, track, cookie, or identify any particular hit to our site. Since we don't go out of our way to track any given hit the chances are higher for mis-identification than of finding useful information. Therefore I feel we have every right to demand for a full explanation of who and why we should "identify" (read as: provide the IP address) a hit.

    Granted: If any court or officer of the law served us some papers, those papers prolly contain all the justification needed.

    So I guess the question (for AskSlashdot perhaps?) is, "Under what circumstances should an ISP/web-site protect or reveal details about a hit to their page?" This seems like a very sticky wicket for even seemingly innocuous sites, much less someone on the edge like Annoy.com.

    Props to Annoy.com (In my personal opinion) for fighting for freedom of speach and balancing that with my privacy rights.

    ---
    Don Rude - AKA - RudeDude

  • I don't see anything to get our panties in a wad over, except maybe a group that thinks they can take over for the court system.

    The point is that the constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, yet the courts seem to feel perfectly fine *prohibiting someone from mentioning in public that they are being sued*.

    The merits of the lawsuit aren't the issue. The merits of the order prohibiting annoy.com from mentioning who was being harassed aren't the issue, either. Prohibiting them from saying that they were being sued is flat out *wrong* --- it violates not only free speech, but the very notion of a fair judicial system: you can be sued, and lose, and *never be able to tell anyone*?

    And it's not just a matter of the harm done to annoy.com --- how can there *possibly* be public control of the judiciary, how can we hold judges accountable to the people for their performance, if we can't even find out what they are doing?
  • Its the publicity that keeps goverments from abusing their power. Without the ability to inform the public to what happens where do you think we would be?
  • heh... karma sacrifice?

    --

  • Huh? Lets not. The gag order has been lifted. You're not doing anything illegal.
  • The realistic, and easy, solution to this is for Annoy.com not to keep track of its users at all. After all, an ISP that is not aware of information can not be forced to reveal it. Then, when the cops show up, all the ISP has to say is "Sorry guys, we do not collect any information about our users. There is no way to find out who sent what piece of email." End of the story... The cops can then attempt to obtain a wire tap, to find out about future nasty-grams sent from the ISP, but that's more difficult, and usually has to go through a federal judge.

    Thalia

  • eswan (User #16407) wrote:

    SWPM, seeking mature, stable country. Must respect individuals rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, religion, freedom from self-incrimination, warrantless search and seizures, intimidation through unwaranted prosecution. No crime-against-no-person laws, please.

    ... but some clueless moderator called it "offtopic". And I'm copying it here in case no one puts it back.

  • The judge is Magistrate Judge Marcia A. Crone of the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas. You can see her info here [uscourts.gov].

    The phone number given for her btw is #(713)250-5840. Call and complain.

    She is also up for reappointment [uscourts.gov] as of August 16 for a new 8 year term. Unfortunately comments were due March 15 -- conveniently well before the gag order expired & anyone in the public became aware of her egregious actions.

    --
  • Read here [uscourts.gov]:

    United States Magistrate Judges

    When Congress created the current three-tiered system of courts under Article III of the Constitution in 1896, United States Commissioners could be appointed by district judges to handle preliminary matters in criminal cases, like receiving bonds. In 1940, Congress expanded the duties of Commissioners to include trial of petty criminal offenses by consent. The Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 replaced the Commissioner with a position of Magistrate. In 1990, the title magistrate was changed to Magistrate Judge.

    Magistrate Judges are appointed by judges of the district court for a term of eight years. They may dispose of minor criminal offenses and may hold bench or jury trials in civil actions on consent of the parties. In addition, Magistrate Judges handle preliminary proceedings in felony matters, report and recommend to the district court on dispositive matters in civil cases, act as masters when appointed, and manage and rule on nondispositive matters in civil cases.

    Magistrate Judge Marcia A. Crone, the (gagging) judge in this case, is up for reappointment as of August 16, 2000. See my post below for more.

    --
  • I think Jesse Helms is obscene and indecent. Can I get a restraint against him appearing in public?

  • Re:Prohibition from discussion (Score:3)

    by Yardley ( 135408 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @07:46PM (#775706) Homepage
    There is a right to privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled as such.

    However, courts do not enjoy a right to privacy by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, keeping court proceedings "private" or closed is the hallmark of a society antithetical to American values. A free society does not hide its court's proceedings because justice cannot exist when the doings of the courts are hidden.

    --

  • Re:Prohibition from discussion (Score:3)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Friday September 15, 2000 @08:01PM (#775707) Homepage
    One method often used to be able to pay for lawyers in order to have a fair opportunity to present your case in court is to go public with the fact of the case, and raise money from those who are concerned with having your side win (specific details don't have to be published for this). Carrying a gag order so far as to deny the very existance of a case is a denial of fair and due process! And to the extent that such a case might have constituted a precedent with regard to affecting me, I should have a right to see to it that such a case is conducted fairly to begin with.

    This is a total sham of the legal system.

    IANALAIWBAIIWOITC ... I am not a lawyer and I would be ashamed if I were one in this case.
  • fucking stupid website.

    Kris Felscher

  • You can read the position of the gagged party (annoy.com) here: http://www.pointingfingers.com/c urrent_indictment/ [pointingfingers.com].

    --

  • Re:The correct link... (Score:3)

    by scrytch ( 9198 ) <chuck@myrealbox.com> on Friday September 15, 2000 @08:14PM (#775710)
    I did find it screamingly apropos that the link in the article returned "Document contains no data" thought :)

  • 404 Item Not Found

    If this page was taken down due to a court order along with a gag order to deny the existance of such a court order, we won't be able to admit it and all you'll be able to see is...

    404 Item Not Found

  • Um, sure; why don't you request a perpetual motion machine and a time machine while you're at it. If you're going to indulge in fantasy, go the whole nine.

    Deo
  • Sorry. Not on it. What exactly is it?

    And, oh, yes, I stand by my original statement.

    --
  • Now the interesting question. Did the gag order forbid these people from getting in contact with someone who might come to their aid? If not being allowed to make a press release kept the ACLU from getting interested, I'd say there is a pretty serious problem.

    As a matter of fact it did. If you read the overview at ejournalism.com [ejournalism.com] he talks about how the gag prevented him from soliciting advice from others in the industry or other groups that could file an amicus breif or provide any other type of assistance. I take that to mean that he couldn't contact the ACLU, EFF, etc.

  • HI,

    ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool).

    This is not true:

    "First, it informed the government that it lacked any information relating to John Doe; its service allowed emails to be sent completely anonymously, and it could not identify the sender."

    See http://www.ejournalism.com/usapollo/fifth_circuit_ opinion.html

    Joost
  • A couple of things...

    Individual uses service to send threat.
    Wrong. Individual uses service to send obscene message. Whether or not its a threat is in the mind of the sender. I'll grant, however, that the content of the message warranted further investigation if it disturbed the recipient.

    [...]
    Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it.
    Asking that the details of the proceedings be kept secret is cool. Asking that the existence of the proceedings be kept secret is decidedly uncool. THAT scares me.

    ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual.
    This would be uncool if they were merely blocking the investigation, but my take is that they were blocking the whole "Don't tell anybody we're looking at you" bit.

    A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)
    The courts let this drag on for a year. Had the courts wanted to decide it the day after it came up, they could have done so.

  • ckedge could, IYO, use some growing up? why? I thought it was a well written piece. disagreeing with you doesn't make them un-insightful, but it makes them immature?
  • Associated with each article on your left is an "annoy lib" which will allow you to compose an anonymous email message to the persons named in the Article. It comes from us...no one will ever know it's you! (and we purge our records every night).

    Why, you may ask? Bill Clinton and congress passed a law recently making it a felony to annoy them! Of all the fucking nerve. Supported, no less, by a whole bunch of folk, who in our opinion, are fucking indecent and annoying themselves - to say the least. So now it's payback time. We bring you the perfect tool to annoy them back! And as often as you like!

    Some might call it subversive. We call it democracy.

    I found the above text at a link on the annoy.com web site here [annoy.com].

    To me, this passage immediately brings **TWO** questions to mind:

    (1) If the acts that the web site were not just facilitating, but encouraging were in a "gray area" of legality, why didn't they do a more effective job of CYA (cover your arse)???
    (2) When in the **HELL** was a law passed by congress declaring the act of "annoying" prominent politicians illegal???

    The first question is easy to answer, (a) because they can and (B) because it is good for publicity (which equals traffic). Additionally, I personally like this idea because it pushes the limits of free speech. You know, the first amendment...the one that the government attempts to walk on CONSTANTLY.

    The second question, however, has left me puzzled. When in the fuck and, more to the point, why in the fuck was a law limiting MY access to sending prominent political entities written communications created and passed through legislature. I apologize for my vulgarity, but this is one topic that really upsets me. How can we call ourselves a democracy if we limit people from communicating their views to the elected officials in power. Then there are the questions of who decides what is "annoying" or "harassing"??? What are the penalties??? Was the government attempting to identify the "anonymous user" who wrote the letter in question to seek prosecution???

    All in all, I suppose I should be surprised. If the government can order a business to keep secret that fact that they are being persecuted, what would ever lead me to believe that I have a right to communicate to the people I helped get elected.

    - Pissed Off J

  • Associated with each article on your left is an "annoy lib" which will allow you to compose an anonymous email message to the persons named in the Article. It comes from us...no one will ever know it's you! (and we purge our records every night).

    Why, you may ask? Bill Clinton and congress passed a law recently making it a felony to annoy them! Of all the fucking nerve. Supported, no less, by a whole bunch of folk, who in our opinion, are fucking indecent and annoying themselves - to say the least. So now it's payback time. We bring you the perfect tool to annoy them back! And as often as you like!

    Some might call it subversive. We call it democracy.

    They do **NOT** keep track of their users!!!. Per the bolded text I have quoted above from the annoy.com web site (can be seen here [annoy.com]) Chances are, that is why "the Man" (aka the government) got so pissed off and started this entire proceeding.

    - J

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close