UPDATE: Twitter Subpoena Won't Be Pursued by Pa. AG

Image via Wikipedia

Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. and GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett has abandoned Grand Jury subpoenas of microblogger Twitter to learn the identities of tweeters @CasablancaPA and @bfbarbie, according to www.Wired.com.

Corbett's office went after the pseudonymous tweeters who criticized the AG's handling of the on-going "Bonusgate" public official corruption cases (see "TUOL" post 5/20/10).  A Corbett spokesperson claimed the AG sought to link the anonymous posts to "Bonusgate" defendant Brett Cott, before Dauphin County Judge Richard Lewis sentenced Cott for his role in the scandal in hopes that it would lead to a harsher jail term.  Cott received a maximum five-year  jail term last Friday that Judge Lewis said was in no way influenced by any purported online criticism of the "Bonusgate" prosecution.

Public Citizen and the ACLU of Pa. were defending the anonymous tweeters against the subpoenas. Critics accused the AG of engaging in a "fishing expedition," the effects of which would stifle political speech rights.

Pa. AG Subpoenas Twitter to ID Two Subscribers

Image via Wikipedia

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. and Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett has subpoenaed Twitter for information concerning subscribers @bfbarbie and @CasablancaPA, whose tweets have attacked Corbett's oversight of the "Bonusgate" legislative corruption cases.

Twitter has yet to respond to the subpoenas, which were issued May 6 and posted this week on casablancapa.blogspot.com. The Pa. ACLU chapter is assisting CasablancaPA in its defense.

"Bonusgate" refers to 25 former and current state lawmakers accused of using taxpayer money for campaign purposes.  The Tweeters under fire allege that Corbett is wielding his prosecutorial power to stifle political opponents.

It is expected that the anonymous Twitter accounts will move to quash the subpoenas, leaving it up to a judge to balance the Tweeters' First Amendment interests against the prosecutor's purported justification for requiring the identifying information.