Last month it was Google that revealed an “alarming” jump in government requests for search results censorship, including a 49 per cent rise in Government of India requests.
This month the U.S. justice system showed that Twitter users challenging state power would not be spared from intrusive scrutiny either, as a Manhattan Criminal Court judge ruled that the micro-blogging site had to hand over the tweets of an Occupy Movement protestor to the authorities.
Upholding the validity of a subpoena on the Twitter messages posted by Malcolm Harris (23), Judge Matthew Sciarrino, Jr. said in an order this week that he intended to review approximately three months’ worth of tweets by Mr. Harris and would pass “relevant portions” on to prosecutors.
Twitter, which invoked the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. constitution for the protection of its users’ freedom of speech and privacy respectively, won praise for its attempt to fend off the legal challenge by the Manhattan District Attorney.
Yet ruling on the case of Mr. Harris, who was reportedly cited for disorderly conduct in one of the early-phase protests of the Occupy Movement last October on New York’s Brooklyn Bridge, Judge Sciarrino argued that Mr. Harris had “no reasonable expectation of privacy for tweets.”
Comparing the tweets to “screaming out of a window,” the Judge said in his 11-page decision, “The Constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts.”
In seeking to avoid the demands of the subpoena Twitter resorted to the argument that its terms of service “have long made it absolutely clear that [Twitter] users ‘own’ their content,” Twitter spokeswoman Carolyn Penner was quoted as saying in a statement.
She added that while Twitter was “disappointed” with the latest ruling, it had a steadfast commitment to users and their rights and would continue to consider its legal options.
The question of ownership rights of tweets became a core issue after Judge Sciarrino rejected Mr. Harris’ bid to quash the subpoena in April, arguing that he had no locus standi in the matter because the data belonged to Twitter.
Keywords: social networking, Occupy protest tweets, right to privacy, internet privacy, internet freedom, freedom of expression
There is a difference between censorship and surveillance.
Surveillance can help prevent and prosecute those who seek to distort
legal freedoms as per their wish. Freedom of speech doesn't mean
abdication of responsibility. The Occupy protesters were declaiming
the high-handedness of the corporate elite and the UK rioters were
stirred up by unemployment and racism(?). But while the former were
welcomed the latter were shunned. Clearly while invoking our
constitutional rights we should remember our places in society. Those
who do not respect these obligations need to be prosecuted and put
away. Surveillance of the tweets will do just that. However I am
against the caustic language used by the judge in his judgement - the
issue is a delicate one and should be handled appropriately.
Everywhere these government goons are trying to occupy freedom of speech. If there is a movement by speaking something, then its something which is in minds of all and this is what true democracy is. Definitely they arent beating somebody or hurting some other person's rights. Peaceful protests cant be curbed.
Please Email the Editor