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: Bill Ulrich who wrote (275)	1/24/2002 2:27:52 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1136

Well, lookee here, Arcane Lore, eat your heart out. :))) : One: I guess this is how SI knows about 2TheMart and it lays out the four tests of that case, which sound good to me. :) eff.org ORDER GRANTING J. DOE'S MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO SILICON INVESTOR/INFOSPACE, INC. [Emph., Edit. Add.] PrePaid Legal v. Sturtz et al. Order Granting J. Does Motion to Proceed under Pseudonym and to Quash Subpoena Cindy A. Cohn (SBN 145997) Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, California 94110 Attorney for Third Party J. Does, sometimes known as “skeptic_ill (F/Land of Make Believe)” and “usetabeanassociateandlong” SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC., an Oklahoma corporation, and PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC. OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation. Plaintiffs, vs. GREGG STURTZ, VICTORIA STURTZ, STURTZ AND ASSOCIATES, Inc., a Florida corporation, DAVID HUNTSMAN, DIANE HUNTSMAN, and LIBERTY LEGAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendants. ) NO. CV798295 ORDER GRANTING J. DOE'S MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO SILICON INVESTOR/INFOSPACE, INC. [Proposed] Movant J. Doe is allowed to proceed under a pseudonym for purposes of this motion, so that the litigation process does not itself undermine the privacy interest the movant seeks to vindicate. Does I through XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). The subpoena dated May 31, 2001 served by defendants on Yahoo!, Inc. is quashed to the extent that it would require identification of the persons who posted material on online message boards under pseudonymous user names. Speech on the internet, including the postings on bulletin boards at issue here, enjoys the same high level of protection from governmental interference as does speech in traditional public forums. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). The right to speak anonymously is similarly protected by the First Amendment. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). Where a civil litigant's interest in learning the identity of an anonymous speaker conflicts with the speaker's desire to remain anonymous, the court should allow its subpoena power to be used only sparingly. This case is similar to other contexts where the First Amendment creates a privilege against discovery for anonymous identity information. See e.g., Mark v. Shoen, 48 F.3d a 415-416 (9th Cir. 1995); (reporter's privilege against disclosure of confidential news sources and research materials); Snedigar v. Hodderson, 114 Wn.2d 153, 786 P.2d 781 (1990) (association's privilege against disclosure of membership lists). A subpoena asking an internet company to reveal the identities of persons who use its service to speak anonymously on the internet should be enforced only where the subpoena was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose, the information sought relates to a core claim or defense, the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and adequate information is unavailable from any other source. Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001). In the instant case, the requested information does not meet that test. DATED this ___ day of _________________, 2001. California Superior Court Judge Presented by: ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION By: ______________________________ Cindy A. Cohn Legal Director Attorney for J. Does