You might think that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the
Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, would be too busy to file baseless
defamation lawsuits against anonymous Twitter accounts. But you’d be wrong.
Last year, Rep. Nunes sued a number of people who were
mean to him online, including the Twitter parody accounts Devin Nunes’ Mom and
Devin Nunes’ Cow. Now, he’s trying to unmask the Cow by subpoenaing the
author’s identity from a local law firm. The ACLU and Public Citizen have filed
a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to block Nunes’ subpoena because
it violates the First Amendment right to anonymous speech.
From Sam Adams to Mark Twain, Americans throughout
history have used pseudonyms to criticize public officials. People adopt
pseudonyms for a number of different reasons, such as protecting privacy and
preventing official retaliation. The Supreme Court has made
clear that “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like
other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a
publication, is an aspect of freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment.”
To protect anonymous speech, courts require defamation
plaintiffs to satisfy a number of criteria before allowing them to use
subpoenas and other discovery tools to unmask anonymous speakers. As
particularly relevant here, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s
statements are plausibly defamatory (i.e., not protected opinion, parody, or
political rhetoric) and produce evidence showing that the defendant’s
statements were actually false. These requirements prevent plaintiffs from
using meritless defamation claims as a vehicle to identify anonymous critics
for purposes of retaliation, while allowing plaintiffs with legitimate claims
to proceed. As we argue in our friend-of-the-court brief, these safeguards are
not just good policy – they’re required by the First Amendment.
Rep. Nunes has utterly failed to satisfy these
constitutional requirements. His defamation claims against the Cow are based on
constitutionally protected statements of opinion and political rhetoric, such
as the contention that Rep. Nunes is a “treasonous cowpoke” whose “boots are
full of manure.” Rep. Nunes may not like these characterizations, but the First
Amendment vigorously protects the right to use creative expressions of contempt
when criticizing government officials. Even if Rep. Nunes had managed to identify
a plausibly defamatory statement in his complaint, his subpoena would still
fail because he has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that the allegedly
defamatory statements about him are false.
Unfortunately, Rep. Nunes’ quest to unmask the Cow is
no laughing matter. If he succeeds, government officials, large corporations,
and other powerful figures will have a readymade playbook for abusing the
judicial process to identify, punish, and silence their critics. Here’s hoping the
court throws cold water on Rep. Nunes’ overheated claims. Maybe then he’ll
finally learn to leave the Cow alone.