Judge dismisses ACLU motion to block subpoena of Review-Journal

Federal prosecutors scored, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada struck out, before Judge Kent Dawson on Tuesday morning. He dismissed the ACLU motion to intervene and quash a subpoena that forced the Las Vegas Review-Journal to turn over identifying information on two of its online readers.

In effect, Dawson decided prosecutors acted within reasonable bounds when they subpoenaed the Las Vegas Review-Journal in June to obtain data on two readers who had posted anti-government comments below an article about the tax evasion trial of business owner Robert Kahre, which has since ended in conviction.

The ACLU had hoped to intervene on behalf of the free-speech rights of four anonymous people who had posted, but Dawson said its effort was "moot," or outdated, because the Kahre trial has since ended.

The government initially subpoenaed data on all people who had posted, but then issued a revised subpoena seeking only two identities. The newspaper fought the first subpoena but complied with the second.

One of the two targeted comments said jury members were "dummies" who "should be hung" if Kahre were convicted. The other wrote that he would wager "Star Trek" currency that a federal prosecutor would not reach his next birthday. Quatloos, the fictional money, also figures in the name of a Web site that discusses tax fraud, from law enforcement's point of view.

Dawson said federal prosecutors needed to be able to identify the writers, to assess whether the online remarks were "true threats" to the jury, the cited prosecutor and the trial process itself. The government did not disclose whether it has identified the writer of either comment.

ACLU lawyer Margaret McLetchie spoke in court after Dawson's ruling to create another record of the organization's position. She said the federal prosecutors over-reached with both subpoenas. Her group believes that the matter is still "live" because Kahre has not yet been sentenced, and he or his co-defendants may still appeal the verdict.

That could generate yet more anti-government rhetoric on the newspaper's site, McLetchie told Dawson. "Would somebody reasonably expect more subpoenas," thus chilling people's freedom to express political opinions, she asked.

After McLetchie's statement, the judge said he has "no problem" adding language to his written order, to specify that "the first subpoena was overbroad."