In a ruling yesterday, a three-member panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a website to publish the Social Security numbers of people on a website, The Virginia Watchdog. The site is dedicated to warning the public that various documents are being posted online by government officials that contain this information. In 2008, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law to prohibit individuals from publishing such private information online, even though their own officials do so. The website owner, B.J. Ostergren, filed suit, claiming it was a violation of her First Amendment rights.
So, the question: was the court correct? If so, why? If not, why not?
Inquiring minds want to know š
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
What an interesting case!!
At first, I questioned how the posting of someone else’s SSN could be protected until the First Amendment, but after reading more, I have to agree with Judge Duncan. The whole reason for posting the SSN is to call attention to the fact that the information is already available online, and forcing Ostergren to remove the information would be a major blow to her message, and thus infringe on her right of free speech.
The real question should be, and this is a credit to Ostergren’s work, why is the government posting records with peoples’ SSN on them, especially when the GA has banned the publishing of this information? Shouldn’t the effort be to fix the problem, rather than attack the person calling attention to it?
I’m with Joel.
It is a good ruling and good law. The state was trying to punish someone for publishing what the state itself had already published.
At the same time, I think that, as a form of protest, broadcasting someone else’s personal information and increasing the chance of identity theft as a protest is–er–less defensible.
It’s an old saying that, in civil liberties cases, the defendant is often the worst exhibit.
And I agree with both of you. The problem should be fixed.
I am confused! or stupid!
How is it a good idea to publish someone’s SSN to prove that it is a bad idea to publish someone’s SSN.
There are limits to all the amendments.
Based on this ruling, it is ok for me to yell “FIRE” in a movie theatre to prove it is a bad idea for me to do the same.
So, confused or stupid?
Illegal and stupid are not necessarily the same thing.
The danger of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre is of initiating a panic.
In this case, to beat the comparison to death, the state has already done the yelling by publishing the information. The state is culpable as the prime yeller. For the state simultaneously to yell while attempting to punish someone else for repeating the state’s own yells is legally insupportable, as well as hypocritical.
I think her means of protest is, at best, indiscreet and reckless, but no more indiscreet and reckless as the state’s own actions, but that is independent of the legal issue here, which is whether it is criminal.
I suppose I agree with the ruling, as I tend to be a First-Amendment absolutist, and this is akin to whistleblower protection, but I’m confused. It wasn’t so long ago that the Fourth Circuit ruled that SSNs couldn’t be used on voter registrations. Why are government officials in Virginia doing this?!?!?!?
And you’re clearly paying more attention to the Fourth Circuit advance sheets than I am, Vivian.
Actually, I just saw the article in the newspaper. I don’t even know what “advance sheets” are š¦
Actually, I’m not sure they exist anymore. They were printed copies of judicial opinions, issued in booklet form before being typeset for inclusion in the main volumes of the Federal Reporter.
I’m not sure I buy the “protecting the whistleblower” argument, which would give anyone carte blanche to publish classified material. But, as she was reposting information that the state had already made public, as Frank points out, a differnt standard applies.
This isn’t the first time this has been done. In the early days of the Web (1995 I think), someone bought the entire Oregon DMV file and posted it on the Internet, SSNs, VINs and all, for a week. At the time George Allen was proposing to have Virginia sell its DMV data to private buyers to raise money for the state. That proposal died soon thereafter.
There is very little that the government should be allowed to do but the citizens cannot. It is ridiculous to say the State can run liquor stores, but citizens cannot; that the State can run lotteries, but the citizens cannot; or that the State can post Social Security numbers, but the citizens cannot.