846 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- This matter concerns a Motion to Intervene and to Quash filed by an anonymous Twitter user (Mr. X) challenging a grand jury subpoena to Twitter, Inc. for identifying information tied to a user name.
- The grand jury subpoena, issued August 5, 2011, seeks "any and all records pertaining to the identity of user name [redacted]."
- Mr. X posted a tweet on August 2, 2011 that prompted the subpoena: 'I want to fuck Michelle Bachmann in the ass with a Vietnam era machete.'
- The Court notes Mr. X’s Twitter page contains crude, offensive content but is addressing First Amendment concerns and anonymity on the Internet.
- The government did not oppose Mr. X’s intervention; the Court grants intervention and denies the motion to quash.
- This is a pre-indictment, preliminary inquiry into whether the tweet constitutes a true threat and whether the speaker’s identity is essential to the grand jury’s assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mr. X may intervene anonymously to challenge the subpoena | X seeks to protect anonymity in asserting First Amendment rights. | Intervention is appropriate where First Amendment rights are implicated and anonymity is rare but permissible here. | Intervention granted; anonymity preserved for X. |
| Whether the subpoena to Twitter for identity information implicates the First Amendment anonymity of Mr. X | Identity should be withheld to protect anonymous political speech. | Government has a compelling interest and nexus to investigate a potential threat to a presidential candidate. | Government has a compelling interest and nexus; identity may be disclosed. |
| Whether the tweet constitutes a true threat justifying disclosure of identity for probable cause | The tweet is not a true threat; no need to reveal identity. | The tweet is a prima facie threat; identity is relevant to determine intent and likelihood of a true threat. | Court finds a prima facie threat; the government may pursue whether it is a true threat. |
| Whether anonymity should foreclose any government investigation into threats against a presidential candidate | Anonymity should shield Mr. X from disclosure to prevent chilling effect on speech. | National interest in protecting the President and presidential candidates permits inquiry and not automatic dismissal on First Amendment grounds. | National security interests justify investigation; disclosure may proceed to inform probable cause; anonymity does not bar inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (public right to evidence balanced against privacy and privilege)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (anonymity as a shield for political speech)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (First Amendment scope on Internet speech)
- Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (political hyperbole not automatically a true threat)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (true threats require intent to place victim in fear of bodily harm)
- United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011) (threats against a president or candidate must be treated seriously)
- United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (objectivity in true threat determinations varies by circuit)