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 I thought it had since been repealed.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.

!!

Did anyone else feel the urge to choke the living daylights out of Chuck Schumer this week?  If not, you must have missed the Senate floor speech in which he re-opined the tired line that if only the Saudis would produce “half a million barrels more oil a day, the price [of oil] would come down a very significant amount.” 

Why does this statement make my blood pressure rise and my fingers twitch?

Because the tiny impact area within ANWR – a size ratio equivalent to a dime on a 4 x 8’ table – is projected to produce ONE MILLION barrels a day, every day, if only we would drill.  And because Schumer’s (true) statement that a greater immediate supply would reduce prices falls short of saying what is also true:  that even the ANTICIPATION of a greater FUTURE supply would decrease prices in the Now.

Schumer’s other infuriating comment – that more drilling would “stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil” – also missed the proverbial mark.  Speculators wouldn’t “stop” if the Saudis drilled more, because speculation in free markets never stops.

Instead, speculators (also known as investors, also known as buyers and sellers, also known as people trying to earn money for their families and futures) would anticipate the increased oil supply, begin to sell for less, continue to drop prices as volume increased, and thus reverse the current market trend of charging a per barrel premium for what is currently a too-scarce commodity. 

Perhaps  “speculation” would then stop being a dirty word and be seen as what it really is:  the natural response of the market to the forces of supply and demand.  

For those not convinced that these tenets of ECON 101 are true, please note that we’ve already seen the evidence.  As Larry Kudlow reported the other day on NRO, oil prices dropped $9 per barrel the day after the offshore drilling moratorium was lifted by the president.  This is no coincidence.  It is case-and-point and perfectly illustrates what speculation really IS – not a crime against humanity, but the market doing what markets tend to do:  try to anticipate the future and adjust.

It is maddening that the same people who want to spend billions on economy-choking “climate change” measures that might (MIGHT!) reduce temperatures by one quarter degree over the next one-half century cannot see the wisdom of opening a tiny piece of ANWR in return for a sure thing over the next one to ten years.