MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News
Jun. 18, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

ACLU urges R-J not to reveal those who commented online

By JOAN WHITELY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the Review-Journal to refuse or delay releasing information about any of the people who posted remarks on the newspaper's Web site about a federal criminal trial. Meanwhile, newspaper lawyers are preparing to turn over information on two particular writers.

The newspaper considers it a victory that federal prosecutors narrowed their original, now superseded grand-jury subpoena seeking identities of all people who had posted online in connection with a May 26 article about the tax trial of Robert Kahre and three defendants. The subpoena is essential to protect jurors or prosecutors from threats conveyed in the posts, government lawyers have told David Ezra, the trial judge.

Most Popular Stories
  • 'YOU DON'T BLOW A BUNCH OF CASH IN VEGAS ...': Obama remark reopens wound
  • NORM: Ad's Strip scenes raised eyebrows
  • LAUGHLIN EDGEWATER: Two dead in casino car crash
  • Shutting down the Ritz
  • Shutting down the Ritz
  • Former commander of USS Cole considers run against Reid
  • NORM: $1 million wager on Super Bowl approved
  • Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two
  • Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two
  • IMAGES FROM 1860S: Photos show historic Nevada
  • Fighter battles rare disease that shatters mixed martial arts dream
  • Flood advisory for Las Vegas Valley




    • But the ACLU of Nevada believes the newspaper's compromise -- which R-J counsel negotiated with the U.S. Attorney's Office -- still fails to protect free speech.

    "It will make people think," ACLU counsel Allen Lichtenstein explained, "that if they post negative comments about the government, they stand a chance of being hauled before a grand jury to explain themselves. And that is a chilling effect."

    Calling the decision "unfortunate," Lichtenstein said he hoped the newspaper will hold off turning over the information until after a judge has ruled on the constitutionality of the original, wide-ranging subpoena and its milder replacement. But Review-Journal lawyer Mark Hinueber said Wednesday afternoon it was in the paper's "best interest" not to postpone complying with the revised subpoena.

    The ACLU has questioned the constitutionality in a motion it filed Wednesday to intervene, quash the present subpoena and obtain a protective order that stops the government effort to trace the source of comments, by prohibiting the government from issuing subpoenas to the writers' Internet service providers.

    One of the two online comments calls the jury members "dummies" and says they should be hung if they convict Kahre. The other comment, which the Review-Journal pulled from its site on the grounds that it violated newspaper policy, talked about placing bets on whether a specific federal prosecutor would reach his next birthday.

    Ezra met with Lichtenstein and two newspaper lawyers Wednesday morning to tell them he was recusing himself from the legal action involving the subpoena, which is a separate matter from the trial itself. U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson will hear the ACLU motion, but no hearing date is yet set.

    Lichtenstein drew a distinction between genuine and idle threats.

    "Neither of the two statements are true threats, although they may be hyperbole or in bad taste," he told a reporter after the meeting with Ezra.

    The lawyer said the ACLU worries that if writers of the two suspect comments go before a grand jury, they might be forced to disclose what they know about other people who also posted. In the federal court system, a witness is not allowed to bring in his or her own attorney when testifying before a grand jury.

    The ACLU lawyer also acknowledged that his organization has relationships with two individuals on the defense side in the Kahre case but that doesn't cause, or change, its interest in the subpoena. The organization takes no position on the merits of the case or the trial outcome, he emphasized.

    Defendant Alex Loglia, who recently completed law school at UNLV, served an internship at the local ACLU office in spring. Defense lawyer Lisa Rasmussen is on the board of the ACLU here.

    Ezra, who is "on loan" from Hawaii's federal court district, described himself in an April 15 evidence hearing for the Kahre case as a "real First Amendment advocate" in several cases he handled in that state. He also recently ruled in favor of free speech, by striking down a Las Vegas ordinance the city was using to control who can distribute literature at the Fremont Street Experience, a public space downtown.

    When Ezra learned that Kahre prosecutors had subpoenaed to identify readers posting online, he took time, outside the jurors' presence, to discuss the topic with both sides of attorneys. He called the flood of pro-Kahre comments online an "orchestrated effort to present information that was very negative about the government and very positive about the defense. That's fine." But he said his concern is to keep the jury "pristine," by making sure jurors do not follow news of the trial or the subpoena controversy.

    Christopher Hansen of Pahrump, who also calls himself a First Amendment advocate, told the newspaper he e-mailed about 50 friends, urging them to post pro-Kahre comments on the Review-Journal Web site. He also posted several comments, using various false names, under articles about the trial or the June 7 column about the subpoena by Editor Thomas Mitchell.

    But Wednesday, Hansen added that he has never used his own name to post about Kahre, so some comments which were signed with his name actually came from other writers.

    Some entries cite ways to obscure one's identity while posting online -- such as sending comments from another person's computer, or providing false personal information to access a Web site.

    "FatWhiteMan," for example, seemed to be alluding to the subpoena on June 11, when he or she wrote below the June 7 column, "And yet, some folks wonder why on sites that require registration, that I am a 105-year-old black lesbian living in New Jersey."

    Contact reporter Joan Whitely at jwhitely@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0268.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 39 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    latest wrote on June 21, 2009 12:26 PM: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/48721977.html


    update wrote on June 20, 2009 05:59 PM: http://etfutah.us/forum/showthread.php?tid=14


    Mormons here first wrote on June 20, 2009 03:26 PM: Mormons did not come here in 600 BC. Israelites did. Mormon was not even born until 300 years after Christ visited those American Israelites. There were no Mormons until so-called Christians started calling Latter-day Saints Mormonites.

    To say Mormons came here hundreds of years ago is like saying Germans in 1820 were Nazis. It just shows a lack of study.

    And the real question is: Was the Mountain Meadows Massacre justifiable in light of the history of what happened to Mormons in Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, New York etc. After all these people that were killed were telling the Mormons that they were going to go to California and come back with an army and kill every Mormon in Utah. This was happening while Johnston's army was coming out to wipe out the Mormons from the east. Such loving people those 1850 so called Christians were.

    American Christians just bypassed the Inquisition and went straight to the killing. What is the Golden Rule again and didn't the Mormons just follow the example of the so called Christians of their day.

    Considering what Christian Americans did and do to the Native American Indians and American Blacks maybe you should consider what kind of house you live in before you throw your self-righteousness around. The glass you break could be your own.

    And to you Jews and those that believe God's prophet was Moses, like all of you ten commandments followers. You really have a tough time if you criticize the Mountain Meadows Massacre considering what YOUR prophets have done.

    For example: Num. 31: 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. BABY KILLERS?

    And to you atheists. What does it matter who kills who as long as it benefits the species.


    George wrote on June 19, 2009 02:11 PM: What would be the purpose of releasing the names? What charges could be brought against the messengers? Come on RJ, have some backbone. This isn't Iran.


    if mormons came to america hundreds of years before others,at a narrow neck of land as the book states,then who qualifies as native ? wrote on June 19, 2009 08:45 AM:
    fur trappers and miners and indians traveled and existed at every watering hole along the spanish trail, so taking credit for settling las vegas,which the spanish named years prior and leaving to return to utah to protect the deseret territory,does not make mormons the founders of las vegas nevada, they are passer throughs like others who watered mules cleaned themselves up or assisted hand cart trek ,with the help of maps from those who documented areas long before.

    the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The massacre occurred between September 7 and 11, 1857, when a group of Mormon settlers in southern Utah joined with nearby Indians in killing all but some of the youngest members of a group of non-Mormon emigrants en route to California.


    George Bedway wrote on June 19, 2009 07:41 AM: Just finished reading the article on the Kahre matter. Totally supported my long-held opinion that the ACLU is anything BUT an "American" organization supporting the "liberty" of American people. The ACLU is nothing more than an agenda-driven group supporting only its own agenda, which is yet to be fully explored.


    COME AND GET ME wrote on June 18, 2009 09:53 PM: Mike26:

    Thank You for my history lesson for the day. I love it when people post interesting things and it causes me to do some research. I did not know what Papiere Bitte meant and I should have. I look forward to your posts in the future and will be watching for them.


    Native Nevadan wrote on June 18, 2009 09:39 PM: The first permanent non-native settlers in the Las Vegas Valley were a group of Mormon missionaries who built an adobe fort along Las Vegas Creek in 1855. They successfully farmed the area by diverting water from the creek.


    jon doe gets blamed for this all the time wrote on June 18, 2009 09:24 PM:
    how does jon doe feel ?


    Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on June 18, 2009 08:49 PM: I don't have any problem with the RJ releasing information on anonymous posters that may help law enforcement resolve a crime...and I would like to see the RJ take steps to prevent people from posing as others and posting under other people's names - that is blantantly impersonating another, and it's just wrong to allow that to go on!


    Read All Comments