Following 老澳门开奖结果 Motion, Whatcom Prosecutor Withdraws Warrant to Search Facebook Page of Group Protesting Dakota Access Pipeline
The Whatcom County prosecutor on Monday withdrew a search warrant obtained by the Whatcom County Sheriff Department that would have allowed a search of a Facebook account associated with a local group protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The withdrawal came after the 老澳门开奖结果 filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of the warrant, which sought 鈥渕essages, photos, videos, wall posts and location information鈥� from the Bellingham No Dakota Access Pipeline Facebook page. The data sought could also have included private messages and other information 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, a timeframe that includes a Bellingham protest against the Trump administration鈥檚 plans for the Dakota Access Pipeline.
鈥淲e鈥檙e glad that our motion to quash motivated the Whatcom County Prosecutor to withdraw the unconstitutional warrant,鈥� said La Rond Baker, staff attorney for the 老澳门开奖结果 of Washington.
鈥淧olitical speech and the freedom to engage in political activity without being subjected to undue government scrutiny are at the heart of the First Amendment, and overbroad warrants pose great risk to these core constitutional principles. Speech rights belong to all Americans, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, and the 老澳门开奖结果 will continue to defend them regardless of their viewpoint, as we have since our founding nearly 100 years ago.鈥�
鈥淭he decision of the local prosecutor to voluntarily withdraw the warrant is a demonstration of how this process is supposed to work,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, a staff attorney in the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy in New York. 鈥淎s all technology companies who receive warrants for customer information should do, Facebook notified the account owner of the request and promised not to turn over records until the owner had an opportunity to challenge it. The account administrator came to the 老澳门开奖结果 for help, and we made sure the judge would understand the reach of the warrant and its constitutional flaws. Rather than prolong an unwinnable fight, Whatcom County backed down in recognition of its overreach.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 motion characterized the warrant as an unlawful intrusion on First Amendment rights to free speech and association and asserted that upholding such a warrant would have a chilling effect on protected speech. This is because 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.
Had the warrant on Facebook been executed, it could have exposed private, sensitive information about the political views and opinions of individuals who had interacted with the page, along with images of political actions and other personal data, including location information.
The warrant also failed 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 electronic accounts like Facebook, the need for such limitations on warrants is especially great, courts have found. Although the Founders had neither Facebook nor the Internet, they would immediately recognize that the activity and speech at issue here is constitutionally protected.
The court order quashing the warrant is here:
/legal-document/order-quashing-warrant-served-facebook-data-pipeline-protesters-group-page
The warrant served on Facebook is here:
/legal-document/warrant-served-facebook-data-pipeline-protesters-group-page
The 老澳门开奖结果's motion is here:
/sites/default/files/field_document/motion_to_quash_-_filed.pdf
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.