Question about the US freedom of speech - a "Redwatch" website case

[Martinus]

I have a question to both to American lawyers and other posters about what the US law on freedom of speech/freedom of expression is, and what it should be, in the context of a criminal case in Poland, involving a running of a Polish "Redwatch" website.

Essentially, the website is dedicated to posting personal data (names, home addresses, car registration numbers, pictures, phone number) of "traitors to the Polish nation" - this includes local leftist politicians, anti-racism campaigners, gay rights activists, or even people deemed to have "impure" heritage - whether Jewish, multi-racial etc or "race traitors" etc. Anyway, most people are not someone you would know from newspaper headlines - they are not recognisable politicians, but mostly private people.

The website does not expressly incite to violence, but the intent is clear: it facilitates violence against such people from some neonazi nuts.

Now, the Polish police have been trying to shut down the website for some time now (the website violates a bunch of Polish laws, including personal data protection etc.) - they caught some of the people running it, but not all - but the server on which the website is based is located in the US and the US authorities have allegedly refused to cooperate in shutting down the website, since it is protected by freedom of speech/expression.

Comments, please?

[grumbler]

I would say that the data you have listed is available in the public domain, and so i cannot see any reason why it would be illegal under US law to post it online.

I don't think that US law would hold that posting such data could be deemed a crime even if a Polish lawyer claimed that the intent of such posting's "intent is clear: it facilitates violence against such people from some neonazi nuts."   The violence would be illegal, and posting of illegally-obtained information which facilitated the violence would be a crime, I think, under the conspiracy laws (though a real lawyer, unlike you and I, might find differently).

Despicable, yes.  Illegal, no.

Alas*, US law seems to protect even despicable legal speech.




*this is irony

[Scipio]

I have a question to both to American lawyers and other posters about what the US law on freedom of speech/freedom of expression is, and what it should be, in the context of a criminal case in Poland, involving a running of a Polish "Redwatch" website.

Essentially, the website is dedicated to posting personal data (names, home addresses, car registration numbers, pictures, phone number) of "traitors to the Polish nation" - this includes local leftist politicians, anti-racism campaigners, gay rights activists, or even people deemed to have "impure" heritage - whether Jewish, multi-racial etc or "race traitors" etc. Anyway, most people are not someone you would know from newspaper headlines - they are not recognisable politicians, but mostly private people.

The website does not expressly incite to violence, but the intent is clear: it facilitates violence against such people from some neonazi nuts.

Now, the Polish police have been trying to shut down the website for some time now (the website violates a bunch of Polish laws, including personal data protection etc.) - they caught some of the people running it, but not all - but the server on which the website is based is located in the US and the US authorities have allegedly refused to cooperate in shutting down the website, since it is protected by freedom of speech/expression.

Comments, please?

A number of very complicated issues come to mind: first, what is the status of these people?  Are they public figures, or are they associated with issues of extraordinary public interest?  Not the same as "are they famous;" rather, are they actively engaged in matters of important public interest?  Finally, the US doesn't have very strong privacy protections for people; it is extraordinarily difficult to get out of publicly accessible databases with regard to to your address and phone number.  Car tags are a matter of public record, adn you generally don't have a privacy interest in your appearance either.  I think that it would be very difficult to get an injunction on this server/website unless you could prove the people responsible for it in the US are using it to incite violence directly.  If the Poles involved were convicted of inciting violence, that owuld probably suffice; but without some sort of overt act it's a clear matter of prior restraint, which is verboten.

[merithyn]

I'm fairly sure there's still a Watch List of abortion doctors, despite the fact that it's been used to find and murder some of them on it. Ergo, it mustn't be illegal.

EDIT: I guess they were required to take it down. http://www.cyberussr.com/adg/hitlist-san/index.html

[Martinus]

Scipio, to answer your questions, I understand this data is not obtained illegally. However, under Polish (and EU) personal data protection rules you cannot keep personal data (even ones publicly available) of people unless you have their implied or express consent, or you are performing duties that require such data to be kept (for example keep a client database) or this is purely for personal reasons. The website in question would not fit any of these scenarios.

Now, as I said these are not famous people but these are people engaged in "public activities". Generally, they would be people of the profile you were when you were running for the judge job - would that count as a "public person" in the US?

Finally, there is no express incitement (no "Go and kill these people" texts) but obviously it states "These are traitors to the Polish nation" etc. So there is at least an indirect intent there (i.e. even if a person does not expressly want these people to come to harm, they are allowing that and facilitating that). It's like the Antivan Crows jobs in Dragon Age.

[Martinus]

I would say that the data you have listed is available in the public domain, and so i cannot see any reason why it would be illegal under US law to post it online.

I don't think that US law would hold that posting such data could be deemed a crime even if a Polish lawyer claimed that the intent of such posting's "intent is clear: it facilitates violence against such people from some neonazi nuts."   The violence would be illegal, and posting of illegally-obtained information which facilitated the violence would be a crime, I think, under the conspiracy laws (though a real lawyer, unlike you and I, might find differently).

Despicable, yes.  Illegal, no.

Alas*, US law seems to protect even despicable legal speech.




*this is irony

Thanks for heaping ad homs on me. I knew I can count on you.

[Neil]

When it comes to the internet, US law trumps EU law.  I'm not a big fan of this sort of cyberstalking, but what can you do?

[Neil]

Thanks for heaping ad homs on me. I knew I can count on you.

You do sort of deserve it.

[grumbler]

Thanks for heaping ad homs on me. I knew I can count on you.

Learn what an ad hom is before accusing others of using one plz kthxbye.

[Ed Anger]

CLEAR TEH AIR

[MadImmortalMan]

Got a link to the site?

[dps]

Scipio, to answer your questions, I understand this data is not obtained illegally.

Well, then the US authorities aren't going to be able to help you as far as any criminal charges go.

There might be a basis for civil suits.  If any of the information is wrong, there might be a defamation suit.  Even then, you'd have to prove that the information is not only false but actually damaged the person's reputation, and a US court isn't likely to find that being revealed to be Jewish or of multiracial heritage is damaging.

If there is anyone who becomes a victim of violence because of the site, they would definately have a basis for a lawsuit, but proving that the site provoked the attack without a specific call for violence would be iffy.

[Lettow77]

'Traitors to the Polish Nation' is a phrase.

Poles are definetely my favourite class of slav.

[Martinus]

Got a link to the site?

www.redwatch.info

[Martinus]

If there is anyone who becomes a victim of violence because of the site, they would definately have a basis for a lawsuit, but proving that the site provoked the attack without a specific call for violence would be iffy.

Some of the people whose data was posted on the website became victims of violence, but as you say proving a direct link is difficult. That's why our law prohibits publishing personal data of people (like home addresses, security numbers, phone numbers) without their consent, period. I fail to see why "speech" like this is protected in the US.