New Jersey Judge Shields Anonymous Blogger 61
netbuzz brings us an update to a case we discussed earlier this month: "In a widely watched free-speech case, a New Jersey judge has upheld a blogger's right to criticize county officials anonymously. The contention of those officials was that the blogger is actually a former mayor/attorney being sued by the local government for malpractice. This comes less than a month after the Electronic Frontier Foundation began their legal efforts to shield the blogger, claiming that the subpoena for Google to release his identity was 'part of an unrelated and unauthorized campaign to embarrass or otherwise outmaneuver the Defendant.' Score one for the First Amendment."
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First amendment? (Score:3, Informative)
If we go by what's written, the first amendment only limits federal powers and a later amendment (I don't remember those numbers) points out that what the federal govt can't do is left up to the states.
Re:About time the first amendment means something! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:First amendment? (Score:3, Informative)
"At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment] incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
So this should apply to state governments also
Re:First amendment? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
That's the reason for amendment 14:
They tend to ignore this for the second, fourth, and fifth amendments, but the courts tend to apply it to the first with regards to the states.
First amendment does not prevent lawsuits ... (Score:5, Informative)
The first amendment does not prevent lawsuits, it merely allows you to publish. You are still liable for what you publish, the laws regarding defamation, libel, slander, etc still apply. The responsibilities and liabilities that apply to paper and ink should apply to the internet as well. When there is sufficient evidence that such a crime/tort has been committed the court should require an ISP to provide information. The issue in this case is really whether such a crime/tort took place. Criticizing a government official for government actions is very different from those of a private person.
Re:First amendment? (Score:3, Informative)
The SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission [justia.com]:
Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.