Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Gary Dobry Subpoenas 41 SI Aliases -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (182)	1/20/2002 11:37:25 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 1136

Protecting the right to speak anonymously Supreme Court precedent recognizes the right to speak anonymously. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., 119 S. Ct. 636, 645-646 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) A few cases address how to strike the balance between the right to speak anonymously and the interest of a plaintiff in getting redress: Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Melvin v. Doe, aclu.org (Pennsylvania Common Pleas, November 2000); Dendrite v. Doe, citizen.org (N.J. Super. November 2000); In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Securities Litigation (W.D. Wash. 2001), eff.org (temporary until eff.org The best articulation of the balance remains the briefs filed by the ACLU, the EFF, and Public Citizen on this issue. There is a collection of such briefs on Public Citizen's web site, at citizen.org to Speak Anonymously America Online's legal department maintains an archive of decisions on this issue: legal.web.aol.com In arguing under this standard, a variety of common libel defenses are incorporated: Requirement that plaintiff in a case involving a labor dispute prove actual damages: Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966) This is required for all defamation claims by the law of some states: Global Telemedia v. Does, 132 F.Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001) In California, the actor may be subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law. Discussions of publicly-traded corporations concern an issue of public interest. Global Telemedia v. Does, 132 F.Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001) Fact / opinion distinction: Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) Some states have more protective standards on this issue. E.g., Vail v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 72 Ohio St. 3d 279, 281-282, 649 N.E.2d 182 (1995) "Truth is a defense." Actually, the plaintiff has to prove falsity. Most libel cases involving public figures founder on the requirement that the defendant must have spoken with actual malice knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard of probably falsity. But it is hard to avoid identifying the defendant if the Court needs to reach this issue. A claim based on "injurious falsehood" has to meet the constitutional requirements for defamation no matter what the label on the claim.. Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988); Blatty v. NY Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1044-1045 (1986). Good general discussion: Lidsky, Silencing John Doe: Defamation and Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 Duke L.J. 855 (2000) johndoes.org If the complaint is based on some theory other than injurious falsehood, the Dendrite standard for protecting anonymity is equally applicable, but the test is applied through the prism of whatever the substantive elements of that claim may be (for example, breach of contract by employees). Note the discovery concerns here for the operator of a web message board. The hostile target of a message board can keep the host very busy serving subpoenas for the identity of the posters of hostile messages. One host has configured his message board so that each message shows both the Internet Protocol number and the time of posting. Although original reason was simply to encourage posters to be more responsible, one result was that he had no "private" information about posters, and so could not be subpoenaed every time the company was unhappy about a message. NWA Flight Attendants Forum, 216.156.32.93 Taking the other tack, some web hosts go out of their way to limit access to the message board to "insiders." A recent case held that an employer that snooped on a private web site message board could be sued for damages under the wiretap laws and the Railway Labor Act. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 236 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2001), pet. rehearing pending. A web site taking this approach is aercon.org. Take care about promising more anonymity than you can deliver. A poster might well claim that violation breach of such a promise is a breach of contract. Cf. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- citizen.org