老澳门开奖结果 Challenges Warrant to Search Data of Facebook Page for Group Protesting Dakota Access Pipeline
Warrant Served on Facebook is Overbroad and Violates First and Fourth Amendments, 老澳门开奖结果 Argues in Court Filing
BELLINGHAM, Wash. 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 today filed a motion to quash a warrant issued to police to search a Facebook community page for a broad range of information about a local group engaged in protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline and advocating for environmental justice.
The warrant served on Facebook seeks private, sensitive information about people鈥檚 political views and opinions, images of political actions, and personal information, including locations. A hearing on the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 motion is scheduled for Tuesday morning in Whatcom County Superior Court.
The Bellingham #NODAPL Coalition鈥檚 Facebook page gives information and updates on protests of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline, which is intended to carry North Dakota oil to Illinois.
鈥淭he warrant at issue here is deeply problematic and runs afoul of constitutional protections. Political speech and the freedom to engage in political activity without being subjected to undue government scrutiny are at the heart of the First Amendment,鈥� said La Rond Baker, staff attorney at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Washington. 鈥淔urther, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from performing broad fishing expeditions into private affairs. And seizing information from Facebook accounts simply because they are associated with protests of the government violates these core constitutional principles.鈥�
The Whatcom County Sheriff鈥檚 Department obtained a search warrant seeking not only private information about the NoDAPL group鈥檚 political activity as encapsulated on , but also data related to an unknown number of people who merely interacted with the group via Facebook at some point during the 12 days covered by the warrant 鈥� a timeframe that includes a NoDAPL protest of the Trump administration鈥檚 actions on the pipeline.
鈥淥verbroad warrants such as this one have far-reaching implications,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, an attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淕overnment requests for information protected by the First Amendment must meet a high bar in order to ensure that political speech and advocacy are not chilled. The Constitution gives wide berth to that kind of civic participation, and law enforcement must respect that space in carrying out its activities.鈥�
The First Amendment protects political speech, the right to receive information, and the right to associate with others to engage in political speech and advocacy without government monitoring or interference. When warrants target speech and activity protected by the First Amendment, the motion argues, courts must apply a heightened level of scrutiny in evaluating their legality. The 老澳门开奖结果 challenged the warrant as an unlawful intrusion on all of these rights and asserts that upholding such a warrant would have a chilling effect on protected speech.
The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 motion argued tht the warrant also fails to meet the basic requirement under the Fourth Amendment that warrants be particularized, meaning that they must describe in detail items for which the government has probable cause to search. This requirement ensures government cannot rummage through someone鈥檚 personal effects. Further, when searches involve broad intrusions, such as searches of computers or online accounts like Facebook, the need for such limitations on warrants is especially great, courts have found.
The Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes argue the pipeline threatens drinking water and cultural sites, and a broad-based coalition of opponents, NODAPL, have staged protests across the nation. The 老澳门开奖结果 provided legal observers and supported the protesters in Standing Rock, who were the victims of excessive police force.
The warrant served on Facebook is here:
/legal-document/warrant-served-facebook-data-pipelin...
Today鈥檚 motion is here:
/sites/default/files/field_document/motion_to_quash_...
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.