Blogger's identity outed by AK politician - Updated
After a 4-month effort to hunt down a blogger's identity, this Alaska state representative, without any provocation, except his view that no one should be allowed to speak out anonymously, published the blogger's name - using an official political e-newsletter, mailed out to many, many recipients.
Yet once again, a simple google search for anonymous free speech yields nearly 3 million links - and clear evidence of a constitutional right. Including this:
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commn., 514 U.S. 334 (Supreme Court of the United States, 1995), a woman was fined in violation of the Ohio Elections Commission Code for composing, printing, and distributing anonymous campaign literature which expressed her views on a proposed school tax. The Supreme Court held:"Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society."
It is not a good sign when an elected representative chooses to play judge and jury and to mete out a sentence (loss of privacy), simply for exercising the right to free speech and choosing to do so anonymously. The man who did it is an elected Alaska state representative. Presumably he took an oath of some type. I wonder what that oath says. I wonder if he understands that as an elected representative he has a fiduciary duty to citizens. I wonder if he realizes that, in effect, he has indicted someone - without cause - simply for speaking out in a public blog. His explanation for "outing" the blogger seems to based on his belief that no one should be allowed to speak anonymously. And instead of inquiring if anonymous speech was prohibited by law, he instead made that assumption and took the law into his own hands. He presumed some type of "guilt". He decided on a punishment. And he meted that out - just like vigilantes do - in the absence of any judicial proceeding - simply for blogging anonymously.
I personally hope that AK Muckraker and family decide to pursue this. It is an infringement of the constitutional right to speak as one chooses to speak. An infringement of a federally guaranteed right - by an elected official of a state. Not a judge. Not a jury. There's been no investigation here by any duly authorized investigating body. But without consulting any judicial authority, this politician took things into his own hands.
There is a long history in the United States of anonymous political writing. Dating back to pre-revolutionary days. And specifically upheld in recent years by the Supreme Court.
This "outing" of a blogger's real name is an action which affects every citizen who chooses to post on the web. It is vital, in my view, that our constitutional rights be upheld and protected. And that when violated, those who disregard them should be held to whatever penalties the law may require. Something precious has been stolen from AK Muckraker. Something precious which can never be restored.
And I, for one, am appalled. I am irate. And I am ready to join in whatever can be done to bring justice to this matter.
You can read more about all of this at AK Muckraker's blog, The Mudflats. And you can follow links to the Mudflats' Forum or posts by other bloggers related to this issue as well as places where you can register your own concerns about this matter.
Update #1:
Elected representatives of the State of Alaska take an oath to both the Constitution of the United States and to the State of Alaska. As we know, the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech (and anonymous free speech has been part of our nation since before its inception). Plus, the Alaska Constitution specifically guarantees the right to privacy (Article # 22, Declaration of Rights).
This legislator has violated his oath of office.
Once he knew the identity of the blogger, he would have known that divulging that identity would have had consequences. (see below for a comment by SlappyOC) I am not a lawyer, but it would appear that by this man's violation of his oath, his perfidious behavior may have had serious consequences, for which he may be held liable. This is a dark time in America!
I am deeply distressed.
Update #2:
There seems to be some confusion about the right to privacy and when it is possible for government to lawfully intrude on that: only with a warrant or some evidence that the citizen is breaking the law.
From a comment of mine below:
If there is a credible reason to look into someone's identity, like the commission of a crime, then the government can seek a warrant to investigate. A warrant is the only way the government can intrude on our privacy.
No crime was committed by the blogger. The legislator had sworn to uphold the law and thus to protect the privacy (that's how it's written in Alaska, that the legislature is responsible for protecting privacy). But instead a duly sworn and elected official, on his own, without any charge, without any warrant, did an investigation, found out who she was, and contrary to his oath of office, divulged that!
This is an egregious breach of public trust on the part of the this public official, Doogan.
The govt is not supposed to spy on people. That's a no-no. That's why we're upset with bush! Absent a warrant, it's not legal! And to get a warrant you have to show cause. Some crime.
Update #3:
If you read AKM's blog, you will find a post by Bob Poe, someone who knows Googan, the guy who outed AKM. Bob, to my mind, appears to be trying to explain and even excuse Googan's behavior - via explaining that Googan used to be a journalist and is annoyed that bloggers (as opposed to journalists) often write without disclosing their names. Well, this is a side issue.
The issue is not that AKM chooses to write anonymously. The issue is not AKM!
Instead the issue is Googan! Googan is a duly sworn public official. His duty is to uphold the law. The US Constitution. And the Alaska Constitutuion. His duty is to the voters and citizens of Alaska. He has failed in his duty as an elected official who has taken a public oath! He has abrogated his oath. He has harmed a citizen. He forgot his role - his role to protect the public. And to my mind he deserves whatever approbation or censure he gets.
Much of what Mr. Poe writes I can agree with. But his analysis of where the problem lies is wrong. AKM is not a journalist, but a private citizen, entitled to speak her mind. Just like me!
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all who have respected my own need for some time away from blogging, which may yet continue or be lessened. Your heartening comments are much appreciated, and I extend my thanks and best wishes to all who blog here. I break my silence today only because this matter is so pressing and relates to anyone's need for privacy, yours and mine as well. I am concerned about each of us personally, our community here at TPM Cafe, and the fate of our nation at this time of crisis. And I will be posting something related to that in the near future, when the time is right.
Poor mudflats
=(
I wonder if taxpayer resources were used to do this. It is hardly an appropriate use. I hope this bozo gets his comeuppance.
March 28, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So good to hear from you, TheraP, as your voice is raised, as always, in support and defense of the fundamental principles necessary if we are to recall ourselves as Americans and move toward becoming global citizens of integrity.
We miss you, while respecting your wish (and perhaps need) for rest.) Thank you for being bestirred and so, between and amongst us again.
March 28, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is truly outrageous. to Bwakfat's point, yes, he sent the official newsletter out using state resources. this was state action to invade a private citizen's privacy.
If you want to express your own outrage, you should write an email to the Democrats with the real power, the Minority Leader and Minority Whip. Their email addresses are rep.beth.kerttula@legis.state.ak.us, and rep.david.guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us.
Also you should email the Alaska Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics. Their emails are Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us, Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us, Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us, and Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us .
March 28, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
would they want us out of staters commenting? If so, count me in.
March 28, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't see why not. i sent out my emails earlier today and posted about it on my blog ( http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/03/alaska-lawmaker-violates-privacy-of.html ).
Actions like this have a chilling effect on speech across the country, not just in Alaska.
March 28, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed they do. It is nothing short of an outrage. A real one.
March 28, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
also check out the new facebook group dedicated to calling out Mike Doogan: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=8422&post=47108&uid=82564017994#/group.php?sid=0&gid=82564017994
March 28, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, you rawk. I haven't seen you here before. I hope you stick around!
March 28, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
glad to be here. i am a big fan of tpm but i didn't realize that this section was here! :) i blog on my own blog ( http://www.librarygrape.com ) but will definitely come back now that I know its here! :)
March 28, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me Too!
March 29, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you certain that the "official political e-newsletter" used state resources? If that's anything more than a discussion of the legislative agenda, then I would think it should have used campaign funds and should have been sent from a campaign account.
March 29, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link and the heads-up. *Shorter legal analysis:There may be "state action" somewhere hidden within what appears to be a "personal frolic" by an elected representative.
If so, then a civil rights deprivation has occurred.
Absent state action, one is obliged to fall back on what (in America, as opposed to England) is a very thinly protected "right" to privacy.
Either way, the offender needs a slap upside his head.
*We are aware of, and acknowledge, all internet traditions...
March 28, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Democrats were in favor of the 1st amendment. I guess protecting it is directly proportional the the size of your sins and the thickness of your skin.
Great post TP. More should know about this.
welcome back. Welcome home. You've been missed.
March 28, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have me weeping in the late afternoon. My TheraP has returned. How is her hubby? how is her constitution? Oh well. The muse is alive and well and ranting the good rant.
GO GET EM!! That is what I say.
I will sign any petition, write any letter that you request.
MY THERAP HAS RETURNED.
March 28, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still taking a break, dd. But I know how hard this is on you. I feel badly about that - you are especially on my mind. I am touched by your lovely story about Lady Thera. And I think you pegged me right. (I used to think that if bushco arrested me, I would radicalize my fellow inmates!)
Peace, buddy. I'll be back. But I'm just posting this one comment right now. Because I know you need it. Everybody is taking care of you. And that's good.
I miss everyone. This time is good for me. Keep up your great blogs!
March 28, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry TheraP. We will keep the fire alive here until you get back. Rest, relax. I find that a nice tropical drink with a little paper umbrella works wonders. :)
March 29, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, for some reason you forgot to mention what party Doogan belongs to!
Doogan is a Democrat!
March 28, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The converse issue is anonymous persons using anonymity as a cover to smear non-anonymous users
of the internet.
Speaking falsehoods or half-truths to bring ridicule, hatred or scorn upon an individual is also a way to silence their speech. The implicit threat in this kind of behavior is, hey, you're public, you asked for it, and you'd better shut-up because you're public i.e. vulnerable.
The First Amendment goes far, but, the Supreme Court has validated civil cases for defamation as well as invasion of privacy. I am not assuming that defamation took place to motivate Rep. Doogan to "out" his offender.
Barring defamation, using an official newsletter from an office criticized, or an official criticized, to ID anonymous critics sounds in official intimidation that has a chilling effect on speech. Suppose the official used a press conference to do the same? Would that be an official act to use the power of the press?
How should the various cases be handled?
March 28, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, Mike Doogan's profession is listed as 'journalist'. He was on the staff of Anchorage Daily News for years. Prided himself as 'investigative'. Had column where he ranted. (Not verified, but was told he was terminated - but again, cannot affirm this as fact today.)
However, many believe that his self-interests always superseded his 'journalism' efforts. Lately there's been some who believe Mike has veered into the lane of 'reckless and destructive' behaviors/actions. Even for him.
I will send emails and make phone calls about this issue.
And yes, 'out of staters' are listened to here, now more than ever as since the Palin-McCain fiasco, most believe Alaskans were negatively represented.
Thanks TheraP. Greatly appreciate this post!
March 28, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Aunt Sam, I was one of those thousands that found mudflats when Palin was nominated. I found AKMuckracker to be incredible. I learned more about Palin in my hour explore of that blog with its links then the MSM learned in a month. I spread that link far and wide. Including here.
She deserves respect, and the issue of the state using it's powers in a vendetta against a private citizen is quite an important one.
March 28, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, not sure it's fair or accurate to say 'the state'. It's one jackass in the land of the midnight sun. Can't even blame Palin for this one.
Now, if he gets re-elected, we can blame his area (Anchorage territory).
March 28, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you misunderstood me. That one asshat USED the powers of the state to persecute an individual for a shallow vendetta. That needs to be called out and dealt with quickly. It should NEVER happen again.
The outrage should be overwhelming lest we give other louts that happen to be in government ideas.
March 28, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing to realize about Mike D, judging from his -- non-fiction -- book subheads. He LIKES enemies. His collection of columns was subbed "From the Alaskan other Alaskans love to hate." So nasty e-mails ain't gonna do it, but legal action -- which seems possible -- may. (more below)
March 29, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
He also writes mystery novels set in AK. I started reading the first one he published a few years ago, but it was so boring I never finished it. And that's the truth. Perhaps I should review it on Amazon - anonomously.
Thanks for the heads up on this, TheraP. Rest well knowing you are missed.
March 28, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the new Facebook Group that was just started to call out Mike Doogan for his shameful actions: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=8422&post=47108&uid=82564017994#/group.php?sid=0&gid=82564017994
March 28, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking my back just to know your name....
Peace, AKMuckraker, we's all with you.
March 28, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missed you big TheraP.
March 28, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back, Thera, even if it's going to be more intermittent for a while.
And yes, I saw this earlier today. Truly bad behavior by someone who ought to know better.
March 28, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives for Sarah Palin post;
And also for the record, we deplore Doogan's use of state resources to "out" an anonymous opponent. As conservatives, we believe in individual liberty and the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Hmmm. If they say so!
March 28, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, this is far beyond left and right! It's a liberty issue.
Paging Cyants!
=D
March 28, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, I've been buried in work lately, and so have been doing some "drive-by" checking in, so I missed it if you said you were taking a sabbatical. I totally get that; the level of involvement that you maintained was amazing to me; rarely did a post appear without your thoughtful comments. Take all the time you want, but thanks for posting this.
I'm not as upset as everyone else seems to be, although I think it was handled poorly. Does anyone think that if "Deep Throat" would have been identified, his name wouldn't have been exposed? Why wasn't it? Because only 3 other people (supposedly) knew his identity and they did not give it up. Obviously, AK Muckraker was betrayed by someone, which is the real crime here, in my opinion.
I also think that Doogan (who reminds me of most any middle-school level of maturity and honesty) should have contacted her and had a conversation. Her concerns should have been addressed.
He would have 'scored' much higher if he had said simply that he figured out who she was, realized there were reasons she wanted to remain anonymous and that he respected that.
That would have been the high road.
Beyond that, I don't think we have protection from finding out who we are if we do anything anonymously. What legal remedy could there be?
If anyone wants to be totally anonymous the only way to do it is TELL NO ONE. Beyond that, we are at the mercy of those we trust.
I personally think that one of the people who could ID AK Muckraker has some 'splainin to do.
Oh! And Doogan is a jerk, but I don't think he broke the law.
March 28, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No? Using public funds and resources for a private vendetta? I think maybe he did. No question. Gubmint ain't allowed to do that.
In fact C'Ville, I'm blown away that you don't see this. It's like those Texas Repubs using homeland security to finger the Dem minority--but waaaay worse.
March 28, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak is right. The gubmint can't do that. There be laws.
And sometimes they are still respected and followed and....upheld.
March 28, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Break the law? Not sure. Was his newsletter published and sent out using public funds/staff?
If so, I guess, it's for his constituents to address if that's how they want their $$$ spent.
He states that only those who identify themselves should have the right to publish their thoughts/opinions unfettered. Now, I do believe that stance probably violates constitutional rights.
March 28, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main point here is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a state official to use state action to stamp on free speech rights.
As the Supreme Court held in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
March 28, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those against her opinions have now begun to attack her on her business website. This is horrible.
March 28, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is just so wrong.
March 28, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
amazing how she would have wanted to remain anonymous, isn't it? can you imagine how the rabid palin thugs up there are going to deluge her now with death threats?
March 28, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you Thera! I had a feeling we might see you from time to time when you felt the need to bring something to our attention. Thank you for this. I'm doubly upset that this clown is a dem...I hope he is ashamed of himself. It was such a Republican thing to do.
I'll be e-mailing my outrage to the appropriate parties.
March 28, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How vital is anonymity? An entire struggle can hinge on it, at certain times. Writer Frank Talk was Steven Biko.
Best, Ther,
Tish
March 28, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Infuriating. AK Muckraker did a public service for the rest of us, providing such deep and verifiable insights about the Palin That Would Be Queen. I was able to refute more than one falsehood being spread around about how great Palin was and how everyone was just against her by starting with the tips from Mudflats. That site was invaluable.
March 28, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks TheraP, and glad you dropped in to share this.
The problem with the loss of rights and protections is that they tend to erode. A little nibble here and a nip there. The little assaults often go unaddressed, and all the sudden folks wake up an find out those rights and protections are gone.
This is one elected official in one state going after one blogger. Seems like a "nibble," but it needs to be jumped on with both feet - many both feet.
Thanks too to Library Grape for the email addresses.
March 28, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Thera. Good to hear you. I'll let it rest there. Just know that it'll be good to have you back, and the more it's on terms you're happy with, the better.
March 28, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi TheraP! I was wondering where you've been. Hope all's well.
March 28, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello, Thera. I hope you're comfortable and have everything that you need. If not, just let us know.
March 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one of our Anonymous is in trouble, we need to help.
Thanks for shining the light, TheraP.
March 28, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As others have mentioned, anonymous political commentary has a long tradition extending back to the founding fathers - and the right to publish anonymously is certainly protected. A separate question is whether the writer can feel secure that their identity will remain private.
Legal protections may apply in some cases.
In many cases the issue is ethical rather than legal: privacy should be respected unless strong reasons (e.g. public safety) require otherwise.
Finally, those who truly care about their anonymity must be very careful about the information they share on the web. Seemingly innocuous revelations may provide tidbits that can be combined to establish identity. The veil of anonymity on the web is much more easily pierced than many people realize. I hesitate to provide examples, lest I provide inspiration.
March 29, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The full picture is that a state government official used state action to infringe on a person's right to free speech. The least this man is liable for is a violation of he constitutional rights. He could also be guilty of violating a criminal or ethics law.
March 29, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Other Shoe is someone I have long known. He is providing the information as a caution to all of us. He is not disparaging the blogger, I am sure. But through long acquaintance with the web, he has provided wise guidance.
March 29, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dunno. He gave the anon person a chance to say something. If I got an email like that I'd write back:
"I don't know why you think I am that blogger, but do not publish my name in connection with this matter. If you do so, I will pursue legal remedies."
or if the name were sent to the blogger's anon email address (as opposed to the named person's email address), the response would be:
"I don't know why you think that is my name, but I suggest you do not publish that name in connection with my blog. To do so could be a violation of your oath of office and might also be a cause of action for libel."
Failure to say something like that leaves the metaphorical door unlocked -- it could count as a tacit "Okay". Saying what I would say neither confirms nor denies the identification. That said, it seems Doogan has a problematic obsession. I guess it's not just Repo nuts such as Bachmann who get into office with screws loose.
March 29, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may have been a good idea, but would it have stopped him? It still doesn't change the fact that he chose to blatantly invade someone's right to privacy and anon free speech. I'd bet she was so stunned by the email she didn't know what to do.
March 29, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mistake me as defending Doogan. I simply pointed out the nature of the game of hardball in such matters. Similarly if you catch someone rattling door knobs and that person says, May I come in? and you don't say no, you're accepting the adventure.
If you write back correctly and Doogan publishes the name anyway, you have a stronger cause of action because Doogan would have been on notice. That won't stop a madman, but Doogan probably just has a screw loose, not missing half his brain. It's a yellow or red flag.
It's the personal level force of what in law is a temporary restraining order. Anyone interested in protecting their rights, imaginary or real, does well to take action thereto. So what I'm saying is advice to all readers here, not just an analysis of AKM's personal travail.
Of course it's also possible the email was not received and read before Doogan published. In that case notice cannot prevent the possible harm, but even then a request to remove the name could be effective and if so would reduce the scope alleged harm. Is there absolute anonymity on the internet?
March 29, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has this kind of thing happened at TPM ?
March 29, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know how the name was "outed"?
March 29, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
the state legislator sent out an official newsletter to his constituents and purposefully wrote that her name was X
March 29, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the question is: How did Doogan find out?
I have to wonder if there is an element of soap opera theatrics here.
March 29, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baloney. You have a right to write anonymously but not to be anonymous. Your right to write anonymously does not cancel out anyone else's right to free speech; i.e., their right to identify who an anonymous writer is.
It is not the same as prosecuting someone. By your logic, the legislator should have released the identity by using an anonymous blog rather than his own stationery. Free speech is not always for speech one agrees with.
I think the anonymity on the internet is more pernicious than otherwise, as it encourages more vituperative and abusive and hostile comments. On the other hand, it gives us a look at human nature unrestrained.
March 29, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are the one talking nonsense. If Doogan -- who, by the way, several people have claimed to be the author of an 'anonymous' blog himself under the name of "Billy Muldoon" -- I have no desire to find out if this is true or not -- had, as a private citizen, discovered who AKM was and outed her in a (signed) personal blog -- he would have been merely despicable scum. (And many people would have blamed it on his reputation for enjoying the grape or grain a little too much.)
But he was an elected State Representative and outed her in a letter to his constituents -- and that makes it an entirely different matter.
March 29, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the argument may not be about rights but about intent.
March 29, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect. Intent may be a part of it but it is the constitutional right that gives rise to a claim for a violation of a private citizen's rights under the constitution. You can have intent to do all sorts of stuff without it being actionable.
March 29, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis is lacking. First, there is a firmly established right to publish anonymously, without any punishment or reprisal from the government.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
The problem you have is that the First Amendment is a limit on GOVERNMENT ACTION. You or I could go out and expose a blogger without any fear of constitutional liability, because we're rpviate citizens. However, a STATE ACTOR, like Mike Doogan -- an Alaska state legislator -- is liable for violating the First Amendment rights of a citizen. He used government resources, and the power of his office, to expose the identity of an anonymous blogger in violation of her right to speak anonymously without fear of government punishment or retribution.
March 29, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then how does the government have the right to scan emails for words that trigger investigations about possible threats? All the same thing?
March 29, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an entirely separate question that bears its own post. This is about a specific government official and his unconstitutional actions against a private citizen in violation of the first amendment.
March 29, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. We either have the right of privacy from the government or not.
March 29, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is a credible reason to look into someone's identity, like the commission of a crime, then the govt can seek a warrant to investigate. A warrant is the only way the govt can intrude on our privacy.
No crime was committed by the blogger. The legislator had sworn to uphold the law and thus to protect the privacy (that's how it's written in Alaska, that the legislature is responsible for protecting privacy). But instead a duly sworn and elected official, on his own, without any charge, without any warrant, did an investigation, found out who she was, and contrary to his oath of office, divulged that!
This is an egregious breach of public trust on the part of the this guy Doogan.
The govt is not supposed to spy on people. That's a no-no. That's why we're upset with bush! Absent a warrant, it's not legal! And to get a warrant you have to show cause. Some crime.
March 29, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that the government does automatic scanning of emails at random without warrants. I am curious what has happened to that policy and why we don't hear about it. They either do it or they don't. People know that it was done under Bush. What has happened since?
March 29, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,2080113,00.htm
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/carnivore_scanner.htm
March 29, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have put your finger on the FISA problem! You have put your finger on an egregious violation of our civil rights by bush&cheneyco! Yes, they have violated the law. They have flouted the very laws we trust to protect us! Yes, that is a similar matter and it affects all of us.
The FISA court was set up so that if the govt had a credible reason for wiretapping or whatever, that court would hear the evidence and made a decision. That is a judicial decision. It is not one a legislator or an executive can do arbitrarily. As happened in Alaska with the blogger. And yes, as has happened in America under the previous administration.
Thanks for bringing up this important issue. While tangential to the current circumstances it is nevertheless pertinent to the overall problems we now face. Especially if nothing is done to punish govt officials who break the law!
March 29, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What no one is commenting on here is that there can be many reasons for being anonymous when blogging -- as Hilzoy pointed out in her post on the subject at Political Animal and ObWi
The fact is that bloggers have gotten death threats for opposing Palin, that she has a history of attacking opponents, and that some of her supporters seem to be close to the edge -- on which side I wopn't say -- of violence.
Or there are personal reasons. (Now none of these apply -- as far as I know -- to AKM -- but, again, Mike Doogan didn't know if they did or not.
She could have an abusive ex-husband. She could have been taking advantage of Alaska's reputation for 'giving people a chance to start over' after youthful indiscretions. She could be supported by in-laws who don't approve of her political opinions, or wouldn't, if they knew them. She could have been a state employee, or have relatives who were, or who had business contacts with the state. She could have had a business she didn't want to put at risk. She could live next door to a meth-head Palin supporter who is a relative of a police official who protects him.
Or she could just want to be left alone and not be asked about every political question when she was wearing her 'mundane hat.'
Whatever, there is enough evidence that he violated state statutes -- and not just a vague 'right to anonymity' which might not fly in an Alaskaqn Court -- that AKM should hope he starts writing better and more successful books to pay the judgment she should be able to win.
March 29, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be interesting to see if the person sues and what happens. It's also interesting to see what doesn't come up when you google these the issue of mass scanning.
I imagine that more than one poster here is reluctant to google the subject and fears that the government is "listening" in. Am I right?
March 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly a person does not have to provide a reason for being anonymous.
Nevertheless, you point out a pertinent problem. Which is that the sitting governor of Alaska is a vindictive and punitive individual, with a history of persecuting those who oppose her. That too is part of the problem here. That the legislator knowingly exposed a blogger to potential persecution by a governor who lacks ethics and morals when it comes wielding power. The legislator retaliated. And the governor may do so as well. And if so, the legislator bears the burden of exposing the blogger to future harm - stemming from the loss of privacy.
But none of us need provide a reason for being anonymous. There are many reasons. But just like other civil rights, they belong to all persons - without reservation.
There are two issues here. One is free speech. (that comes into anonymous free speech). And the other is privacy.
She has been retaliated against for her exercise of free speech. And the retaliation is in the form of denying her the second right - of privacy, a right guaranteed by the Alaska constitution - which delegates the legislature as the body sworn to protect the right to privacy.
March 29, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me folks. I am not only supposed to be enjoying a needed rest from commenting. But I also have a volunteer activity to go to very soon.
This is a hugely important set of issues. They concern all of us. And for that reason, this case is one I will follow closely.
March 29, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Peace be with you my dear TheraP.)
I do not know why everyone persists in maintaining the fiction that our politics is a game played in a decorous, wood paneled library with the contestants sitting in leather arm chairs, sipping a fine cognac and only rarely raising their voices. Karl Rove is not some character in a Tolkien fairy tale.
And what is all this talk of Amendments. Talk to Valerie Plame. Talk to Don Siegelman. Talk to the NSA who by the way would like to talk to you about one of your emails they read last week. Have you stepped beyond the free speech barricade again? Bill of Rights? Talk to the hand.
If any of you think you have anonymity I could dissuade you of that in only a few minutes. It is a proof of the miscreant politician’s dull wittedness that it took him so long to find the lady out.
I am a peaceful man and do not seek conflict but I can recognize conflict when I see it. It is part of being a peaceful man to be sensitive to such things. Politics today is conflict. Ms. X is a soldier, bloodied in the battle. And she fights on my side. I say “Thank you for your service.”
The issues these days are not trivial. The interests of the established order are inequitable and their defenders are not honorable. One must expect casualties, many casualties in this conflict. In fact one must expect everything and anything and still not loose heart. Remember Ms. X and her sacrifice and pledge to be no less courageous.
March 29, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just caught this, my dear Larry. You are right as usual. It is great battle we are engaged in. Any many of us may expect to become casualties in the battle. I was fully prepared in case I had been arrested and jailed by bush&cheneyco. And apropos to your comment, here's what I posted this morning at The Mudflats.
To AK Muckraker:
Indeed, my own fatigue may be how the fallout of this struggle has lately affected me.
Thanks for your words of wisdom.
Namaste, dear Larry.
March 29, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foolish of me to think I could ever be ahead of you. Then again I follow you always, one step behind and to the right, with respect.
As to your fatigue, it is the wise farmer who occasionally leaves a field fallow, acknowledging the mystery of nature’s regenerative power.
March 29, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, it is good to "see" you. Thanks for this very important information, for the way you presented it and for your subsequent comments in the thread. I had no idea something like this could happen, except via the FISA sweeps.
You and those you love will remain in my thoughts. Namaste.
March 29, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to note that most "bloggers" tend to think they have opinions that someone should pay attention to. Some bloggers even make claims to priviledged information. That's where the problems start.
Here is part of the original post from Mudflats on the "outing"; a reference to Mudflats' start in the blogging biz:
" ...But I knew some things about her (Gov. Sarah Palin), and her policies and positions that others might not be able to find out so easily. I decided to write my opinion...."
I think the question should hinge on whether a private citizen claims to "know" things that "others" may not have access to, intimating the access is special and privileged.
This is not a journalist protecting a “source”.
Blogging is not “reporting”, no matter how many Bloggers pretend (or want to pretend) they are reporters.
When a Blogger (as so many of us do) crosses the line from opinion to stating supposed fact based on claims of privileged information, that Blogger has lost any expectation of legal protection of their identity.
IMNSHO, if you claim special access, privilege and expertise not available to the general public, expect to get outed.
April 2, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink