It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Twitter v. Holder Suit to Disclose NSLs

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I found the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. PDF File: I thought folks here interested in NSA, 1st. Amendment Free Speech violations, ect., would like to read it.

TWITTER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the
United States,
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE

cryptome.org...

A tid bit of the suit:
4. The Defendants’ position forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been
preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether. Defendants
provided no authority for their ability to establish the preapproved disclosure formats or to
impose those speech restrictions on other service providers that were not party to the lawsuit or
settlement.




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

" The Defendants’ position forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether. "

WOW...Net Neutrality in a Nutshell.
edit on 17-2-2015 by IAMTAT because: correction



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

Thanks for the info, I will keep an eye on this.

I expect there will be a torrent of lawsuits in the coming years on a variety of policies from all manner of corporations, associations and individuals but, it is good to see a major player right off the bat.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

Thanks for the thread, P.P and bumped for the find (AT LEAST).
Not being a great leagl mind, I've none the less been getting
more immersed lately in complaint briefs; and this one is
potentially huge to we fellow peasants in initially forcing
legal transparency.
In other words, I to understand the gist of the intended
judgment superficially is to MAKE the DOJ disclose who
and what they're snooping on Twitter? If these guys are
using a broad net and just dredging up culpability from
everywhere, where does it stop?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant



Defendants provided no authority for their ability to establish the preapproved disclosure formats or to impose those speech restrictions on other service providers that were not party to the lawsuit or settlement.


Great point, who ARE these people that can claim the right to demand this? Additionally, wholesale government control with the powers to monitor EVERY citizen is basically declaring your entire population the enemy.
edit on -216002015-02-17T22:29:47-06:00u4728201547022015Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:29:47 -0600 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

" The Defendants’ position forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether. "

WOW...Net Neutrality in a Nutshell.


This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Would you say the electric company should be allowed to charge you a higher rate for the electricity that powers your heater in the middle of winter than it charges for the electricity to run your refrigerator? Net neutrality says the ISP's can't do just that very thing with data.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
10

log in

join