Another Occupy Wall Street activist's Twitter account subpoenaed

Discuss

19 Responses to “Another Occupy Wall Street activist's Twitter account subpoenaed”

  1. hassenpfeffer says:

    So, when do “we” start subpoenaing the bankers’ Twitter streams and email accounts?

    • EH says:

      ha ha, they already use the time-tested strategy of prohibiting writing implements in meetings.

    • LinkMan says:

      We the People have been doing that for a long time. 

      Bankers generally aren’t allowed to use twitter.  Their e-mail, IM and even many of their telephone conversations are all carefully archived so investigators can go through it at a later date.  Their employer-issued mobile devices are carefully locked down to make it very hard to use alternative communication services, and they can be fired for using any sort of outside personal device in the office.

      How else would we know that Goldman Sachs’s Timberwolf CDO was a “shitty deal?” 

      (Note, I’m not saying that subpoenaing law abiding protestors’ or journalists’ twitter accounts is acceptable.  Nor that any of the restrictions on bankers are unjustified.  Just that your hyperbole is… well… hyperbole.)

  2. OldBrownSquirrel says:

    This is at least slightly less brain-dead than the Boston-area DA’s subpoena of a hashtag. #idiot

  3. Rhett Holechek says:

    I hope by the time my daughter’s great-grandchildren are old enough to have kids that this system is at least one step closer to being fixed.  I can’t believe that 99% [roughly] of people can’t come together and fix these things.  Do we not basically write the laws based on our beliefs and desires?  –Rant over…for now.

    • pKp says:

      “Do we not basically write the laws based on our beliefs and desires?”

      Well, no we don’t. We pay people out of our taxes to do that, supposedly. And there’s some people who can afford to pay them more.

      • oasisob1 says:

         You need to put the word people in quotes. You know ‘people’ who can afford to pay more… like corporations.

    • Bobbo says:

      It’s all BS!!! We (99%)don’t write any laws

  4. angusm says:

    Hmm, Jeff is a journalist, among other things. Demanding to see the private messages of a journalist sets an even more ominous precedent.

  5. > Who are the other four?

    They were probably #hashtags

  6. t3kna2007 says:

    Police gathering outside locations of Occupy planning meetings without being invited, apparently to intimidate:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-protesters-complain-of-police-monitoring.html

  7. Jeff is a great guy. He’s got a massive community in support of him and his democratic rights. Please respond to this situation by taking action, here: http://tech.nycga.net/2012/03/13/jeff-rae-no-way/

  8. Cowicide says:

    Fishy fishing expedition?

  9. jennybean42 says:

    My lawyer friend tells me the legal reason for subpoena-ing  a Twitter account is to authenticate the tweets  so that they can be used for evidence. Otherwise, it’s just an investigator saying, “Hey, I saw this on the internet…”

    I know that there is a more insidious  side to it as well, but that side of it makes sense from a legal perspective… I think.

  10. opiapr says:

    “Who are the other four? And why?” I believe the way is just to intimidate others. They want to sent a messege that they will persecute and harrast who ever make a stand. Is a shame and it seem the only way the government try to mantain control is trough fear.

  11. wysinwyg says:

     DA’s office better ‘splain themselves if they don’t want a swarm of people dressed as pirates and seventeenth century anarchists protesting outside.

Leave a Reply