Last Tuesday, Twitter, Inc. announced a lawsuit against the United States government, demanding the right to publicly disclose the extent of government surveillance on its user’s accounts. Twitter hopes for government statutes that prohibit the company from stating the extent of government court orders to be struck down as violations of the First Amendment. Other tech companies, including Microsoft, Google and Facebook, have released their own transparency reports with government cooperation. Twitter is expected to win the case, but some question whether the lawsuit is being used as a public relations tactic to make users believe Twitter protects their privacy. Do you believe laws prohibiting public statements about government spying on social media websites are unconstitutional?

Prof. Pito Salas (COSI)

I am not a lawyer and certainly not a constitutional lawyer. I think the way you phrased the question—“Do you believe laws prohibiting public statements about government spying on social media websites are unconstitutional?”—is already biasing and spinning by using the term “government spying on social media websites.” It’s a tricky question, as usual. I would like to know what kind of information the government is seeking from Twitter. Is it focused or is it a dragnet? Is it about the user’s email address, or is it about their GPS location? Is Twitter even collecting information that we don’t even know about that they fear we will find out about? I can say that I don’t believe that every instance of a government demand of secret information from a corporation is inherently unconstitutional. So I am giving you a big “it depends.” Just like a lawyer would, which I am not.

Prof. Pito Salas (COSI) is an associate professor of Computer Science, and teaches COSI 152bj: “Web App Development for Social Networks.”

Joshua Brikman '16

Laws that prohibit public statements related to spying on the part of the government are not only unconstitutional, they are also unenforceable and unwise.  The First Amendment is murky to some? Let me induct some logic to refute this contemporary push for censorship.  If there was no such thing as nasty speech, there would be no need for a law to protect it.  The First Amendment is designed to protect the vilest of the vile, prima facie.  The law is unenforceable because with each passing day comes better privacy technology.  If the Communist Party cannot keep people from using Tor and VPNs in China, then the U.S. federal government certainly cannot either.  For those who care for democracy, nothing is more pernicious than efforts to limit speech—an act which has a detrimental effect on the marketplace of ideas where civilized non-violent human beings solve issues peacefully and without the force of law.  

Joshua Brikman ’16 is the President of Brandeis Libertarians.

David Schwartz '16

There exists a clear dichotomy between national security and freedom of speech. Ever since 9/11, the United States government has used those tragedies as an excuse to intervene on our daily lives and arguably breaching our Fourth Amendment rights. Now the government wants to use national security as a justification for limiting Twitter’s First Amendment rights to free speech. In the end of the day, the government must decide between protecting our freedom and severely limiting it for the purpose of national security. The last thing the United States needs is another McCarthyist movement. I do not pretend to have all the answers for how we can possibly maintain our national security while protecting our constitutional rights. However, I am concerned by the government’s statutes that forbid Twitter from merely releasing statements about the spying program. While protecting our national security, these laws go overboard and illustrate a worrisome lean toward authoritarianism.

David Schwartz ’16 is a co-President of the Real Estate club.

Shikha Chandarana '17
I am not an American citizen and am not very familiar with the First Amendment of the Constitution. As a person that cares about human rights, though, the actions of the National Security Agency may be, in some manner, infringing on them. [sic] NSA surveillance is not limited to citizens of the U.S. but also affects international societies. Surveillance on the actions of innocent citizens violates the human rights of expression and privacy. Privacy is integral to personal identity, liberty and dignity, and every person should have the right to control the information that they want to share and protect. If surveillance needs to be done, a legitimate justification must be provided, and complete transparency should be a critical part of the process. Without transparency, the act of surveillance can be seen as a controlling activity by a government, which takes away from the freedoms of the global population.
Shikha Chandarana ’17 is the co-President of Amnesty International Brandeis Chapter.