OK, as we all know, if you get a National Security Letter (NSL) from the FBI, you are prohibited about talking about it to pretty much everyone except (possibly) your lawyer.
Well, I was thinking about the intersection of NSLs and the whether Mickey Kaus blows goats.
I know that, for example, if a lawsuit that revolved around whether or not Mickey Kaus provided oral pleasure to Capra aegagrus, and there were a question as to whether on a certain day Mr. Kaus had "blown the whistle" on certain members of the family Bovidae, and I were called to testify as to my observations, I would demand to be subpoened.
The reason that I would demand a subpoena is because if I testify under legal compulsion, I cannot be sued for slander, because my testimony was compelled.
It's an old legal principle that subpoenas indemnify a witness.
So disposing of the questions about Mr. Kaus (spit otr swallow?), my important question is:
If a library or ISP is the target of a subpoena from a civil case to answer the question of whether or not they have received, or complied with, NSLs, does that subpoena indemnify the recipient of the FBI demand?
Basically, would they be indemnified in the same way that one would be in the Kaus suit?