Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger
AP In a decision hailed by free-speech advocates, the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official.
In a 34-page opinion, the justices said a Superior Court judge should have required Smyrna town councilman Patrick Cahill to make a stronger case that he and his wife, Julia, had been defamed before ordering Comcast Cable Communications to disclose the identities of four anonymous posters to a blog site operated by Independent Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Delaware State News.
In a series of obscenity-laced tirades, the bloggers, among other things, pointed to Cahill’s “obvious mental deterioration,” and made several sexual references about him and his wife, including using the name “Gahill” to suggest that Cahill, who has publicly feuded with Smyrna Mayor Mark Schaeffer, is homosexual.
In June, the lower court judge ruled that the Cahills had established a “good faith basis” for contending that they were victims of defamation and affirmed a previous order for Comcast to disclose the bloggers’ identities.
“Because the trial judge applied a standard insufficiently protective of Doe’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously, we reverse that judgment,” Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote.
Steele described the Internet as a “unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,” and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger’s identity.
“We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,” Steele wrote. “The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all.”
This is an interesting case.
October 6, 2005 - 03:24 PM on October 6th, 2005
Great news!
October 6, 2005 - 03:47 PM on October 6th, 2005
now some of you real good writer’s say something great.:razz:
October 6, 2005 - 06:42 PM on October 6th, 2005
And the ACLU was on the correct side of this case, too!
October 6, 2005 - 10:05 PM on October 6th, 2005
people you don’t get it this was a test case the next one the system will win and put you in prison.
October 6, 2005 - 10:08 PM on October 6th, 2005
And exactly where in the Constitution does it say people have the right to free anonymous speech? Has noone ever heard the phrase rights AND Responsibilities? Just because you have a right to speak your mind does not excuse you from taking responsibility for your actions. This court decision was wrong, but then again what can be expected from a state that continues to elect the plagiarist Joe Biden to the Senate? Now see, I called Joe Biden a plagiarist and in some circles that’s a very bad thing to call someone. In this case, it’s common knowledge so it’s NOT slander. Now if I had started to use expletives to make commentary on other aspects of his life without proof, that would be grounds for a slander complaint and I should be punished for it. Just because you have the ability to say something doesn’t mean you should be allowed to say it and get away with it.
Another way to look at this as being a wrong decision is that under the Constitution, every has the right to face their accusers. These slimy little low lifes slandered this politician and through the magic of electronic anonymity he has no way to face them. They have accused him of actions and he under the Constitution has the right to face them. They are however too cowardly to stand up and take responsibility for their actions.
I once scared a kid out of a chat room. He was making a number of rude obnoxious remarks in a chat room for people over 40 despite being asked to act civilly or leave. I simply responded with a level headed analysis of his writings and said something to the effect of. ” Do your parents realize that if we file a complaint to the ISP about your behavior in here, they’ll lose their email access?” When he asked what did I mean, I simply told him that his wording, and commentary indicated to anyone with any brains that he was in fact a 15 YR old Male and since 15 yr olds can’t open an ISP account, he must be using his parents account. He went into shock and said “How did you know that I’m 15!.” I told him that I could tell a lot of things about him from his use of language. He immediately signed off and never came back.
God knows that if the posters had used racially derogatory or defamatory comments or epithets, the ACLU and the NAACP would’ve been lining up to find the guys’ identities for a discrimination lawsuit. Being politically correct is just another form of censorship. The ability to say something is one thing. The ability to do so without regard to facing any consequences is another. Try yelling “FIRE!” in a theater and see whether you end up in handcuffs if you’re caught. It sounds like these guys slandered this politician and should be held accountable for their actions.
There are people alive today simply because it’s illegal to shoot them. It wouldn’t take much of an attorney to argue the case that a large number of the upper echelon of the Democratic party should be considered domestic enemies of the Constitution and therefore shot by members of the military under their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Think about it. Who has been unconstitutionally filibustering judicial nominees? (The Democrats in the Senate) Who gave money, materiel and technical information on nuclear weapons construction to an enemy foreign power? (North Korea is the country, Bill Clinton is the person) Who sold intercontinental ballistic missile guidance technology to a hostile foreign country in exchange for campaign contributions? (Communist China and Bill Clinton AGAIN) Which party has continuously called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, despite knowing such a withdrawal before victory would be disastrous? (Democrats) And knowing that their actions are increasingly demoralizing the American public despite our continued string of successes? (Democrats)Who set up a barrier between the intelligence and judicial agencies that prevented the passing of intelligence that might have stopped the 9/11 attacks to the law enforcement agencies in charge of preventing terrorism? (Jamie Gorelick, Democrat)
With all of this evidence, why isn’t it okay for people to shoot the perpetrators for their treasonous actions? Actions do speak louder than words. Under the precedence set forth by this ruling, an anonymous assassin could kill the heads of the Democratic party and brag about it online and the ISP couldn’t be forced to release his identity because technically there wouldn’t be any real proof that the person doing the bragging had actually pulled the trigger and therefore his identity would be irrelevant to the actual investigation. Also any evidence obtained after the release of the suspect’s name could arguably be considered inadmissable as it would be considered tainted unless evidence obtained PRIOR to the online bragging would have lead to it anyway.
BTW this should be wonderful news for two teenagers here who were arrested for setting 9 houses on fire after bragging about it in a chat room. Unless the police already had them as suspects, any evidence obtained as a result of the tip about the chatroom, could be declared inadmissable.
October 6, 2005 - 10:29 PM on October 6th, 2005
I recall some guy on a yahoo stock message board made a bunch of unfounded rumors and accusations against a company because he thought he was anonymous…until he was tracked down and forced to recant or face legal action.
I remember back in the BH days a couple of years ago, this site was shut down for a day or so because someone didn’t like not knowing all the personal info on the site owners.
October 7, 2005 - 02:43 PM on October 7th, 2005
October 7, 2005 - 03:28 PM on October 7th, 2005
And in other news, Peejz made his debut in the Gridiron Game with 10 correct football picks, last week.
Thanks for playing Peejz and good luck this week!