SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Twitter 'Alt Account' Lawsuit Exposes Trump Team's Effort to Stomp Out Dissent
Complying with U.S. Customs and Border Protection summons 'would have a grave chilling effect,' Twitter argues in lawsuit
Apr 07, 2017
Update:
Twitter dropped its lawsuit against the federal government on Friday after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) withdrew its summons demanding the social media company unmask the identity of the person or people behind one of the of "alt" accounts to criticize the Trump administration. The company had filed the lawsuit Thursday, and was notified on Friday by CBP that the summons was withdrawn.
"The speed with which the government buckled shows just how blatantly unconstitutional its demand was in the first place," said Esha Bhandari, one of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys who represents the Twitter user.
"Speaking anonymously about issues of the day is a longstanding American tradition, dating back to when the framers of the Constitution wrote under pseudonyms. The anonymity that the First Amendment guarantees is often most essential when people criticize the government, and this free speech right is as important today as ever," said Bhandari.
Earlier:
Twitter has pushed back against the federal government's demand that the social media company reveal the identity of the user or users behind one of the of "alt" accounts that emerged in January in creative protest of the Trump administration.
The Twitter account in question is @ALT_uscis, which describes itself as "immigration resistance" and not expressing "the views of DHS [Department of Homeland Security] or USCIS [U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services]."
According to the lawsuit (pdf), filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Twitter was delivered on March 14 a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) summons that would force it to unmask who was behind that account. The summons asked that the records be turned over the day before--the 13th.
Twitter argues that the "customs" tool employed by CBP has no relevance, as it is meant to deal with imported merchandise, and, beyond that, the defendants have failed to show that "some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users' identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users."
Obeying that order "would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other 'alternative agency' accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies," the suit states.
Twitter's push-back drew praise from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organization that seeks to defend "civil liberties in the digital world."
"EFF applauds Twitter for standing up for users' free speech and swiftly pushing back on the government's attempts to identify a prominent critic. The government must not be able to use its formidable investigatory powers to intimidate and silence its critics, and CBP made almost no effort to justify its request. As Twitter's complaint explains, the request should be barred by the First Amendment," wrote Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney on EFF's civil liberties team.
American Oversight, a group dedicated to fighting for accountability from the Trump administration, also weighed in on the lawsuit.
According to Austin Evers, executive director of the group, "Homeland Security's effort to stretch an obscure customs regulation to stifle political dissent is deeply troubling. This raises serious questions about the new administration. We have a right to know whether this action was ordered by political leadership or even the White House. While government officials don't have the right to expose the identities of people who criticize them, the American people do have the right to identify government officials who try to abuse their power."
The American Civil Liberties Union wrote on Twitter that it would be defending the user in court:
Reuters adds:
Twitter might have a strong case that the summons was improper, said Paul Alan Levy, staff attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group who specializes in online privacy and free speech issues.
"I don't think there is any way for the government to come out of this looking good," Levy said.
The "alt immigration" account, which has over 140,000 followers, has tweeted of the lawsuit: "This is not just about our account. This is about all twitter users whether you agree with our view point or not"; and "If they win here, where will they stop? who will be next?"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
#notnormalacluconstitutional rightscustoms and border protection (cbp)electronic frontier foundationimmigrationpeople powertechnologytwitter
Update:
Twitter dropped its lawsuit against the federal government on Friday after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) withdrew its summons demanding the social media company unmask the identity of the person or people behind one of the of "alt" accounts to criticize the Trump administration. The company had filed the lawsuit Thursday, and was notified on Friday by CBP that the summons was withdrawn.
"The speed with which the government buckled shows just how blatantly unconstitutional its demand was in the first place," said Esha Bhandari, one of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys who represents the Twitter user.
"Speaking anonymously about issues of the day is a longstanding American tradition, dating back to when the framers of the Constitution wrote under pseudonyms. The anonymity that the First Amendment guarantees is often most essential when people criticize the government, and this free speech right is as important today as ever," said Bhandari.
Earlier:
Twitter has pushed back against the federal government's demand that the social media company reveal the identity of the user or users behind one of the of "alt" accounts that emerged in January in creative protest of the Trump administration.
The Twitter account in question is @ALT_uscis, which describes itself as "immigration resistance" and not expressing "the views of DHS [Department of Homeland Security] or USCIS [U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services]."
According to the lawsuit (pdf), filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Twitter was delivered on March 14 a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) summons that would force it to unmask who was behind that account. The summons asked that the records be turned over the day before--the 13th.
Twitter argues that the "customs" tool employed by CBP has no relevance, as it is meant to deal with imported merchandise, and, beyond that, the defendants have failed to show that "some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users' identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users."
Obeying that order "would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other 'alternative agency' accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies," the suit states.
Twitter's push-back drew praise from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organization that seeks to defend "civil liberties in the digital world."
"EFF applauds Twitter for standing up for users' free speech and swiftly pushing back on the government's attempts to identify a prominent critic. The government must not be able to use its formidable investigatory powers to intimidate and silence its critics, and CBP made almost no effort to justify its request. As Twitter's complaint explains, the request should be barred by the First Amendment," wrote Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney on EFF's civil liberties team.
American Oversight, a group dedicated to fighting for accountability from the Trump administration, also weighed in on the lawsuit.
According to Austin Evers, executive director of the group, "Homeland Security's effort to stretch an obscure customs regulation to stifle political dissent is deeply troubling. This raises serious questions about the new administration. We have a right to know whether this action was ordered by political leadership or even the White House. While government officials don't have the right to expose the identities of people who criticize them, the American people do have the right to identify government officials who try to abuse their power."
The American Civil Liberties Union wrote on Twitter that it would be defending the user in court:
Reuters adds:
Twitter might have a strong case that the summons was improper, said Paul Alan Levy, staff attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group who specializes in online privacy and free speech issues.
"I don't think there is any way for the government to come out of this looking good," Levy said.
The "alt immigration" account, which has over 140,000 followers, has tweeted of the lawsuit: "This is not just about our account. This is about all twitter users whether you agree with our view point or not"; and "If they win here, where will they stop? who will be next?"
Update:
Twitter dropped its lawsuit against the federal government on Friday after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) withdrew its summons demanding the social media company unmask the identity of the person or people behind one of the of "alt" accounts to criticize the Trump administration. The company had filed the lawsuit Thursday, and was notified on Friday by CBP that the summons was withdrawn.
"The speed with which the government buckled shows just how blatantly unconstitutional its demand was in the first place," said Esha Bhandari, one of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys who represents the Twitter user.
"Speaking anonymously about issues of the day is a longstanding American tradition, dating back to when the framers of the Constitution wrote under pseudonyms. The anonymity that the First Amendment guarantees is often most essential when people criticize the government, and this free speech right is as important today as ever," said Bhandari.
Earlier:
Twitter has pushed back against the federal government's demand that the social media company reveal the identity of the user or users behind one of the of "alt" accounts that emerged in January in creative protest of the Trump administration.
The Twitter account in question is @ALT_uscis, which describes itself as "immigration resistance" and not expressing "the views of DHS [Department of Homeland Security] or USCIS [U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services]."
According to the lawsuit (pdf), filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Twitter was delivered on March 14 a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) summons that would force it to unmask who was behind that account. The summons asked that the records be turned over the day before--the 13th.
Twitter argues that the "customs" tool employed by CBP has no relevance, as it is meant to deal with imported merchandise, and, beyond that, the defendants have failed to show that "some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users' identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users."
Obeying that order "would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other 'alternative agency' accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies," the suit states.
Twitter's push-back drew praise from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organization that seeks to defend "civil liberties in the digital world."
"EFF applauds Twitter for standing up for users' free speech and swiftly pushing back on the government's attempts to identify a prominent critic. The government must not be able to use its formidable investigatory powers to intimidate and silence its critics, and CBP made almost no effort to justify its request. As Twitter's complaint explains, the request should be barred by the First Amendment," wrote Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney on EFF's civil liberties team.
American Oversight, a group dedicated to fighting for accountability from the Trump administration, also weighed in on the lawsuit.
According to Austin Evers, executive director of the group, "Homeland Security's effort to stretch an obscure customs regulation to stifle political dissent is deeply troubling. This raises serious questions about the new administration. We have a right to know whether this action was ordered by political leadership or even the White House. While government officials don't have the right to expose the identities of people who criticize them, the American people do have the right to identify government officials who try to abuse their power."
The American Civil Liberties Union wrote on Twitter that it would be defending the user in court:
Reuters adds:
Twitter might have a strong case that the summons was improper, said Paul Alan Levy, staff attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group who specializes in online privacy and free speech issues.
"I don't think there is any way for the government to come out of this looking good," Levy said.
The "alt immigration" account, which has over 140,000 followers, has tweeted of the lawsuit: "This is not just about our account. This is about all twitter users whether you agree with our view point or not"; and "If they win here, where will they stop? who will be next?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.