MD Appellate Ct. Sets "New Standard" For Anonymous Posting 260
A Maryland court of appeals has set what they are calling a new "standard that should be applied to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation." The court overturned an earlier ruling that would have required NewsZap.com to turn over the names of anonymous posters who posted negative remarks about the cleanliness of a Centreville Dunkin' Donuts. "In a defamation case involving anonymous speakers, the ruling said, courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond. The plaintiff must then hand over the exact statements in question, so the court can decide whether the comments are obviously defamatory. Finally, the ruling says, the court must weigh the anonymous poster's right to free speech against the strength of the defamation case and the necessity of disclosing the poster's identity."
It isn't "a" Maryland court of appeals ... (Score:5, Informative)
... it is "the" Maryland Court of Appeals. In other states it would be known as the state supreme court.
A similar situation is that what other states call the "state house of representatives" in Maryland is called the House of Delegates. (Virginia calls its lower house that also.)
Re:This is really dumb... (Score:5, Informative)
The appeals court disagreed with you in this decision in general.
In this particular case, the plaintiff sued the wrong people and the appeals court ruled that the original judge should not have compelled the NewsZap.com to identify the defendants.
This case involved 5 anonymous users and the plaintiff Brodie. The first 3 users discussed how a historical home sold by Brodie was burned down and demolished by the new owners. One user chastises the new owners and Mr. Brodie. The other two comment and ask for more information without specially posting any negative comments about Mr. Brodie.
In response to these comments, two other users make negative remarks about the cleanliness of the Dunkin' Donuts Mr. Brodie owns. One of the first 3 users comments on this but make no negative remarks.
In the lawsuit, Mr. Brodie however sued only the first 3 and tried to add the other 2 later after the statute of limitations ran out. The appeals court ruled that Mr. Brodie has no real case against the first 3 users as their comments were not libelous in nature. He would have had a case against the other 2 users but did not sue them. Thus Newszap.com should not have been compelled to identify any users.
Re:wow... (Score:5, Informative)
This specific ruling disagrees with you, page 17:
In this case, the court held that 3 of the defendants made no defamatory statements so their identities should not be revealed. The other 2 did make defamatory remarks but were not sued by the plaintiff before the statute of limitations ran out and thus should not identified.
Re:wow... (Score:3, Informative)
Anonymous sources in journalism aren't supposed to be used frequently because they are unreliable. In the rare circumstance where they are appropriate it is the name of the journalist who wrote the article who gives credibility to the statements. A journalist who overuses anonymous statements will rightfully have little credibility.
Re:Anonymous means... REALLY anonymous. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Big Lie (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a lie, that's an opinion. In order to be a lie, a statement must first be a statement of fact.
If, instead, the hamburger shop claimed "[some entity] said we have the best burgers," then they would have to be able to prove it.
Re:What is defamation? (Score:4, Informative)
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice.
Pay for that if you need it.
Truth has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is defamatory, just whether or not it is actionable.
"Bill Clinton is an adulterer." is a defamatory statement; it causes a significant portion of the population to think less of him. It happens to be true, which in the US is a perfect defense to a slander or libel action (In Britain, the falsity is part of the Plaintiff's case, rather than a defense).
hawk, esq.
Re:wow... (Score:3, Informative)
If TFS is correct, the court gets to decide if the statements were obviously defamatory. As an example, if a doughnut shop complained that some anonymous poster said its doughnuts were greasy and its coffee tasted like wet cardboard, I doubt that the court would consider that anything other than expressing an opinion. If, OTOH, the poster claimed that the shop adulterated its coffee with organic fertilizer, they'd probably consider the statements defamatory, and allow the shop to go after the poster.
Kudos to INI (Score:3, Informative)