E!!

Newspapers with online versions and newsblogs everywhere take note:

If the U.S. attorney doesn’t like what commenters say on your site, you may be served with a subpoena demanding their personal information.  Even if no crime has been indicated or committed in those comments.

So it is at the Las Vegas Review Journal, which has received a demand for all records related to recent commenter postings, including “full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers … the IP address”.

The comments were posted on this op-ed about an ongoing federal tax evasion trial. The defendant, Las Vegas resident Robert Kahre, is accused of tax fraud for paying people in U.S. minted gold and silver coins based on their precious metal value but using their face value for tax purposes (which is many times less).

As you will see if you scan them, the comments – about 100 of them - fall on various points on the Sane and Nutty graphs, per usual with these kinds of things.  Nothing terribly surprising or disturbing in any of them.

Here’s what Thomas Mitchell, editor at the LVRJ, is saying:

My first instinct is to fight the subpoena tooth and nail. After all, John Peter Zenger was just the printer who published anonymous essays critical of the colonial governor. His jury nullified the existing law and freed him.

On the other hand, if someone were to confess to a real and specific crime on our Web site, I’d give him up at the drop of a hat.

Bottom line: We could fight the federal subpoena, at considerable expense, and lose. Our attorneys are now trying to see if we can limit the scope of the information sought.

What the prosecutors don’t appear to understand is that we don’t have most of what they are seeking. We don’t require registration. A person could use a fictitious name and e-mail address, and most do. We have no addresses or phone numbers.

To add prior restraint to the chilling effect of the sweeping subpoena, we were warned: “You have no obligation of secrecy concerning this subpoena; however, any such disclosure could obstruct and impede an ongoing criminal investigation. …”

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson could have been subpoenaed when he wrote from Paris in 1787:  “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The Sedition Act wasn’t passed until 12 years later. I thought it had since been repealed.

Heh!

Update: The LVRJ is fighting the subpoena.  And the ACLU has posted a message asking commenters if they would like free representation.  See here.  (Thanks to SinCityXtreme for sending the head’s up and link.)

Also, there are now 173 comments on the story.

One of my favorites at NRO, Andy McCarthy, finds a unique angle on a much discussed issue.  He explains why many of Sotomayor’s statements would disqualify her from serving on the average jury.  The opening clip:

In every trial – every single trial – judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively – without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused “for cause” – the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or “peremptory”) jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.

And the conclusion:

 Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to “transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law”; and that there are “basic differences” in the way people “of color” exercise ”logic and reasoning.” If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?

Opposing viewpoints and criticisms are welcome, but nasty remarks will be deleted.  State your comment or case with some civility – preferably citing facts and examples - or be silent. 

(And if you can’t be intelligent, at least be funny.)

Here’s her speech.  And here’s some video from an interview with Newsweek earlier this year.  And nice, detailed piece on her from the Anchorage Daily news from 2006.

And then there’s this cute/funny tribute by my friend @ PragmaticallyPolitical:  10 Things I Love About Sarah Palin

PS  The graceless statement put out by the Obama camp re: Palin this morning was uncalled for.  McCain went out of his way to congratulate Obama on a historic nomination last night; Obama should have done the same for Palin.  But he didn’t.  And so Mr. Self-Proclaimed Non-Partisan shows us just how little class he really has.  

My Inbox is full of joyous emails from Nevada conservatives.  Here’s what they’re so darn happy about:

GOOD-BYE TO YOU:  Everyone is just delighted that incumbent Republican Assemblywoman Francis Allen - who refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and also embarrassed herself and her supporters by recently stabbing her husband in a drunken rage - lost to Republican challenger Richard McArthur (who not only signed the Pledge but campaigned on it).  McArthur stomped Allen by a 2-1 margin.

BOB “LITE” BEERS IS OFF THE SHELF:  Mr. Beers reluctantly signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge after he was elected in 2006 – and then immediately broke it during the 2007 legislative session.  Beers lost by a 2-1 margin to Republican Jonathan Ozark (who signed the Pledge).

JUST MARVELLOUS:  Another victory worth noting is that of former Republican Assemblyman Don Gustavson who defeated incumbent Republican Assemblyman John Marvel.  Marvel also broke HIS Tax Pledge by flip-flopping and voting for the gigantic tax hike in 2003.

Everyone’s glad that three Pretend Republicans have been replaced (subject to general election wins) by fiscally conservative Republicans.

SQUEAKER:  In the State Senate, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio pulled out a close one over Republican challenger and former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.  Despite 30 years of service to his district, his strong leadership position, and outspending his opponent by more than 10-1, Raggio only won by around 500 votes.  (“whew!”)

CHAOS AVERTED:  In a closely-watched county commission race, GOP leaders dodged a proverbial bullet when former Clark County Chairman Brian Scroggins beat longtime Commissioner Bruce Woodbury…whose name was still on the ballot despite being ruled ineligible by the state’s new term limits law.  Had Woodbury won, debates would have raged over who would replace Woodbury on the general election ballot.  Now the party can just unite behind Scroggins.

KIDS AND PARENTS - VICTORY #1:  Many of you may know that the Nevada State Board of Education voted last December to slap a moratorium on the approval of any new charter schools, despite Very long waiting lists.  Under pressure, the Board lifted its moratorium at their meeting last weekend. 

#2:  Four of the nine Board members who voted against charter schools opted not to even seek re-election – including Harry Reid’s daughter-in-law, Cindy Reid.  And then yesterday Board member Barbara Myers lost to challenger Dave Cook in a three-way primary fight.  The two will meet again in November with Myers the likely loser.  Which means the Board could end up with six new members who, hopefully, won’t be as anti-school choice and anti-education as the last one. 

Does all this bode well for Conservatives in November?  Perhaps.  For today, we’ll enjoy the Victory – and continue to Hope. 

Literary ref from header:  “And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’ He chortled in his joy. …”