IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH DISTRICT
____________________________________________________________________
Nos. 2115 WDA 2000 & 2116 WDA 2000
____________________________________________________________________
JOAN MELVIN,
Appellee,
v.
JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
Appellants.
____________________________________________________________
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
___________________________________________________________
Appeal from Order Dated November 15, 2000
by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Wettick, J.)
Civil Division No. GD99-10264
Of Counsel
Laura A. Heymann Patrick J. Carome
America Online, Inc. Steven M. Dunne
22000 AOL Way Samir Jain
Dulles, Virginia 20166-9323 Todd R. Steggerda
Pa. I.D. # 81028
WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING
2445 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 663-6083
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .............................................. 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................. 4
SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................... 4
ORDER IN QUESTION............................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED............................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................... 6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 8
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................ 9
I. THE PROLIFERATION OF “JOHN DOE” LAWSUITS IN WHICH
PLAINTIFFS SEEK THE IDENTITY OF ANONYMOUS ONLINE
SPEAKERS THREATENS TO CHILL FREE AND PROTECTED
ONLINE SPEECH............................................................................................ 9
II. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS ANONYMOUS SPEECH
OVER THE INTERNET AND REQUIRES A HEIGHTENED
SHOWING BEFORE ANONYMITY MAY BE BREACHED..................... 12
A. Requiring the Disclosure of an Anonymous Speaker’s Identity
Threatens to Infringe on the Well-Established First Amendment
Right to Speak Anonymously ............................................................ 12
B. Because of the First Amendment Interests at Stake, a Party
Asking a Court to Compel Disclosure of the Identity of an
Anonymous Speaker Must Satisfy a Heightened Standard of
Scrutiny ............................................................................................... 15
III. COURTS SHOULD PROTECT ANONYMOUS ONLINE
SPEAKERS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY REQUIRING
PLAINTIFFS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE VIABLE
CLAIMS BEFORE COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY
INFORMATION............................................................................................. 16
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 23
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
1621, Inc. v. Wilson,
402 Pa. 94, 166 A.2d 271 (1961) ............................................................................. 12
ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F.Supp.2d 1029 (D.N.M. 1998),
aff’d, 194 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 14
ACLU v. Miller,
977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997) ......................................................................... 14
ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996),
aff’d, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) ....................................................................................... 14
Bates v. City of Little Rock,
361 U.S. 516 (1960)................................................................................................. 15
Branzburg v. Hayes,
408 U.S. 665 (1975)................................................................................................. 20
Britt v. Superior Court of San Diego County,
574 P.2d 766 (Cal. 1978) ......................................................................................... 16
Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co.,
633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) .................................................................................... 21
Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1 (1976)............................................................................................... 13, 15
Cervantes v. Time, Inc.,
464 F.2d 986 (8th Cir. 1972).................................................................................... 21
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,
185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999)............................................................. 8, 12, 18, 19
Davis v. Glanton,
705 A.2d 879 (Pa. Super. 1997)............................................................................... 20
Dendrite Int'l v. John Does,
No. MRS C-129-00 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Nov. 23, 2000) ...................... 8, 15, 19
Herbert v. Lando,
441 U.S. 153 (1979)................................................................................................. 16
iii
Hynes v. Mayor and Council of the Borough of Oradell,
425 U.S. 610 (1976)................................................................................................. 13
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, Inc.,
Misc. Law No. 40570 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000) ................................................. 2, 8, 15, 18
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n,
514 U.S. 334 (1995)..................................................................................... 12, 13, 15
Melvin v. Doe,
1999 WL 551335 (Va. Cir. Ct. June 24, 1999)...................................................... 3, 6
NAACP v. Alabama,
357 U.S. 449 (1958)...................................................................................... 3, 13, 15
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Midland Daily News,
151 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 1998).............................................................................. 19, 20
New Jersey Citizen Action v. Edison Township,
797 F.2d 1250 (3d Cir. 1986)................................................................................... 15
Rancho Publications v. Superior Court,
68 Cal. App. 4th 1538 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) ............................................................ 20
Reno v. ACLU,
521 U.S. 844 (1997)........................................................................................... 13, 14
Riley v. City of Chester,
612 F.2d 708 (3d Cir. 1979)..................................................................................... 20
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,
467 U.S. 20 (1984)................................................................................................... 16
Southwell v. Southern Poverty Law Center,
949 F. Supp. 1303 (W.D. Mich. 1996) .................................................................... 21
Talley v. State of California,
362 U.S. 60 (1960)................................................................................................... 13
BOOKS, TREATISES AND ARTICLES
Elinor Abreu, EPIC Blasts Yahoo for Identifying Posters,
The Industry Standard, Nov. 10, 1999 ..................................................................... 11
iv
Blake A. Bell, Dealing with the “Cybersmear,”
N.Y.L.J., Apr. 19, 1999............................................................................................ 11
Anne Colden, Sending a Message: Companies Go to Court
To Stop ‘Cyber-Smearers, Denver Post, Jan. 15, 2001............................................ 10
John Eckberg, Internet ‘Free Speech’ Draws Fire, Ire,
Cincinnati Enquirer, Jan. 3, 2001............................................................................. 10
Aaron Elstein, Defending Right to Post Message: ‘CEO Is a Dodo,’
Wall St. J., Sept. 28, 2000 ........................................................................................ 10
Ross Kerber, Raytheon Had Revealed “Secrets,”
Boston Globe, Apr. 9, 1999 ..................................................................................... 11
Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Silencing John Doe: Defamation &
Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 Duke L.J. 855 (Feb. 2000) ............................ 9, 12, 14
Greg Miller, “John Doe” Suits Threaten Internet Users’ Anonymity,
L.A. Times, June 14, 1999 ...................................................................................... 11
John Snell, Online Anonymity on Internet Message Boards Crumbles
Before Subpoenas, The Oregonian, Oct. 30, 2000..................................................... 11
Mark Thompson, On the Net, In the Dark,
California Law Week (Nov. 8, 1999)....................................................................... 10 |
