Re: 12/15/00 - JOAN MELVIN, Appellee, v.JOHN DOE, ET AL., Appellants.; BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
AOL stresses its commitment to maintain the anonymity of its users...
=====
JOAN MELVIN,
Appellee,
v.
JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
Appellants.
____________________________________________________________
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
[edit]
In general, AOL can, through its customer records, connect a particular screen name of an AOL user with the identity information that was provided to AOL during the registration process for the account associated with that screen name. However, in order to protect the privacy and free speech interests of its subscribers, AOL has adopted and published a Privacy Policy under which AOL generally will not disclose such identity information in the absence of proper legal process, such as a valid subpoena. Due in part to its large user population, AOL receives a tremendous number of such subpoenas on a regular basis. In the year 2000, for example, AOL received approximately 475 civil subpoenas, the vast majority of which sought identity information about an AOL subscriber with a particular screen name. In other words, AOL was subpoenaed to reveal such identity information on average more than once every day.
AOL therefore has a strong interest in the establishment of appropriate legal standards for the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas that seek identity information about anonymous online speakers. AOL’s interests are focused in three areas:
· AOL greatly values the privacy and free speech interests of its subscribers and is committed to protecting those interests. As noted above, AOL has adopted a Privacy Policy providing that it will not release identity information in the absence of valid legal process. Unlawful issuance or enforcement of a subpoena therefore would disrupt the commercial understanding between AOL and its members and may lead to a loss of present and future business. See In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, Inc., Misc. Law No. 40570, 2000 WL 1210372 at *5 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000) (“It can not be seriously questioned that those who utilize the ‘chat rooms’ and ‘message boards’ of AOL do so with an expectation that the anonymity of their postings and communications generally will be protected. If AOL did not uphold the confidentiality of its subscribers . . . one could reasonably predict that AOL subscribers would look to AOL’s competitors for anonymity. As such, the subpoena duces tecum [seeking the identity of an AOL subscriber] potentially could have an oppressive effect on AOL.”) (attached hereto as Attachment B). [2]
· Having to monitor and respond to such a large volume of subpoenas imposes a tremendous resource burden on AOL both in terms of costs and personnel. Thus, AOL has a great interest in ensuring that subpoenas and related legal processes are not abused and are instead issued and enforced only in connection with legally redressable injuries.
· AOL obviously would like to encourage the continued growth and development of the Internet and other online fora. AOL strongly believes that the ability of users to speak and interact on a pseudonymous and anonymous basis increases the diversity and value of online discourse and debate. Accordingly, AOL has an interest in ensuring that such speech is not chilled — and that the growth of the online medium is not stunted — by potential abuse of legal processes to compel disclosure of the identities of anonymous online speakers.
In addition to its interests in the general issue of the appropriate legal standards for compelled disclosure of the identities of online speakers, AOL has a particular interest in this specific proceeding. As set forth below in the Statement of the Case, Plaintiff Melvin initially filed her defamation action against a John Doe defendant in the Loudoun County Circuit Court in Virginia. Melvin subsequently caused the court to issue a subpoena directing AOL to provide identity information concerning the Doe defendant. The Doe defendant, appearing anonymously through counsel, successfully moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction in the Virginia court. See Melvin v. Doe, 1999 WL 551335 (Va. Cir. Ct. June 24, 1999). Accordingly, AOL was not required to respond to the subpoena at that time. Melvin subsequently filed this lawsuit in Pennsylvania against multiple Doe defendants and once again issued a subpoena to AOL seeking the names of those defendants. The outcome of this appeal will determine whether the identities of the Doe defendants must be revealed. In view of these interests, AOL wishes to participate in this matter as amicus curiae pursuant to Rule 531 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[2] See generally NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 459-60 (1958) (recognizing a legally
cognizable interest in an association protecting the privacy of its membership due to “[t]he
reasonable likelihood that the Association itself through diminished financial support and
membership may be adversely affected if production [of identity information] is compelled”).
aclu.org
(Note: The entire brief is 29 pages and requires a PDF file viewer) |
