ACLU & EFF Step Up To Tell Court You Don't Get To Expose An Anonymous Tweeter With A Sketchy Copyright Claim

In November, we wrote about a very bizarre case in which someone was using a highly questionable copyright claim to try to identify an anonymous Twitter user with the username @CallMeMoneyBags. The account had made fun of various rich people, including a hedge fund billionaire named Brian Sheth. In some of those tweets, Money Bags posted images that appeared to be standard social media type images of a woman, and the account claimed that she was Sheth's mistress. Some time later, an operation called Bayside Advisory LLC, that has very little other presence in the world, registered the copyright on those images, and sent a DMCA 512(h) subpoena to Twitter, seeking to identify the user.

The obvious suspicion was that Sheth was somehow involved and was seeking to identify his critic, though Bayside's lawyer has fairly strenuously denied Sheth having any involvement.

Either way, Twitter stood up for the user, noting that this seemed to be an abuse of copyright law to identify someone for non-copyright reasons, that the use of the images was almost certainly fair use, and that the 1st Amendment should protect Money Bag's identify from being shared. The judge -- somewhat oddly -- said that the fair use determination couldn't be made with out Money Bags weighing in and ordered Twitter to alert the user. Twitter claims it did its best to do so, but the Money Bags account (which has not tweeted since last October...) did not file anything with the court, leading to a bizarre ruling in which Twitter was ordered to reveal the identify of Money Bags.

We were troubled by all of this, and it appears that so was the ACLU and the EFF, who have teamed up to tell the court it got this very, very wrong. The two organizations have filed a pretty compelling amicus brief saying that you can't use copyright as an end-run around the 1st Amendment's anonymity protections.

The First Amendment protects anonymous speakers from retaliation and other harms by allowing them to separate their identity from the content of their speech to avoid retaliation and other harms. Anonymity is a distinct constitutional right: “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995). It is well-settled that the First Amendment protects anonymity online, as it “facilitates the rich, diverse, and far-ranging exchange of ideas,” Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2001), and ensures that a speaker can use “one of the vehicles for expressing his views that is most likely to result in those views reaching the intended audience.” Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 981. It is also well-settled that litigants who do not like the content of Internet speech by anonymous speakers will often misuse “discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet.” Dendrite Int’l v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. App. Div. 2001).

Thus, although the right to anonymity is not absolute, courts subject discovery requests like the subpoena here to robust First Amendment scrutiny. And in the Ninth Circuit, as the Magistrate implicitly acknowledged, that scrutiny generally follows the Highfields standard when the individual targeted is engaging in free expression. Under Highfields, courts must first determine whether the party seeking the subpoena can demonstrate that its legal claims have merit. Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 975-76. If so, the court must look beyond the content of the speech at issue to ensure that identifying the speaker is necessary and, on balance, outweighs the harm unmasking may cause.

The filing notes that the magistrate judge who ordered the unmasking apparently seemed to skip a few steps:

The Magistrate further confused matters by suggesting that a fair use analysis could be a proxy for the robust two-step First Amendment analysis Highfields requires. Order at 7. This suggestion follows a decision, in In re DMCA Subpoena, 441 F. Supp. 3d at 882, to resolve a similar case purely on fair use grounds, on the theory that Highfields “is not we