Google and Twitter Speak Up in Support of the First Amendment Rights of Their Users
Yesterday was a good day for Google and Twitter users. It was a good day for science. And it was a good day for the Internet. Why? Because these two technology companies, along with prominent scientists and a public advocacy group, added their voices to the growing consensus that the constitutional right to speak anonymously on the Internet requires special protection in defamation lawsuits brought against anonymous Internet users.
Here’s the background: PubPeer, LLC operates a website devoted to anonymous post-publication review of scientific research (its founders have explained its mission here). This website is an important forum for scientists to debate the merits of their peers’ work without worrying about retaliation or adverse professional consequences. But its vitality was threatened when a prominent cancer researcher sued a number of PubPeer’s anonymous users for defamation and, in the context of that lawsuit, obtained a subpoena requiring PubPeer to disclose these users’ identities. The lawsuit alleges that these PubPeer users defamed the plaintiff by pointing out anomalies in his research papers. PubPeer, which is represented by the ACLU, filed a motion opposing the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment protects the anonymity of its users unless the plaintiff can make a preliminary showing of merit to his claims. The motion explained why the plaintiff cannot make that showing.
In March 2015, a Michigan trial judge ruled that PubPeer is not required to unmask the commenters, save for one. The Michigan Court of Appeals has agreed to review that question, and yesterday the briefing in that appeal was complete.
And that’s where Google, Twitter, et al. come in. In addition to the briefs filed by the parties, multiple amicus briefs were filed yesterday in support of PubPeer, including: one from Google and Twitter; one from Bruce Alberts, a professor of biology who received the National Medal of Science from President Obama, and Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize–winning scientist; and one from Public Citizen, a consumer–rights advocacy group. Together, these briefs make crystal clear what’s at stake in the plaintiff’s quest to unmask PubPeer’s users: the bedrock constitutional right to speak anonymously; the integrity of scientific discourse; and the vitality of the Internet as the digital marketplace of ideas.
Google and Twitter users should be gratified to know that these companies have spoken up in defense of their users’ First Amendment rights. Their brief argues for robust judicial review of attempts to unmask anonymous speakers, and it explains why communications providers should be able to stick up for their users when they receive unmasking subpoenas. It points out that these companies receive thousands of requests for user information each year, and that unless the companies are permitted to fight these requests in court, their users—who trust them to protect their speech and privacy rights—will often have no ability to resist those who seek to unmask them. And that would be a problem of constitutional magnitude: , anonymous speech is “not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent” that is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment.
The scientists’ brief sheds important light on the role of anonymous peer review in separating reliable scientific results from flawed ones and “marshal[ing] resources toward research springing from the former and not the latter.” This process is crucial, because flawed results can be . And, while pre-publication peer review is an important component of this process, it cannot be the exclusive means of detecting errors because the two or three anonymous peers who review submitted papers typically do not have sufficient resources to unearth all of the flaws that may arise in scientific research. “Robust post-publication discussion of scientific research is thus essential,” as the scientists’ brief puts it, and PubPeer offers an “important model” for fostering such discussion, which would be undermined if defamation plaintiffs could unmask their anonymous peers without first proving that their defamation claims have merit.
Finally, the brief from Public Citizen documents the nearly unanimous consensus in courts around the country that defamation plaintiffs must substantiate their claims with evidence before being permitted to unmask anonymous speakers on the Internet. The Michigan courts have not yet provided the same safeguard, but, as PubPeer argues in its own briefs, this case may provide an opportunity for them to do so.
It is heartening that so many diverse and qualified voices have spoken up in defense of the right to speak anonymously on the Internet. These are voices that can speak authoritatively about the dangers of unmasking subpoenas and the importance of robust safeguards against them, and they carry great weight in the fight to preserve open and vibrant discourse on the Internet.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.