EFF Files Amicus Brief In State Supreme Court Appeal Of Case Threatening Anonymous Speech
from the should-be-protecting-all-speech,-not-just-the-stuff-you-like dept
The EFF has filed an amicus brief in a case involving a business suing anonymous reviewers for defamation. In 2013, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning took seven anonymous Yelp reviewers to court over allegedly defamatory reviews. It asked the court to unmask the people behind the reviews, claiming that they weren't customers and therefore, their reviews were false and defamatory per se. Yelp, the host of the contested reviews, refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that it didn't meet the constitutional requirements needed to override First Amendment protections.
Unfortunately, the state of Virginia has a much lower bar for plaintiffs to hurdle in unmasking anonymous commenters and reviewers. The Dendrite rules, which have been applied in a number of states, weren't used in this case. Instead of having to prove that these reviewers had definitely broken the law, all Hadeed had to do was show the court that it had a "good faith basis" for believing the reviews were defamatory. Hadeed never contested the content of the reviews, but rather relied on the assumption that these reviews weren't posted by actual customers and, almost solely because of this, were actionable.
The EFF notes in that the lower court decisions took this low bar and went even lower, threatening to make Virginia a very dangerous place for anonymous speech, especially if it continues to place its state laws above the First Amendment.
Hadeed alleged that the reviewers aren't actually customers, but the lower courts didn't require it to provide proof. Nor did Hadeed show how the reviews were defamatory. Whether or not what Hadeed claimed was enough under Virginia law, the First Amendment requires significantly more evidence of defamation.The brief itself points out that stripping away the protection of anonymity will just encourage further bad behavior from a variety of bad actors, who will be able to use subpoenas to expose their critics and subject them to further harassment.
Amicus EFF has witnessed these tactics at work firsthand. By bringing an ultimately frivolous lawsuit, litigants often seek to unmask anonymous speakers in order to humiliate them or discourage their speech. Thankfully, most courts have been aware of the harm that would flow from allowing such baseless subpoenas to issue without first considering the justification for unmasking these individuals…The brief also argues that while anonymity is not guaranteed and can be removed under certain circumstances, the plaintiff's arguments haven't met these requirements.
The use of harassing subpoenas is also a favorite tactic in online copyright infringement litigation. In a typical case, the owners of adult movies file mass lawsuits based on single counts of copyright infringement stemming from the downloading of a pornographic film, and improperly lump hundreds of defendants together regardless of where their Internet Protocol addresses indicate they live. The motivation behind these cases appears to be to leverage the risk of embarrassment associated with pornography, as well as the accompanying costs of litigation, to wield as a sword to coerce settlement payments of several thousand dollars from each of these individuals…
All parties to this dispute agree that the constitutional privilege to remain anonymous is not absolute. Plaintiffs may properly seek information necessary to pursue reasonable and meritorious litigation. As the Court of Appeals put it, “if the reviews are unlawful in that they are defamatory, then the John Does’ veil of anonymity may be pierced, provided certain procedural safeguards are met.” (“Certain classes of speech, including defamatory and libelous speech, are entitled to no constitutional protection.”).And if all of that fails to resonate, the EFF says there's also some jurisdictional questions with further First Amendment implications. Yelp's headquarters are in California and Hadeed should be filing its subpoenas there. Of course, the higher standard in California most likely means they would be rejected. But if the lower court's decision holds, people and companies looking to unmask anonymous commenters and reviewers will be making libel tourism stops in Virginia.
Rather, the dispute is as to the proper standard to apply in deciding whether to uphold the reviewers’ anonymity. The Court of Appeals rejected the guidance of numerous other state courts, including the leading case of Dendrite, and instead held that Virginia Code § 8.01-407.1 provides the sole standard for Virginia courts faced with unmasking anonymous speakers. This conclusion should be reversed because this interpretation of § 8.01-407.1 fails to meet the minimum standards of the First Amendment.
The lower court’s departure from standard practice means that Yelp is now subject to Virginia’s subpoena standards, rather than California’s. Under the rule that the lower court has adopted, Virginia’s subpoena jurisprudence can apply across the country. An enterprising plaintiff could file subpoenas in Virginia, knowing that Virginia has adopted a more lenient standard than its fellow courts. Non-parties would have to fight their requests in Virginia courts rather than the courts where the documents were stored, at additional and considerable expense. This is particularly problematic where, as here, the subpoena requests implicate First Amendment interests, which states are obligated to uphold on behalf of their citizens…While there are many people who argue that online anonymity is just a way for people to say whatever they like without consequence, there's much more to it than insults, trolling and 4chan. The protections of anonymous speech date back to the founding principles of this country, predating the internet's rise as the simultaneous best/worst thing to happen to the world.
Online anonymity needs more protection than the state of Virginia is willing to afford it. The lower court set the bar for unmasking at toe-stubbing level and, if the state Supreme Court upholds it, will make Virginia the new home for the "tyranny of the majority." Hopefully, the state's top court will realize that it's also protecting the rights of American citizens, not just local businesses whose approach to criticism is to start filing lawsuits.
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: anonymity, dendrite rules, free speech, reviews, virginia
Companies: eff, hadeed carpet cleaning, yelp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The best thing that may happen here is that Virginia's standards on defamation may be ruled unconstitutional. Which might not be a bad thing considering the circumstances of this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, Dear EFF,
Do you really think it is appropriate to write marketing materials for a state that is trying to grow it's burgeoning litigation/incarceration/fine business?
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen #3,485,722,263
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do they know the reviewer(s) is/are not their client(s) when they do not know who the reviewer(s) are?
They did not state why the reviews are not true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VA Case Law
p 16 - The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is “an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” ... By prohibiting false routing information in the dissemination of e-mails, Code § 18.2-152.3:1 infringes on that protected right. The Supreme Court has characterized regulations prohibiting such anonymous speech as “a direct regulation of the content of speech.”...
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the circuit court properly had jurisdiction over Jaynes. We also hold that Jaynes has standing to raise a First Amendment overbreadth claim as to Code § 18.2-152.3:1. That statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacate Jaynes’ convictions of violations of Code § 18.2-152.3:1.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-407.1
§ 8.01-328.1. When personal jurisdiction over person may be exercised.
A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:
...3. Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth;
§ 8.01-407.1. Identity of persons communicating anonymously over the Internet.
A. In civil proceedings where it is alleged that an anonymous individual has engaged in Internet communications that are tortious, any subpoena seeking information...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love EFF
By bringing an ultimately frivolous lawsuit, litigants often seek to unmask anonymous speakers in order to humiliate them or discourage their speech.
This isn't the goal at all. It's not about discouraging their protected speech, it's about dealing with those who seek to harm or destroy a business through fake or intentionally dishonest "reviews". Nobody wants to take away their free speech rights, they only want to make them responsible for when their speech is intentionally harmful, hateful, or outright lies.
Put in real world terms, if someone wandered around town posting up notices about a business that were completely false (this restaurant serves dog food and hairballs, example) at some point their "campaign" would be actionable in the courts. If sticking "on the internet" on the end of those actions somehow makes it more protected, then the laws that make it so are a failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love EFF
There is a process. First you identify the defamatory speech. Then, when that has been considered, you look for identifying persons in that courts jurisdiction. These guys did it backwards, and never identified the offending speech. These guys took the Prenda route.
The EFF article has some more detail, that your comment shows you seriously need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love EFF
I read what was posted here (but didn't read the entire brief, I have a life). I understand the implications, but at the same time, I have a problem with the results.
First you identify the defamatory speech. Then, when that has been considered, you look for identifying persons in that courts jurisdiction.
How exactly do you propose to do that? You make it sound like a dawdle, but it's not easy to do here. Part of the claim in this case is that the reviews are malicious because they are not real, and are intended to cause harm by misinformation. The way to show that this is the case is to show that the writer was not or is not a client.
Remember, the speech itself doesn't have to be overtly offensive on the surface to be malicious lies. I could review a restaurant I have never been to by saying that the food was cold, that there was a hair in my soup, and that the waiter told me to suck eggs when I pointed it out. On the surface, it would appear to be a legitimate review had those events actually happened. As a made up review it is intended to cause harm to the reputation of the establishment and it's staff. Identifying it as defamatory speech can only happen when you show the source.
EFF appears to want to allow different standards "on the internet" from real life. That seems a little unfair.
As I said, the point isn't to "humiliate them and discourage their speech" it's to stop negative shilling in it's tracks and to make others think twice before embarking on such a campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
Any light starting to shine in your very dim world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
The posts would be defamatory if they were posted falsely. Hadeed's claim is that they are not true, and represent the views of people who were not customers. The lower courts in the state didn't require any proof of this assertion, only the statement by the plaintiff.
EFF is essentially trying to protect anonymous speech by protecting what could in fact be malicious false reviews. The evidence of the defamation comes by revealing if the reviewer was in fact a customer or not. EFF is pushing the concept that proof will never come because the identity should never be revealed. It creates a circular logic problem that cannot be easily resolved.
I actually think the bright light of "freedom of speech" is perhaps making it hard for you to see definition in things. Perhaps sunglasses might help you in your overly bright, low contrast world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
And on your point with regard to restaurants and 'hair' in the food. There is a wide variety of competency in restaurant management. A competent manager would resolve any issues prior to the customer leaving the premises. Properly done, the comments the customer would leave on Yelp would be 'I had a problem, and it was resolved'.
Now, if it was resolved on the premises, and the customer went and complained on Yelp anyway, the issue becomes whether or not the post tells the truth, and that brings up the problem of proving what is true. Good managers would follow that up with their side of the story written with 'just the facts' and 'no animosity or accusation'. The kind of thing that requires a number of re-writes before posting (and maybe legal advise).
Going legal is just asking for Streisand type attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
Exactly. If the establishment has "competent" staff, then they generally wouldn't see this type of review - UNLESS IT'S MALICIOUS.
I think the whole point here is not that they agree or disagree with the reviews, rather that they assert that the reviews are entirely phony and don't represent actual customers. Moreover, the Virginia standard on this issue doesn't require the proving of the case before you go to court, only proving it in court.
Going legal is just asking for Streisand type attention.
You forgot "bulk collection" and "TSA scanner" to get the full Techdirt bonus points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
Ah, that evil temptation that all those foolish, weak minded people fall for every time.
That's what's really bugging you here, isn't it? The idea that citizens might actually have any freedom not enumerated by Big Brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love EFF
"The posts would be defamatory if they were posted falsely."
No. Defamation is entirely about the statements made, not at all about who made them. Defamation must be proved first; then, if the defamer turns out to be a malicious non-customer, you may add your tortious charges on top. It's the proof of defamation Hadeed is trying to sidestep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love EFF
That is the excuse they use, the real reason they need to unmask is for extortion purposes. You know this is the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love EFF
Then what?
Like it or not, too many companies are trying this method of threatening anonymous speech, while not at all being familiar with the "Streisand Effect."
But then again, they do always provide entertainment, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just the odd state. but the vast majority of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 2 cents
The takeaway here is if you want to write a review use Tor to establish a clean email address. Use Tor when you post your review. Make your review general enough that you can't be identified as the writer. Write a review with the assumption that some jackass is going to try to sue you for it someday. Then go on with your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
While some are trying it, I think most places aren't stupid enough to sue someone for an honest, negative review that is based in fact and not fiction.
However, the business of negative review shilling is actually pretty big, in the same manner that you can purchase positive shill reviews for your own establishment or product. Consider this article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/08/28/fake-reviews-amazons-rotten-core/
T his guy was using it to create positive buzz, and the same sockpuppet accounts could be used to post negative reviews for others offering the same type of work. It's one of the reasons that Amazon now limits reviews to people who have purchased and received a product from Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My 2 cents
Give them time. With enough places doing it, courts letting them and people like you insisting on keeping the bar low, it'll become the norm instead of the exception. Especially with people like you insisting that everyone else should just roll over in favor of the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
before personal jurisdiction can be established over the perpetrator. This is not the case here.
The "action" which caused the tortious injury has to take place in Virginia, in order to establish personal jurisdiction over the perpetrator also. This is not the case here.
Before a victim can seek discovery, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the "alleged" perpetrator before issuing a subpoena. This is not the case here.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the case is very similar to the case law in VA on spam emails. Substitute the reviewer information for the spammer information, and change the code number, and the situations are essentially the same. The First Amendment protections apply here, just as much as to anonymous spammers.
"By prohibiting false
"reviewer"
information in the dissemination of
"reviews",
Code § 8.01-407.1. Identity of persons communicating anonymously over the Internet.
infringes on that protected right. The Supreme Court has characterized regulations prohibiting such anonymous speech as “a direct regulation of the content of speech.”...
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-407.1
§ 8.01-328.1. When personal jurisdiction over person may be exercised.
A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:
...3. Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth;
§ 8.01-407.1. Identity of persons communicating anonymously over the Internet.
A. In civil proceedings where it is alleged that an anonymous individual has engaged in Internet communications that are tortious, any subpoena seeking information...
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1062388.pdf
p 16 - The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is “an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” ... By prohibiting false routing information in the dissemination of e-mails, Code § 18.2-152.3:1 infringes on that protected right. The Supreme Court has characterized regulations prohibiting such anonymous speech as “a direct regulation of the content of speech.”...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yelp's process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]