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.
No comments:
Post a Comment