After a harrowing legal battle, libertarian website Reason.com–the online component of Reason magazine–is finally free to tell the story of the grand jury subpoena they received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, demanding that they hand over the personal information of their online commenters.
The subpoena–first published by Popehat while Reason remained under a gag order–asked them to provide identifying information for six users who had commented on a Reason.com story about the conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.
The comments flagged by the U.S. attorney expressed outrage at District Court Judge Katherine Forrest, whose extremely harsh sentencing in the case was widely criticized.
While perhaps a bit overboard, the comments were hardly the sort of thing you would consider a direct threat—one, for example, used an obvious reference to the movie Fargo, remarking of Forrest, “Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.”
One comment said merely, “I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman.”
“There is,” replied another.
But these comments—no worse than the vitriolic comments on virtually every comment section in the world—were enough for the U.S. attorney’s office to demand Reason fork over their users’ private information—and not tell anyone about it.
From Reason editors Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch:
While aware that they risked the wrath of the U.S. attorney, Reason decided they were well within their legal rights—and moral duty—to warn the commenters about the subpoena and give them a chance to protest it.
The same day they reached out to the commenters, Velamoor sent them a gag order. They were now forbidden from so much as confirming that the subpoena or gag order even existed.
He then claimed he had “preliminary information” they had violated the court order, and would not provide any other information. Reason insisted they had complied.
Reason prepared a legal brief and asked the U.S. attorney’s office to lift the gag order, which they finally did on June 19—17 days after they first received the subpoena.
[…]
While it is impossible to fully ascertain the frequency of information requests from local, state, and federal law enforcement, there is every reason to believe websites are subjected to thousands of demands each year. It is also not clear how other websites interpret the type of letter requesting “voluntary” confidentiality that Reason received. How often is that letter sent along with subpoenas? And how often does it achieve its intended effect of securing silence? In other words, does it have the same effect as a gag order?
Read Reason‘s full account and response here.
