WHEN BIKEPORTLAND.ORG Editor Jonathan Maus got a call from
his wife in early October, telling him there was someone from the
courthouse on the doorstep of their family home, his first thought was
to wonder which story he might have messed up, he says.
“Then she told me this man was on his way over here to the office,
and sure enough, he turned up, and handed me this piece of paper,” says
Maus, who covers local bike issues from every angle.
As it turns out, Maus had done nothing wrong. The document was a
court order from Deputy District Attorney Ryan Lufkin, signed by
Multnomah County Judge Cheryl Albrecht, ordering Maus to provide the IP
address of one of his commenters. The commenter, “Cam,” was an alleged
witness to the Tasering of a bicyclist by a police officer this past
summer [“Night Light Fight, News, June 19].
According to the order, Maus had five days to give the info to the
DA’s office. Furthermore, the order said Maus could not inform the
commenter, “or any others” outside his business, about the order.
“I was a little shocked at the tone,” Maus says. “It didn’t really
offer any context for why it was seeking the information, it just said
give us the information within five days, and don’t tell anybody about
it.”
Maus took a risk on telling somebody outside his business about the
order, and consulted a friend of his, lawyer Jim Coon, of Swanson,
Thomas, and Coon. Coon said he thought Maus was protected from having
to give out a commenter’s IP address under Oregon’s media shield law,
which protects the URL, email address, and other unpublished
identifying information of commenters on websites like BikePortland.org.
Indeed, attorneys for the Mercury and Willamette Week went to court over the right to withhold a commenter’s IP address under
the shield law—and won, in an October 1 ruling in Clackamas
County [“The Portland Mercury: We’ll Go to Court for You,”
Blogtown, Oct 1]. Yet the court order against Maus was dated October
10.
Nonetheless, disturbed at the potential consequences of the order,
Maus elected not to go public with it. Instead, he contacted Deputy DA
Lufkin, telling him he was not legally required to give up the
commenter’s IP address, but that he would contact the commenter to see
if they would agree to share the information, out of his willingness to
help.
Lufkin responded, asking why Maus believed he did not need to comply
with the court order, and noted that he had five days to do so. Maus
eventually heard back from the commenter, who voluntarily provided
contact details to Lufkin, through Maus, on October 29. Lufkin thanked
Maus for providing the information, adding “that this is still a
protected matter not to be discussed until the court lifts that
provision.”
Maus is troubled by the order, and wants other bloggers to know
about his experience, so they’ll know what to do in the future if a guy
with a court order shows up on their doorstep.
“It didn’t sit very well with me—the way they said I couldn’t
talk about it,” he says. “It just felt like it was unnecessary, I felt
I couldn’t even seek legal help, or tell my spouse, let alone tell the
commenter. It felt kind of creepy.”
“These kinds of orders are likely to chill expression,” says Coon.
“People are less likely to post things frankly on a website if they
think a court order could come in and force a blog owner to divulge
their identity.”
Lufkin explains what happened on his end: “We submitted an affidavit
and motion requesting protection for a limited duration,” he says. “A
judge signed our request, which has since expired. As for further
details, it’s an ongoing prosecution and we are not at liberty to
discuss it.”
Judge Albrecht, too, explained her involvement. “The order I signed
was based on a previous order by another judge finding good cause for
production of the information requested as well as good cause for
limitations on disclosure of the request and the information itself,”
she wrote in an email to the Mercury. “The underlying affidavit
and motion are subject to a protective order, and as such, I am not at
liberty to comment further.”
Albrecht also noted that the Mercury has “identified an issue
at the heart of the intersection between important policies to protect
cyber privacy and the legitimate needs of government to fulfill its
duties to citizens.”
Why would the Clackamas County ruling have any bearing on a Multnomah County judge’s order? A circuit court judge’s order in one county is not precedent for other counties. The level of reporting done by this reporter is mindbogglingly low.
In an era where our privacy and civil liberties have been tread upon in unprecedented ways – thanks to technological advancements (i.e. cell phone service providers secretly handing data over to the feds) and an often unconstitutional administration – it is imperative that measures are established and upheld to protect citizens’ rights, no matter what form of communications technology we choose to engage in.
This is unbelievable…If the cops or DA want a witness, they can send their crack detectives out to find them…
Karen Soesbe
isn’t it clear that this is an unlawful case of bullying on the part of the DAs office?
no matter what the order they served said, the DA has no authority to prevent anyone from seeking legal counsel or discussing the matter with other people. in fact, the DA has no authority whatsoever; they can order you to do anything they want, but unless you are under contract with someone to the contrary, or ordered by a judge to whom you’ve given jurisdiction, you are under no obligation to follow those orders. period.
the moral of this story is: don’t give these bullies jurisdiction over you. no one is required to enter into contract with anyone else, and we are fully within our rights to ask questions of anyone seeking to contract with us. so ask those questions, and refuse offers of contract unless you are in control of the terms and you see them as favorable to you. contract law is all a judge can enforce.
We can all look forward to these types of scare/intimidation tactics by the police/DA/courts, thanks to the Dept. of [Nationalist]Homeland Security. What would DDA Ryan Lufkin have done, thrown Mr.Maus in jail for not handing over an IP address?!
Remember, this was over a [potential] wittness to a bicyclist who was tossed off his bike, beaten, & tasered by a real punk of a cop, for NO reason ofcourse. I recall right when this happened too, not far from where i live, just down on Morrison.
So it’s atleast KNOWN now that law-enforcement do scan blogs, mbs, etc. & that there’s alot of spying/info.-gathering/data-mining going on. That said, noone should EVER be fearful of what they say on-line. Just try not to incriminate yourself.
Also, learn to use proxies. The good ones will leave you un-traceable.
Careful, *jellypudding*. giving out such info. may make you an accomplice… to something.
It’s ridiculous.
Why the big deal anyway?
For crying out loud, talk about getting all worked up over nothing, the guy was a witness, not a terrorist.
Anyway, the way the law works is simple, the law is what the judge of that moment says it is, period.
Precedent means nothing, written words mean nothing, the judge issuing the orders is all powerful.
And the police, well, we all know that story.
It is ridiculous.
I have no need for a proxy. I’m not hiding.
All anyone had to do was ask. There wasn’t any need for threats or other strongarm tactics to get my ISP or other contact info.
Best,
Cameron
More on the shield law here:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doe-v-t…
Contract attorneys can be effective but the temporary nature of the client relationship results in numerous inefficiencies. Litigation follows a definitive process with specific protocols as applied by Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO), but the process still requires judgment, expertise, and subjectivity.