SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gab cries foul as Pennsylvania attorney general subpoenas DNS provider
Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro is probing Gab's relationship with its new domain name provider, Epik. A subpoena sent to Epik, dated Wednesday, seeks "any and all documents which are related in any way to Gab." In a statement to Ars, Gab described the investigation as a "baseless, political, and emotionally-driven witch hunt."
[...] Eric Goldman, a legal scholar at Santa Clara University, told us that the law is clear that Gab would not be liable for hosting content from the Pittsburgh shooter. Not only are the posts likely protected by the First Amendment, but a law called Section 230 gives service providers like Gab—not to mention upstream service providers like GoDaddy and Epik—an extra layer of protection against liability for user-submitted content.
So then what is Pennsylvania's attorney general investigating? Shapiro's office hasn't returned emails and a phone call asking about that. But two legal scholars I talked to for this story couldn't think of a legitimate reason for seeking these kinds of documents. "I struggle to see a legit basis for this," said Ken White, a First Amendment attorney and the proprietor of the popular Popehat blog. Seeking information about Gab's DNS provider "doesn't make any sense at all," legal scholar Eric Goldman told us. In another now-deleted tweet, Gab described the subpoena as a form of harassment. Could this be an attempt to punish Epik for doing business with Gab? Goldman described this as plausible and said that this kind of tactic could raise First Amendment issues. [...] Goldman doubted that an attorney general sending out subpoenas would be enough, on its own, to violate the First Amendment. But if it were part of a broader campaign to discourage providers from doing business with Gab, that could raise significant free speech concerns.
Previously: Social Media and the Pittsburgh Shooter: Gab.com Going Down
Gab's Plan To Use Blockchain To Make Itself Indestructible
Gab is Back
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 09 2018, @02:35AM (9 children)
That crossed my mind. Note, however, that the Penna AG has no jurisdiction outside of Pennsylvania. He can't enforce any subpoenas in Washington. You or I can do the same thing. Either of us can mail off subpoenas to - ohhhhhh - Ncommander for instance. Our subpoenas would lack any recognized credentials of course, but we can mail off requests, any time we like. And, Ncommander can use those requests in any manner he likes, including using as toilet paper.
There IS an issue here, in that the AG has an official document, all properly endorsed with cool looking stamps and shit. Personally, I would file and ignore his requests. Or, at most, inform my attorney of the subpoenas, then ignore them.
Epik would have more of a problem if the subpoena were issued by a federal agency.
Bottom line here, it seems, is that the AG has zero freaking hope of finding anything, even if Epik were to cooperate. Gab is in need of an online host because they've been booted from their old host. So, Epik has an application, and a payment on file, and perhaps a couple of more personal emails. Whoop-ti-do - the AG expects to make something of that? This is what Epik DOES, FFS.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday November 09 2018, @02:44AM (4 children)
Maybe the Penn AG expects to find back-and-forth emails detailing Epik's full support for a violent campaign of racial cleansing in the U.S.! After all, their staff is all-white [epik.com]! The CEO's name is Rob MONSTER, and the CFO is Clif BEER (alcoholic?!)!
Or they could just be a privacy-oriented domain name provider showing off their commitment to free speech [epik.com]. But we need an extralegal fishing expedition to make sure.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 09 2018, @05:45AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 09 2018, @05:58AM
It's not natural, it's supernatural! 🎃👻👽
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Friday November 09 2018, @12:29PM (1 child)
Josh Shapiro is Jewish according to votesmart.org so it could be as simple as the very common Jewish hatred of white people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2018, @06:36PM
Ahhh, there's the little chicken fucker racist.
Just to make sure I understood your context I searched, and what did I find? NOTHING! The only use of "white" is with "Ken White" the person.
I guess racism just can't keep itself hidden, shit bags need to share their *very insightful* realizations with the world /s
(Score: 1) by Acabatag on Friday November 09 2018, @02:50AM
There IS an issue here, in that the AG has an official document, all properly endorsed with cool looking stamps and shit. Personally, I would file and ignore his requests.
If the document is cool enough looking, I would sell it on eBay. There have to be tons of people who collect 'official paper' who would pay a hefty amount for it. The money can fund gab.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2018, @03:45AM (1 child)
I wonder about that. Wouldn't you be impersonating an officer of the court (i.e., lawyer) -- that might have consequences attached.
By the same token, is a lawyer who issues subpoenas outside the permissible bounds for such things, also guilty of something?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 09 2018, @04:04AM
If, within the body of the subpoena, I were to represent myself as an officer of any official organization, then yes - I would be liable for impersonating whatever I claimed to be. If, on the other hand, I represented myself as a Sovereign Citizen, then no - there would be no liability.
Your second question - of course he is guilty. The problem is, lawyers and the legal system are going to defend that lawyer's "right" to make those inquiries. Legal people are mostly untouchable, after all.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 09 2018, @11:33PM
I thought we had previously discussed the validity of legal opinions from Runaway. Amicus curiae does not mean what you think it means, Oh one of the crossed mind!