Twitter overrides anonymous troll removal request in free speech case

Does copyright law require anonymous users to remove their masks when First Amendment rights are threatened due to disclosure?

The federal judge answered “no” to this question when he accessed the Twitter request to cancel a call from the strategic consultant Bayside, which sought to reveal the back of the user @CallMeMoneyBags, a report dedicated to the rich of technology, the finances and policy. . In addition to the fact that the user’s activities are fair use, US District Judge Vince Chabria ruled that the user’s first change rights will be violated if the person is identified, possibly in the form of retaliation by a private investment billionaire who he is targeting your tweets. .

“The mystery surrounding Bayside is making a difference,” the statement said. “If the court determines that Baseid has no connection to Brian Shet, a limited disclosure subject to the protective order may be appropriate. But the circumstances of this call are doubtful.

In six Twitter posts of photos published in October 2020, MoneyBags addressed Brian Shet, founder of investment firm Vista Equity Partners. Every post implied that Shet was having an affair.

Just days after the series on Twitter, Basid contacted Twitter claiming he owned the copyright to the photos and demanded that they be removed. Twitter eventually removed the photos, but was asked to provide user-identifying information. Bayside has applied for a subpoena under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows copyright holders to obtain information about the identity of potential infringers. According to Bayside, the DMCA requires ISPs to comply with claims by copyright holders “notwithstanding any other provision of the law”, including a contestant of constitutional protection.

The case drew reports from court friends of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that MoneyBags’ first amendment rights outweighed Bayside’s interest in protecting its copyright. The Copyright Alliance supported Bayside, arguing that copyright holders should be able to identify anonymous users online to protect their work.

Reversing an earlier ruling by a judge that forced Twitter to comply with the subpoena, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Bayside’s interpretation of copyright law was “a matter of grave constitutional concern.” He rejected the company’s argument that it could not consider the user’s first change rights.

“Therefore, the recipient of the DMCA call may decline on the grounds that the call requires disclosure of First Amendment-protected material,” the statement said. “The fact that the DMCA allows a potential victim of copyright infringement to file a lawsuit without filing a lawsuit with the service provider says nothing about whether courts should consider the interests of anonymous reporters in the same way as in other situations.

The judge was careful about the nature of Bayside’s citation. According to court documents, the company wasn’t created until the month that no tweets about Shet were posted on Twitter. Chabria pointed out that Bayside never registered the copyright before registering the photos published by MoneyBags. He also noted that there is no publicly available information about Bayside’s directors, employees, physical location, lineup or goals.

Lawyers representing the company filed a statement saying “Bayside is not and has never been owned or controlled by Brian Shetty.” They noted that Shetty “had no interest in protecting the copyright of the photos”.

But Chabria was amazing. He said it would be upsetting if Basid were controlled by someone in response to tweets associated with or composed by Shet. He was also asked why he wanted Bayside to tag MoneyBags because the photos accompanying his tweets had already been removed.

“The court was left with its own aggravation,” the order reads. “It is not known at this point what he will do after he leaves office.

He told Bayside managing partner Bert Kaufman the hollywood reporter Which, “contrary to Twitter speculation, was not created to raise the issue, but existed before the tweets were published and the photos were stolen.” According to court records, Bayside is a “strategic communications and consulting firm” that “licens photos for commercial use.”

Kaufman added: “This decision confirms the view that the social media giant can also be judge and jury without impunity; Where an anonymous Twitter account that bought bots and followers and stole copyrighted material is entitled to escape the theft even without visiting it. Bayside is disappointed and weighs his options. ”

It’s not hard to imagine how powerful people could set up the DMCA to identify anonymous online users who post content they don’t like. Aaron Mack of the Electronic Frontier Foundation welcomed the decision because he rejected the notion that copyright law requires judicial protection even when constitutional protection is at stake.

“The danger of a reverse ruling would be to prove that the copyright claims were special or different and that regular First Amendment rules don’t apply,” Mackie said. “I would encourage companies and organizations that would willingly use copyright as an excuse to disguise or retaliate against speakers.”