On Saturday, April 21, 2001, at 03:56 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: >> Tim: >> > It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed >> > in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be >> > subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who >> > may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing >> > subpoenaed material in a criminal or civil trial! > > I'm a bit confused by Tim's use of the nym John Doe, > since in cases like that, the John Doe isn't the sysop, > John Doe is/are the unknown-to-the-court person or persons > who made the allegedly libelous comments, > and the court is or is not deciding whether to force the > known sysop to reveal the names of the Does. I was writing rapidly. Yes, you are probably right that "John Doe" should be the target of the subpoena. Call the ISP something else, e.g., "Izzie the ISP." Fact is, Izzie cannot assert either First or Fifth Amendment "rights" on behalf on John Doe. Izzie _can_ assert his own Fourth Amendment rights, for his files. But not for files because they reference John Doe. This is of course the general problem anytime another party holds valuable information. (Excepting the well-known "special rules apply" cases of lawyers, priests, and shrinks.) If the courts order Izzie to reveal what he knows, he can only assert his own rights. I'm not _happy_ with this, but I see the logic of it. And the solution is for John Doe to protect his privacy through technological means. This in itself cannot be _a priori_ illegal, per the First. --Tim May
