Free Speech Free for All

An interesting read from the New York Times has been published revealing the government's ongoing battle to silence dissenting voices. The Department of Homeland Security has sent a summons to Twitter to gain the account information for user @ALT_USCIS. This account, like many others, was created in the aftermath of Trump's inauguration to voice dissent from the current administration and claiming to come from one or more people currently within the Citizenship and Immigration Services office within the Department of Homeland Security. Whether this action is localized to the Department of Homeland Security trying to unmask a "rogue" agent or if the President is pulling the strings is unclear. The one thing that is clear is that this summons MUST be stopped. Twitter has filed suit and the ACLU has stepped up to defend the anonymous account holder. We stand on a razor's edge and can only hope the courts will deny the summons, defending the 1st amendment and protecting free speech for all.

If you're asking yourself "why is this such a big deal?" I'll tell you.

This may just be one account representing one or possibly a small group of individuals but if their voice is silenced it will reverberate across all of us who have ever dissented, from my blog in an obscure corner of the internet straight up to the New York Times itself. Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of our nation and the legal precedent of this one summons being allowed to stand will open the door for more such actions.

As a citizen it is my right to voice my opinion of the government. It is also my right to complain about my employer if I choose to do so. This right to speak my mind do not end with my physical voice but extends to my online voice through social media. For @ALT_USCIS these two realms are combined but that does not necessarily limit their voice either physically or online. They have chosen to speak anonymously to protect themselves from repercussions and clearly this was the right move as the summons shows that the DHS wishes to act against them.

Now let's take a moment to compare this anonymous Twitter account to a journalist publishing information from a confidential source. Journalists are, except in extremely rare cases, protected from revealing their sources to ensure journalistic integrity. In this case Twitter is the journalist and the account holder is their source. Unless the source is making statements that suggest they are an imminent threat to themselves or others or if they reveal confidential information that compromises national security their right to free speech should be preserved. If it is not, then this opens the door for the government to meddle in our free media and manipulate the free exchange of ideas.