Indiana Court Says Anonymous Commenters Deserve High Standard Before Being Exposed, But Aren't Necessarily Protected By Shield Laws
from the seems-reasonable dept
A few months ago, we wrote about a case in Indiana involving an attempt to unmask an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website who effectively accused someone of embezzlement. There were a few legal questions involved in the case, and the one we had focused on involved the newspaper itself trying to protect that commenter under Indiana Journalism shield laws. At the time, we'd argued that the shield law should probably be limited to cases where the individuals actually were acting as a source... and that basic First Amendment case law could handle the anonymity question outside of the shield law.It looks like the court effectively agreed with just about everything we said. The court rejected the shield law argument, but not in a broad way saying that commenters aren't protected under the shield, but that this comment wasn't really a "source" in any meaningful way, and the newspaper didn't use the comment as the basis for any additional reporting. However, the court pretty clearly suggests that in other cases, commenters could be considered sources and could be protected by shield laws.
However, perhaps more importantly, the court set a relatively high bar for unveiling the anonymous commenter -- adopting the Dendrite rules that give the anonymous person a chance to respond and which require the plaintiff to present a significant amount of evidence that the comments violate the law before any unmasking is ordered. While the Dendrite rule still is not standard, it is spreading, and it's nice to see Indiana adopt it as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymous speech, commenters, dendrite rules, indiana, journalism, shield laws
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But could the comment be fighting words?
I would consider it fighting words if someone called me a embezzler. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But could the comment be fighting words?
Only YOU can stop grammar nazis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But could the comment be fighting words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But could the comment be fighting words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://technipol.tumblr.com/post/2874977984/family-guy-the-right-to-bear-arms
...as suming you weren't referencing this in the first place! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like they have created a two layer system. If the comments are strong enough that someone feels the need to file a lawsuit about it, why should the anonymous person be able to hide behind a higher standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps the comments weren't strong enough.
A better question is, why should it be so damn easy to sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the standard to unmask started above, they hurt my feelings as being the basis for a lawsuit then we'd not need the rules.
But various courts have ruled in various ways creating this amazing patchwork of findings where offending someone with a truthful statement is the basis for a lawsuit. They have no intention of actually winning the case, they just want the name so they can take their own actions against people.
Search TechDirt for "Liskula Cohen".
Random blogger called her a skank, and comedy ensued.
Didn't have to prove there was loss of work, a Judge felt it was defamatory, despite the fact there were next to no visits to the site. Then there was a 3 million lawsuit for hurt feelings, that was on again, off again... and her lawyers statement that he had no idea that this lawsuit might show his client in a bad light.
Thinking someone is a skank is personal opinion, should the merits of this be debated in a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the lawsuit is filed, there should be no reason for the anonymous to be retained. If the lawsuit has no merit, the anonymous can counter sue for harassment and likely win easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I want to know why it's so easy to sue someone who's not anonymous. Why would I have to defend myself in a lawsuit if there's no evidence of illegal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That could easily be fixed without removing the reasonableness of a requirement of proof of wrongdoing. Just extend the protection to everyone regardless of the publicity of their name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reason #1: Because any moron with a lawyer can file a lawsuit for just about any reason, including "He hurt my feelings!".
Reason #2: Because anonymity has been recognized prior to our country's founding and has been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times.
From the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . .anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
Reason #3: Because speech itself is protected by the Constitution. Just because some yahoo with a lawyer claims it to be illegal or unprotected speech doesn't necessarily mean it is. A court of law usually determines that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Additionally in a court of law the prosecution makes its case and then the defense makes its case. So requiring a completely made case isn't this extraordinary burden, it just forces the offended person to be better prepared a bit earlier than usual. Then if the case looks strong, the anonymous person has to give up their anonymity in order to defend themselves or settle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think there is a higher standard. The idea is that before an anonymous commenter is unmasked, a case has to be made that the law was violated. The same case has to be made if the commenter is not anonymous. It's the same standard.
This makes sense to me -- if the speech isn't in violation, then harm will have been done to an innocent party (the anonymous commenter who was unmasked). It seems prudent to ensure that there's a real problem before doing something that can't be undone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]