The scenario:

Defendant has had a bad string of luck lately. Defendant has been vocally critical of Politician. Most of the posts were about policy and character. However, one of the critiques was arguably a solicitation for others to do harm against Politician. Fortunately, for Defendant, the posts were made anonymously under the pseudonym RighteousIndignation. Unfortunately, the government has now subpoenaed the ISP who is able to revealRighteousIndignatio's identity. The subpoena requests: RighteousIndignation's identity to show he made all of the posts. It identifies all posts made under RighteousIndignation, that there is no other way to get this information, that the holder of the username will be notified to have the opportunity to quash the subpoena, and that the information is central to the case. If the government defeats the motion to quash the subpoena, they will issue another subpoena to force Defendant to use both his password and his fingerprints to open devices they wish to search (assume the subpoenas for the devices are valid, but that defendant is fighting giving either his password or his finger prints). Defendant's jurisdiction has not ruled on either the use of fingerprints or passwords known only to the defendant to open devices for law enforcement.

Defendant is a civil service employee who, as it turns out, works in the government office of Politician. Separately, from the above, Defendant liked several Facebook pages of opponents of Politician. Upon learning of this, Politician pressured Defendant's supervisor to fire Defendant.

Politician's office left all of the employees' personal records on an open server which could be accessed by anyone in the world. Defendant's identity has not been stolen, no one has accessed Defendant's accounts, however, Defendant has been very stressed about the information being public and has purchased identity theft protection insurance.

Analyze Defendant's ability to fully or partially quash the subpoenas.

Analyze whether Defendant's termination of employment violates any protections

discussed in this course.

Analyze whether Defendant have standing under Article III for the data breach by

Politician's office?

Politician is suing the websites which hosted Defendant's comments. Assuming, they

are, in fact, defamatory, analyze any defenses the websites may have.

Be sure to utilize the facts and law to justify your conclusions. You are expected to conduct legal research to complete this assignment. You may not make up facts. If you are missing any facts that are important to completing your analysis, please identify those and what impact they would likely have. Identify any assumptions you are making from the facts given.

Put your answer in objective memorandum format with the following headings:

QUESTION/ BRIEF ANSWER / STATEMENT OF FACTS / DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION