Government Goes After Critic on Twitter, Remembers Constitution Just in Time
For a few weeks, the government seemed to forget that the Constitution protects the right to speak anonymously. Thankfully, the prospect of a legal challenge from Twitter and the ACLU appears to have jogged its memory.
On March 14, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent Twitter a demand for information that could unmask the user behind the , which is run by an anonymous speaker critical of the government’s immigration policies. Oddly, CBP issued the summons under the , a statute intended only for inquiries related to the trade of merchandise. The government’s demand seems to have been motivated by a desire to stifle the content of the tweets.
The First Amendment prohibits government attempts to unmask a speaker simply because it disagrees with him or her. Constitutional strike one.
And CBP sought not only identifying information about the user — including the account’s login information, phone number, mailing address, and IP address — but also “[a]ll information regarding” the account. Such a request, which could sweep in private direct messages and other sensitive information, violates not just the First but also the Fourth Amendment. Constitutional strike two.
Recognizing the demand for what it was — unlawful and illegitimate government overreach — Twitter filed a lawsuit last week asking the court to nullify the summons and declare it unconstitutional and unenforceable. We and intended to file in the case on the user’s behalf. But less than 24 hours after Twitter filed, CBP buckled and withdrew the summons. As a result, Twitter dismissed the suit and the @ALT_ uscis user is able to continue speaking, free from the specter of government interference.
The ability of @ALT_uscis to tweet anonymously is incredibly important, both to the user and to a free society. Anonymity plays a central — and constitutionally protected — role in the time-honored tradition of advocacy and dissent. Our founding fathers authored the Federalist Papers as “Publius” (and heard from “the Federal Farmer” in response). That means that the drafters of the Constitution themselves relied on pseudonyms to express views on the central political issues of their day. So it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has recognized and that the right to speak freely necessarily includes the right to speak anonymously, which empowers individuals who otherwise might not feel free to speak out against the majority to criticize the government or to mobilize for change.
This free speech right is as important today as ever. The @ALT_uscis user relies on the ability to speak anonymously when sharing public information with the account’s tens of thousands of followers, and when expressing views that are critical of the government. That user isn’t alone — in the aftermath of President Trump’s inauguration, many criticizing various government agencies were created. The government can no more erase them from existence than it can do away with the First Amendment, and its attempt in this case probably didn’t go quite as planned: When word of the suit got out, the number of @ALT_ uscis’ Twitter followers jumped from 32,000 to 192,000 today. Censorship has a way of piquing the public’s interest.
Using a pseudonym enables the user behind @ALT_uscis to speak without fear of personal attacks and harassment, and without having to worry about being targeted for investigation based on the content of the tweets. Now out from under a government summons seeking to unmask the account, the user can fully enjoy that freedom again.
We are thankful that Twitter stood up for the rights of the user and took a strong position in defense of the First Amendment. And we appreciate that the government came to its senses this time. We are also ready to respond should it forget again.
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.