FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 15, 2000
PITTSBURGH -- In a ruling that establishes new protections for anonymous online authors, a state court judge here said today that public officials and others cannot use frivolous defamation lawsuits to ferret out the identity of their critics.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has defended numerous anonymous authors including the "John Doe" in today's case, Melvin v. Doe, hailed the ruling as an important step forward in Internet free speech case law.
"Until today, a public official or employer claiming defamation could get a court to disclose the name of an anonymous Web author simply by filing a lawsuit," said ACLU National Staff Attorney Ann Beeson, who litigated the case along with attorneys from the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Greater Pittsburgh Chapter.
The case arose when Allegheny County State Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin found comments critical of her on a website entitled "Grant Street 1999." The website author accused the judge of lobbying on behalf of an attorney seeking a judgeship. Melvin then filed a defamation lawsuit seeking disclosure of the author's name.
Beeson noted that in many of the defamation cases the ACLU has handled, individuals felt their speech was "chilled" by the threat of a lawsuit -- often brought by deep-pockets corporations or powerful individuals -- and by the threat of disclosure.
Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. today noted that "anonymous Internet speakers, unlike the national media, are vulnerable because they lack power or money. Without anonymity, speakers will be less willing to express controversial positions because of fears of reprisal." Judge Wettick's opinion cited examples of an employee reporting anonymously that employer was dumping toxic waste, and a speaker who criticizes a school superintendent who hires teachers on the basis of "who they know" rather than competency.
A key holding in today's ruling says that identity may not be disclosed until the anonymous speaker has had an opportunity to prove that the defamation lawsuit is without merit.
Although the ruling is a significant victory for free speech rights, the ACLU did not prevail in its specific argument that the case should be dismissed. The ACLU is now considering whether to appeal. [see the entry below for 2001, Feb 26. --MN] Significantly, however, Judge Wettick said that "John Doe's" identity in this case "shall be subject to a protective order," emphasizing that "any ruling that does not fully protect the anonymity of the anonymous Internet speaker may deter anonymous Internet speech."
"The importance of this ruling is clear when you consider the thousands of anonymous people online right now who are criticizing Florida public officials in the election controversy," said Witold "Vic" Walczak, Executive Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Greater Pittsburgh Chapter.
Walczak noted that lawsuits like the one Judge Melvin brought against "John Doe" are rapidly multiplying and that judges and lawyers will be struggling with the issue for years. "Judge Wettick's ruling is a good first step in the ultimate goal of preserving the right to speak freely online," he said.
The case is Melvin v. Doe, No. GD99-10264. ACLU national attorneys in the case are Beeson and Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen; ACLU attorneys in Pittsburgh are Walczak, volunteer attorney Ronald Barber of Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick & Potter and volunteer attorney Susan Yohe of Buchanan Ingersoll, who argued the case before Judge Wettick.
Copyright 2000, American Civil Liberties Union
Reprinted with permission of the American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org
Return to chronology, 15 Nov 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, December 14, 2000
PROVIDENCE, RI--In an important victory for free speech rights, the Rhode Island Supreme Court today issued a strong ruling supporting the broad scope of the state's anti-SLAPP suit act, in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
SLAPP or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation," is the name given to lawsuits brought to chill people from exercising their freedom of speech on matters of public concern.
"The Court's opinion is a ringing endorsement of the state's anti-SLAPP law," said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU. "It will help ensure that all Rhode Islanders can address matters of public concern in their community without fear of retaliation."
The case arose in 1997, when a Coventry couple, Henry and Marcia Mallette, were sued for defamation after publicly raising environmental concerns about Global Waste Recycling, a local recycling facility. The ACLU argued that the lawsuit brought against the Mallette's was a classic SLAPP suit and an attempt to intimidate Coventry residents from speaking out against the facility.
The ACLU noted that the town council itself has questioned the facility's legal right to operate under town zoning ordinances, and the Department of Environmental Management had sent "letters of deficiencies" to the recycling facility.
The Court unanimously agreed that the statements made by the couple were protected free speech activity, and rejected as "without merit" the facility's arguments that the SLAPP law should not apply.
In its appeal to the state supreme court, Global Waste Recycling argued that the statute should be limited only to protecting public comments made at governmental meetings or hearings, and not to the media.
The Court today rejected that reasoning, and ordered an award of attorneys fees to the Mallettes.
Copyright 2000, American Civil Liberties Union
Reprinted with permission of the American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org
Return to chronology, 14 Dec 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, February 26, 2001
SEATTLE--In two legal actions involving free speech and privacy rights online, the American Civil Liberties Union today came to the defense of anonymous speakers who face legal intimidation from those they criticize in cyberspace.
The first case, filed today by the ACLU of Washington State and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), asked a federal court here to quash a subpoena that would force an Internet service to disclose the identity of a person who spoke anonymously on an Internet bulletin board.
In the second case, the ACLU today submitted its appeal in Melvin v. Doe, a challenge to a Pennsylvania appeals court judge's attempt to use the courts to try to ferret out the identify of her critic.
Underscoring the proliferation of such lawsuits, Internet giant America Online submitted its own legal brief in the Melvin case today, saying it had handled approximately 475 such subpoenas last year, more than one per day. Attempts to intimidate online critics by filing such actions constitutes "an illegitimate use of the courts to silence and retaliate against speakers," AOL said in legal papers.
In the Washington case, the ACLU and EFF are representing J. Doe (a pseudonym) in seeking to block a subpoena by 2TheMart.com, Inc., which is currently defending itself against a class-action lawsuit alleging securities fraud by company officials.
The subpoena seeks to uncover the identities of 23 speakers who used pseudonyms in participating on the Silicon Investor Web site owned by InfoSpace. The motion to quash the subpoena was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
This case differs from many other Internet anonymity cases, the ACLU said, because J. Doe, who used the pseudonym "NoGuano," is not a party to the case, and no allegations of liability against Doe have been made.
While Doe does maintain a Silicon Investor account, Doe never made any statements about 2TheMart, nor has Doe ever posted on Silicon Investor's 2TheMart message board.
"The courts should not allow subpoenas to be used for 'fishing expeditions' when individuals' First Amendment rights are at stake. The chilling effect on free speech would be catastrophic," said Lauren Gelman, Director of Public Policy for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world.
Aaron Caplan, a Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Washington, noted that people commonly use pseudonyms when speaking on the Internet. "This promotes a diversity of viewpoints in cyberspace," he said. "The right to speak anonymously on an Internet bulletin board should be upheld just as is the right to distribute a leaflet using a pseudonym."
John Doe is being represented by ACLU staff attorney Aaron Caplan and Cindy Cohn, legal director and senior staff attorney for EFF. Their legal brief along with further details on the case, can be found at the EFF Web site at http://www.eff.org and the ACLU Web site at http://www.aclu-wa.org.
The Melvin case arose when Allegheny County State Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin found comments critical of her on a website entitled "Grant Street 1999." The website author accused the judge of lobbying on behalf of an attorney seeking a judgeship. Melvin then filed a defamation lawsuit seeking disclosure of the author's name.
Ann Beeson, Staff Attorney with the national ACLU, noted that in many of the defamation cases the ACLU has handled, individuals felt their speech was "chilled" by the threat of a lawsuit -- often brought by deep-pockets corporations or powerful individuals -- and by the threat of disclosure.
A lower court agreed in a November 2000 ruling, saying that identity may not be disclosed until the anonymous speaker has had an opportunity to prove that the defamation lawsuit is without merit. But the ACLU did not prevail in its specific argument that the case should be dismissed. That issue is central to today's appeal.
The ACLU's legal brief is online at http://www.aclu.org/court/melvin_appeal.pdf.
A previous news release on the Melvin case, with a link to the lower court brief, is available at http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n111500a.html.
The America Online legal brief is available on the ACLU website at http://www.aclu.org/court/melvin_AOLamicus.pdf.
Return to chronology, 26 Feb 2001