Pennsylvania Ruling Protects Anonymous Online Comments
crn.com
Pennsylvania Ruling Protects Anonymous OnlineComments
By Peter Bochner, CRN
Pittsburgh
1:28 PM EST Wed., Nov. 22, 2000
In a ruling that one group said "extends tremendous
protection" to the creators of anonymous online
comments, a state court judge here said that public
officials and others, including employers, cannot use
frivolous defamation lawsuits to ferret out the identity of
their critics.
The case, Melvin vs. Doe, arose when a state superior
court judge found comments critical of her on a Web site,
then filed a defamation lawsuit seeking disclosure of the
author's name.
A key holding in Wednesday's ruling protects the identity
of an anonymous Internet user until the that person has
had an opportunity to prove that the defamation lawsuit is
without merit. Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. said that, in
this case, "John Does' identity shall be subject to a
protective order," emphasizing that "without anonymity,
[Internet] speakers will be less willing to express
controversial positions because of fears of reprisal."
In a statement Wednesday, the Public Citizen Litigation
Group in Washington, wrote, "If judges in other states
apply a similar standard, under which a plaintiff must meet
a summary judgment standard in order to identify anonymous critics, the result will be to
extend tremendous protection to anonymous Internet speech in most states."
The ruling in Melvin vs. Doe is "the first fully reasoned, publishable decision that I am
aware of," said Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer with Public Citizen. "Other judges will pay it some
heed. It's not perfect, but it's a significant advance over the routine unthinking disclosure
made in previous cases."
It is unlikely the decision will have any immediate impact on the lawsuit filed by Ingram
Micro against a group of people who posted comments on the Yahoo message boards
because that suit was filed in California. However, the Ingram Micro lawsuit is an example of
how a company can inhibit the freedom to post anonymously, particularly among
employees who can be fired for such actions, Levy said.
"People have told me that there is less general discussion on the Yahoo message board
about Ingram Micro [since the lawsuit]," said Levy. "When people know there's a legal
action outstanding, they tend to shut up."
Seen from a broader perspective, the decision is only a small step in the fight for protected
anonymous speech on the Internet, Levy said. "It will take many decisions from trial judges
and appellate courts. That's what common law development is about. There must be lots of
accretions to the structure of the coral reef before you can say what is law."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the defendant in Melvin vs. Doe,
also hailed the ruling as an important step in Internet free speech case law. "Until today,
a[n] employer claiming defamation could get a court to disclose the name of an anonymous
Web author simply by filing a lawsuit," said ACLU National Staff Attorney Ann Beeson,
one of the ACLU attorneys to litigate the case. |
