A recent article over at Ars Technica illustrates how courts will limit anonymity when it serves only to protect the origin of defamatory statements posted on the Internet. Despite the protections of the Communications Decency Act, courts will often require that the identity of an anonymous blogger be revealed in a defamation lawsuit.
Swartz v. Does involved a couple in Tennessee that were involved in local politics, owned a real estate business, and operated a halfway house. An anonymous blogger created a blog, titled Stop Swartz, that alleged that the Swartzes had committed arson, that they were drug addicts, and that they had failed to report their property sales correctly. The Swartzes subpoenaed Google to determine the identity of the anonymous blogger, and the blogger filed a motion to quash. This motion was denied, but the court granted a temporary Protective Order to keep the blogger’s identity a secret. The blogger then filed a motion to dismiss that argued that his actions were protected by the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. The court ultimately ruled that the Swartzes had a right to learn the identity of the blogger and that, though anonymous speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, the protection of anonymous speech on the Internet is limited by defamation concerns.
If you have been the victim of Internet defamation, please contact one of our expert Internet defamation lawyers today for a free consultation.
In many cases horrible problems have been avoided for the community as a result of anonymous blogging. This includes whistle blowing for white-collar criminals, community awareness when sexual predators move into the neighborhood, and many other alerts that are of great community benefit.
Benefits notwithstanding, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and anonymous free speech on the Internet is one such omelette. There is no such thing as free speech; there is always a cost. Sometimes that cost is acceptable, moreover desirable, particularly in the case of positive community awareness. However, often their many false and deceptive rumors, and libelous attacks are motivated only by hatred and vindictive antisocial promptings. More often than not, these serial cyber defamers have some type of antisocial personality disorder. They have nothing better to do than hurt other people; in fact they are actually fueled by other people's pain. Normal people like 97% of the readers of my comment cannot begin to relate to how these people think. Stop for a moment and imagine not having a conscience..... it is simply impossible.
A concerted, focused and malicious Internet smear campaign can be as devastating for a person that relies on his or her reputation for employment as a fire can be for a farmer who loses his fields, barns, and livestock.
Respectfully submitted by
Michael Roberts.
Internet Libel Victim's Advocate.
www.Rexxfield.com
Posted by: Michael Roberts Anonymous Blogger bounty hunter | November 27, 2009 at 01:12 AM