The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    1/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    Unmasking Anonymous Speech Online

    Anonymous speech has played a role in the public discourse o America since !he

    Re"olution# !homas Paine anonymously published his amous pamphlet $ommon %ense

    and the

    Federalist Papers were anonymously penned using the name Publius in New 'or( newspapers#)

    !his tradition continued on in newspapers throughout early American history and also e*tended to

    other mediums such as boo(s#+ !his paper will e*plore the unmas(ing standards currently in use

    by "arious courts in the ,nited %tates in ci"il actions# First the paper will articulate the principles

    laid out by the ,#%# %upreme $ourt or anonymous speech# !hen it will lay out bac(ground issues

    on unmas(ing anonymous speech in an online conte*t# Ne*t it will loo( at unmas(ing anonymous

    deendants in the conte*t o commercial speech# !his will be ollowed by an analysis o

    unmas(ing anonymous deendants or political speech# Finally it will attempt to reconcile the

    "arious standards and recommend a standard or adoption by the ,#%# %upreme $ourt#

    I# !-.RI/-!!0%P.A1AN0N'M0,%L'& !-.,#%# %,PR.M.$0,R!

    !he ,nited %tates %upreme $ourt has decided two major cases that address anonymous speech

    rights generally# 2oth Talley v. California4andMcIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission5in"ol"e

    3ill Lepore4 The Sharpened Quill4 !-.N.5'0R1.R60ct# 74 )88794

    http:;;www#newyor(er#com;archi"e;)887;8;7;8787crbo McIntyre4 >? ,#%# ++?#

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    2/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    the distribution o handbills that do not contain an attribution# In both cases the courts loo(ed to

    historical precedent in order to cement the right to spea( anonymously in its First Amendment

    jurisprudence#

    In Talley v. Californiathe $ourt addressed the uestion o whether an ordinance4 in the

    city o Los Angeles4 that restricted the distribution o handbills unless their sponsor was identiied

    on them abridged the reedom o speech and o the press secured by the First and Fourteenth

    Amendments#7!he %upreme $ourt granted certiorari and held that the ordinance was "oid on its

    ace#BIn the majority opinion 3ustice 2lac( e*pounded upon the "alue o anonymous pamphlets

    throughout history# In doing so he noted that persecuted groups ha"e utiliCed anonymous speech

    to criticiCe oppressi"e laws and practices#D2lac( concluded by pointing out that in two recent

    decisions the $ourt held states cannot compel members o groups engaged in the dissemination o

    ideas to be identiied because Ethe identiication and ear o reprisal might deter perectly peaceul

    discussions o public matters o importance#@

    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm#n$%arri"ed at the $ourt as a result o Margaret McIntyre=s

    distribution o lealets at a public meeting at 2lendon Middle %chool in 5ester"ille4 0hio#!he

    lealets e*pressed opposition to a proposed reerendum on le"ying a school ta* and did not carry

    the disclaimer reuired by 0hio election law#)%he was subseuently ined and challenged the law

    7 !alley "# $aliornia4 +7) ,#%# 78 6@789#

    BId at 7>#

    DIdat 7?#

    @Id.at 7>#

    8 McIntyre "# 0hio .lections $omm=n4 >? ,#%# ++? 6@@>9#

    Idat ++B#

    )Id#

    )

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    3/25

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    4/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    most commonly bring a speech related tort claim such as deamation and may combine it with

    other claims such as trademar( or copyright inringement#@0ten the speech occurs on a website

    owned by a thirdGparty# !hese third parties are immuniCed rom liability or the speech posted to

    their website under )+8 o !he $ommunications Jecency Act4 which states in part:

    6c9 Protection or E/ood %amaritan bloc(ing and screening o oensi"e material69 !reatment o publisher or spea(er

    No pro"ider or user o an interacti"e computer ser"ice shall be treated as

    the publisher or spea(er o any inormation pro"ided by another

    inormation content pro"ider#)8

    !he Act also immuniCes the third parties rom ci"il liability or remo"ing content they do not

    wish to ha"e published on their website#

    )

    %ince this statute protects the intermediary pro"iders

    rom liability4 the plaintis must ile a lawsuit against the anonymous indi"idual who posted a

    deamatory remar( directly#))!he plainti can then ile a disco"ery subpoena to attempt to orce

    the intermediary to re"eal the deendant#)+!his is oten a twoGpart process# First the plainti must

    subpoena the oending website or the internet protocol 6IP9 address o the user who made the

    oending comments#)?I the plainti is able to procure the IP address then it must subpoena the

    Internet ser"ice pro"ider 6I%P9 who owns the IP address to determine who was using it at the time

    the oending comments were made#)>

    @Id#

    )8 $ommunications Jecency Act4 ?B ,#%#$# )+8 6)8879#

    )Id#

    )) Supranote D at D?)#

    )+Id#

    )? Nathaniel /leicher4 Note4 3ohn Joe %ubpoenas: !oward a $onsistent Legal %tandard4 D

    'AL.L#3# +)8#

    )> Supra note D at D?).

    ?

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    5/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    %ome I%Ps may pro"ide notice to the anonymous party so that they may ha"e an opportunity to

    contest the subpoena while others may choose to gi"eGup the deendant "oluntarily#)7-owe"er the

    ability to gi"eGup the IP address automatically is limited by ederal statute# $able companies are

    go"erned by the $able $ommunications Pri"acy Act)Bwhich reuires a court order to a cable I%P

    and notice to the I%P subscriber beore an I%P can disclose the identity o the subscriber to a third

    party#)DNonGcable I%Ps are not bound by this statute and thus ree to release the IP addresses

    "oluntarily i the jurisdiction does not reuire notiication otherwise#

    0riginally the courts did not hesitate to unmas( anonymous deendants#)@-owe"er as time

    progressed concerns began to rise about the use o subpoenas by corporations as strategic lawsuits

    against public participation 6%LAPP9 against anonymous critics#+8!his has lead to an increased

    sensiti"ity in the courts o balancing the right to remain anonymous with the right to see( redress

    or harmul speech#+5hile there has been some consensus on some actors such as gi"ing notice

    and an opportunity to respond to the target o the subpoena4 others actors such as the strength and

    detail o the plainti=s pleadings remain contested#+)

    )7Id#

    )B $able $ommunications Pri"acy Act4 ?B ,#%#$# >>#

    )D Joe "# $ahill4 DD? A# )d ?>4 ?>> 6Jel# )88>9#

    )@Id# See also/leicher4supra note )?4 at ++@ 6noting that the earlier standards adopted by courts

    were more deerential to plaintis than the standards that were adopted later9#

    +8 $ahill4 DD? A#)d at ?>>#

    +Idat D?>#

    +) %ee /leicher4supranote )?4 at +?+#

    >

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    6/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    III# ,NMA%1IN/$0MM.R$IAL%P.A1.R%

    Most common ha"e been cases o unmas(ing anonymous deendants engaging in

    commercial speech# !hese cases ha"e arisen in actions or trademar( inringement4 deamation4

    and raud# $ourts ha"e adopted "arying standards or these commercial speech cases# !o reconcile

    these4 this paper loo(s irst to the highly inluential*endritestandard and then to the two ederal

    circuit cases that ha"e directly addressed the issue#

    A *efamation + The *endrite Standard

    0ne o the irst cases that is oten cited by lower courts in unmas(ing cases in"ol"ing deamation

    is*endrite International v. ,ohn *oe#++In*endritethe plainti attempted to use a subpoena to

    disco"er the identity o an anonymous poster o criticism o its company on a 'ahooK bulletin

    board#+?!he court upheld the denial o Jendrite=s reuest or a subpoena because it ailed to

    establish harm as an element o its deamation claim# +>!he court then ga"e the ollowing

    guidance or deciding whether to unmas( anonymous spea(ers on the Internet:

    !he trial court should irst reuire the plainti to underta(e eorts to notiy the

    anonymous posters that they are the subject o a subpoena or application or anorder o disclosure4 and withhold action to aord the ictitiouslyGnamed deendants

    a reasonable opportunity to ile and ser"e opposition to the application# !hese

    notiication eorts should include posting a message o notiication o the identitydisco"ery reuest to the anonymous user on the I%Ps pertinent message board#

    !he court shall also reuire the plainti to identiy and set orth the e*act

    statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that plainti allegesconstitutes actionable speech#

    !he complaint and all inormation pro"ided to the court should be careully

    re"iewed to determine whether plainti has set orth a prima acie cause o actionagainst the ictitiouslyGnamed anonymous deendants# In addition to establishing

    ++ Jendrite Int=l4 Inc#4 BB> A#)d B>7#

    +?Id#

    +>Id#

    7

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    7/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    that its action can withstand a motion to dismiss or ailure to state a claim upon

    which relie can be granted pursuant to R# ?:7G)694 the plainti must produce

    suicient e"idence supporting each element o its cause o action4 on a prima aciebasis4 prior to a court ordering the disclosure o the identity o the unnamed

    deendant#

    Finally4 assuming the court concludes that the plainti has presented a prima acie

    cause o action4 the court must balance the deendants First Amendment right o

    anonymous ree speech against the strength o the prima acie case presented andthe necessity or the disclosure o the anonymous deendants identity to allow the

    plainti to properly proceed#+7

    !he court noted that Jendrite=s deamation claims could ha"e sur"i"ed a motion to dismiss but

    they would not sur"i"e this new standard that the court laid out#+BAs this was one o the irst

    standards it inluenced subseuent decisions4 but has not been uniormly adopted#

    +D

    A. In re Anonymous Online Spea-ers

    !his case dealt with a business dispute between ui*tar4 Inc# and %ignature Management

    !.AM# ui*tar sued !.AM alleging that !.AM had organiCed a smear campaign "ia

    anonymous postings and "ideos posted to the Internet that disparaged ui*tar and its business

    practices#+@Juring disco"ery ui*tar sought testimony rom 2enjamin Jic(ie4 a !.AM

    employee4 to re"eal the identity o anonymous online spea(ers who allegedly made deamatory

    comments about ui*tar#?8Ater Jic(ie reused to identiy the spea(ers on First Amendment

    grounds the district court ordered him to disclose the identity o three o the spea(ers#

    +7Id.

    +BId#

    +D SeeMaCCota4supranote )).

    +@ In re Anonymous 0nline %pea(ers4 7 F#+d 7>+4 7>> 6@th $ir# )889#

    ?8Id#

    B

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    8/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    In its analysis the Ninth $ircuit held that online speech stands on the same ooting as other

    speech#?It then proceeded to categoriCe the speech at issue as commercial speech since it was

    solely related to the economic interests o the spea(er at issue#?)-owe"er the court also noted that

    the decision to remain anonymous is one to be considered in weighing the protection o the First

    Amendment#?+

    In it analysis the Ninth $ircuit noted that the district court utiliCed the standard set out in

    *oe v. Cahill44:

    !he court pointed to its Econcern that setting the standard too low will chill

    potential posters rom e*ercising their First Amendment right to spea(

    anonymously4 and reasoned that Ethe summary judgment standard moreappropriately balances a deamation plaintis right to protect his reputation and a

    deendants right to spea( anonymously#?>

    !he Ninth $ircuit held that the bar set by Cahillis too high but allowed it to be used because the

    district court had not clearly erred in applying the standard#?7%ince the court did not reach the

    uestion o what standard to use4 all that can be inerred is that it would be something less than

    Cahill# For guidance it also cited two cases as being analogous:ational 'aor &elations /oard

    v. Midland *aily e0s41and'ef-o v. ,os A. /an-42#

    ?Idat 7>B 6citing Reno "# Am# $i"il Liberties ,nion4 >) ,#%# D?? 6@@B9 6Ethere is no basis or

    ualiying the le"el o First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to online speech99#

    ?)Idat 7>B#

    ?+Id6citing McIntyre4 >? ,#%# +?)9#

    ?? Joe "# $ahill4 DD? A#)d ?> 6Jel# )88>9#

    ?> In re Anonymous 0nline %pea(ers4 7 F#+d 7>+4 778 6@th $ir# )889#

    ?7Id#

    ?B National Labor Relations 2oard "# Midland Jaily News4 > F#+d ?B) 67th $ir# @@D9#

    ?D Le(oe "# 3os# A# 2an(4 >BB F#+d )?8 6?th $irc# )88@9#

    D

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    9/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    # National Labor Relations 2oard "# Midland Jaily News

    !he irst analogous case the Ninth $ircuit cited wasational 'aor &elations /oard v.

    Midland *aily e0s# In that case the %i*th $ircuit considered whether to unmas( the identity o

    an ad"ertiser in a newspaper#?@An employer had placed an ad in the Midland Jaily News loo(ing

    or potential electricians# Members o the International 2rotherhood o .lectrical 5or(ers

    responded to the ad by sending their resumes#>8Ater three days had passed without response rom

    the ad"ertiser the ,nion iled an unair labor practice charge against it#>!he NLR2 issued an

    in"estigatory subpoena ordering the production o documents that would identiy the ad"ertiser#>)

    !he newspaper chose to ignore the subpoena as Ean unconstitutional inringement o its right o

    ree commercial speech and the NLR2 iled an application in ederal district court to order

    compliance#>+!he district court denied the application and the %i*th $ircuit airmed#>?

    In its analysis the %i*th $ircuit noted that this was commercial speech and turned to the

    test articulated in Central 3udson as v. "ulic Serv. Comm#n of or the protection o

    commercial speech>>:

    At the outset4 we must determine whether the e*pression is protected by theFirst Amendment# For commercial speech to come within that pro"ision4 it at least

    must concern lawul acti"ity and not be misleading# Ne*t4 we as( whether the

    asserted go"ernmental interest is substantial# I both inuiries yield positi"e

    ?@ National Labor Relations 2oard4 > F#+d ?B)#

    >8Id#

    >Id#

    >)Id#

    >+Id#

    >?Id#

    >>Idat ?B?#

    @

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    10/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    answers4 we must determine whether the regulation directly ad"ances the

    go"ernmental interest asserted4 and whether it is not more e*tensi"e than is

    necessary to ser"e that interest#>7

    !he court was ultimately uncon"inced that the e*ercise o subpoena power was the Eleast

    e*tensi"e means by which the 2oard could reasonably e*pect to proceed without unnecessarily

    burdening Midland=s constitutional right to ree e*pression#>B

    )# Le(oe "# 3os# A# 2an(

    !his case in"ol"ed the identiication o a nonparty witness that had written a letter alleging

    3os# A 2an(=s business practices deied common business sense#>D!his caused 3os A# 2an(

    to conduct an internal in"estigation and delayed an earnings report#>@Ater ma(ing Joe=s

    identity a"ailable to counsel the Maryland district court made a decision to also ma(e it

    a"ailable to the parties in the litigation which lead to the interlocutory appeal# 78

    In its analysis the court held that the anonymous letter was commercial speech because it

    related solely to the economic interests o the writer and the company#7!his court also

    applied the Central 3udsonstandard stating4 E5e thus conclude that the Joe $lients

    claimed First Amendment right to anonymity is subject to a substantial go"ernmental

    interest in disclosure so long as disclosure ad"ances that interest and goes no urther than

    >7 $entral -udson /as "# Public %er"# $omm=n o N'4 ??B ,#%# >>B4 >77 6@D89#

    >B National Labor Relations 2oard4 > F#+d ?B)4 ?B>#

    >D Le(oe4 >BB F#+d )?8#

    >@Id#

    78Id#

    7Idat )?D#

    8

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    11/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    reasonably necessary#7)!he substantial go"ernment interest stemmed rom the act that

    3os A# 2an( reuired inormation rom the anonymous party in order to raise deenses in

    its lawsuit and such an interest was codiied in Rule )7 o the Federal Rules o $i"il

    Procedure#7+

    /. Solers v. *oe

    !he other ederal circuit court to consider an anonymous Internet speech case was the

    J#$# $ircuit# In this case the %otware Industry & Inormation Association recei"ed inormation

    rom an anonymous online orm that suggested that %olers4 a sotware company4 was engaging in

    sotware piracy#7?As a result %olers iled a lawsuit against the anonymous indi"idual alleging

    deamation and tortious intererence with prospecti"e business acti"ity and ser"ed a subpoena on

    the %otware Industry & Inormation Association in order to learn the identity o the indi"idual#7>

    In its analysis the court loo(ed at the "arious standards and speciically rejected the last prong o

    the Jendrite test# -owe"er4 it laid out a standard that closely resembled the summary judgment

    standard laid out in Cahill:

    5hen presented with a motion to uash 6or to enorce9 a subpoena which see(s

    the identity o an anonymous deendant4 the court should: 69 ensure that the

    plainti has adeuately pleaded the elements o the deamation claim4 6)9 reuirereasonable eorts to notiy the anonymous deendant that the complaint has been

    iled and the subpoena has been ser"ed4 6+9 delay urther action or a reasonable

    time to allow the deendant an opportunity to ile a motion to uash4 6?9 reuire

    the plainti to proer e"idence creating a genuine issue o material act on eachelement o the claim that is within its control4 and 6>9 determine that the

    inormation sought is important to enable the plainti to proceed with his lawsuit#

    5e do not reuire a separate balancing test at the end o the analysis4 nor do we

    7)Idat )?@#

    7+Id#

    7? %olers "# Joe4 @BB A#)d @? 6J#$# $irc# )88@9#

    7>Id#

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    12/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    reuire a showing that the plainti has e*hausted alternati"e sources or learning

    the inormation#77

    !he court noted that unli(e many o the cases it cited this case did not in"ol"e publication in the

    open but transmission to a single entity "ia an online orm# Furthermore4 unli(e Cahill4 it did not

    decide whether the test would apply to act patterns that do not in"ol"e the Internet#7B-owe"er it

    suggested that the act the communication was intended or a single entity as opposed to being

    openly published should be actored into assessing the proo o deamation# 7D!he court restricted

    the standard to claims o deamation and noted that other claims might reuire dierent standards

    or tests or other injuries#7@It did not restrict its test to commercial speech cases and nowhere in its

    holding did the court suggest that the test is or should be dierent depending on the type o

    speech#B8%ince the standard articulated by the court was new it "acated and remanded the case#

    C. The inth Circuit and *.C. Circuit Split

    !he Ninth $ircuit and J#$# $ircuit are thus split on the issue as to whether the*oe v. Cahill

    standard should apply to unmas(ing anonymous speech in a commercial conte*t# !he Ninth

    $ircuit would apply something less than $ahill and analogiCed the situation to commercial speech

    cases that were decided by other circuits#B!hese cases were cited without regard or the act that

    they in"ol"ed raud as opposed to deamation#B)."en with those dierences these cases both

    adopted the Central 3udson test# !he Ninth $ircuit emphasiCed the importance o using a

    77Id#

    7BIdat @>B#

    7DIdat @>D#

    7@Idat @>)#

    B8 See 6enerally %olers4 @BB A#)d @?#

    B In Re Anonymous 0nline %pea(ers4 7 F#+d at 7>@#

    )

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    13/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    dierent standard depending on the type o speech in uestion# It also would apply a higher

    standard to subpoenas o nonGparty witnesses#B+

    In contrast the J#$# $ircuit in Solerslaid out its standard without any regard or the type o

    speech# 'et the court in Solerspointed out that the standard that might be applied would "ary

    based on the type o claim#B?-owe"er Solersdid suggest agreement with the Ninth $ircuit on the

    point o subpoenaing nonGparty witnesses in two ways# First it stated that the court should Eensure

    the inormation sought is important to the litigation#B>%econdarily it noted that in the case o a

    subpoena o a nonGparty journalist it would reuire e*haustion o alternati"e sources#B7

    ."en though Solersdid not reach the issue o political "ersus commercial speech4 the precedent

    laid out by the Ninth $ircuit strongly suggests that the %upreme $ourt would apply a dierent

    standard to commercial speech cases than political speech cases#BB-owe"er the %upreme $ourt

    would not be li(ely to adopt a standard that diers based on the type o claim# Solerscontention

    in dicta that its test would be modiied based on the type o claim is not well supported by

    B) Seeidat 7>@ 6Noting that Ethe courts e*plicitly recogniCed that the anonymous speech at issue

    was commercial speech4 but declined to establish or ollow any particular standard4 other than the

    general and longGstanding precepts go"erning commercial speech9#

    B+Idat 778#

    B? %olers4 @BB A#)d at @>) 6E2ecause the interests at sta(e will "ary4 a trial court may need to

    modiy the test we adopt depending on the type o injury alleged#9#

    B>Idat @>>#

    B7Idat @>7#

    BB See$entral -udson4 ??B ,#%# at >7+ 6E!he $onstitution thereore accords a lesser protection

    to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed e*pression9#

    +

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    14/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    precedent#BDFurthermore elements such as notice and an opportunity to contest the unmas(ing

    could be uni"ersally applicable without regard or the cause o action# Finally the element o

    pleading and proering e"idence is uni"ersal but what is plead and the (ind o e"idence proered

    could "ary based on the cause o action#

    *. Adoption of *endrite y Other Courts

    Most courts ha"e adopted the component o*endritethat reuires the plainti to ma(e

    reasonable eorts to gi"e adeuate notice and an opportunity to be heard to the target o the

    subpoena#B@!his burden to notiy has so ar only been put on the plainti4 although cable I%Ps are

    BD Most Internet unmas(ing cases ha"e in"ol"ed deamation claims or deamation claims

    combined with other claims# See /leicher4supranote )?# !he pure raud Internet unmas(ing

    cases tried so ar ha"e only in"ol"ed unmas(ing nonGparty witnesses# SeeJoe "# )!heMart#com

    Inc#4 ?8 F#%upp#)d 8DD 65#J#5ash# )8894 %edersten "# !aylor4 )88@ 5L ?D8)>7B4 65#J#Mo

    )88@94 and .nterline "# Pocono Med# $tr#4 +B Media L# Rep# 8>B 6M#J# Penn# )88D9#/ut see

    National Labor Relations 2oard4 > F#+d ?B) 6in"ol"ing unmas(ing an anonymous deendant in

    a pure commercial raud case that did not occur on the Internet9# Furthermore4 there has only been

    one trademar( inringement action# $olumbia Ins# $o# H# %eescandy#com4 D> F#R#J# >B+ 6N#J#

    $al# @@@9# -owe"er %eescandy has oten been cited by deamation cases without distinction#

    E.6.7Jendrite Int=l4 Inc#4 BB> A#)d at B7B 6upholding the*endritedecision as being consistent

    with Seescandyon appeal9#

    B@ MaCCota4supranote D4 at D+D.

    ?

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    15/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    reuired to notiy their customers i they recei"e a subpoena#D80ther I%Ps also will ollow this

    practice "oluntarily#D'et the notiication reuirement still is not uni"ersal#D)

    Furthermore most standards reuire an e"aluation o the strength o the plainti=s claim#D+Four

    dierent tests ha"e been used by courts to e"aluate the claim: E9 a showing that the claim was

    brought in good aith )9 a showing that the claim could withstand a motion to dismiss +9 a

    showing that the claim could withstand a motion or summary judgment or ?9 a showing o prima

    acie e"idence or all elements o the claim#D?A majority o the courts ha"e as a part o

    e"aluating the strength o the claim reuired the pleading o the statements that are alleged to be

    deamatory#

    D>

    2eyond that portion4 courts ha"e "aried in their application o the e"aluation o the

    actual strength o the claim#D7-owe"er most ha"e adopted something a(in to the summary

    judgment standard such as the one deined in Cahill#DB

    D8 See$able $ommunications Pri"acy Act4 ?B ,#%#$# >>#

    DId#

    D) /leicher4supranote )?#

    D+Id at 85%#

    D? MaCCota4supranote D4 at D>8G>#

    D> See/leicher4supranote )?4 at +>)G>?#

    D7 SeeIndependent Newspapers Inc4 "# 2rodie4 @77 A#)d ?+)4 ?>?G>B 6Md# )88@9 6discussing the

    "aried application o the*endritestandard and noting that what e*actly satisies the summary

    judgment or prima acie standard "aries based on the jurisdiction9#

    DB See MaCCota4supranote D4 at D>)# See also%olers @BB A#)d at @>? 6e*plaining that labeling

    the test Esummary judgment or Eprima acie may be conusing because o jurisdictional issues

    but suggesting that it is in line with the standard articulated in/rodieand Cahill9#

    >

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    16/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    *endritedid not include a prong that reuired the showing o a need or the inormation# Solers

    enumerated such a prong directly but in cases where the deendant is the target o the unmas(ing

    the necessity o unmas(ing the deendant to continue the lawsuit is selGe"ident# !his prong is also

    included in the standards or unmas(ing nonGparty witnesses described later#

    Finally4 a minority o courts ha"e adopted the prong that reuires balancing the First

    Amendment right to the prima acie case and the showing o need#DD!his prong was not employed

    in Cahill4 which the Ninth $ircuit cited as being too high o a standard or commercial speech4

    and also rejected by Solers#D@

    A A Standard for (nmas-in6 Anonymous Commercial Spea-er *efendants

    /i"en the adoption and guidance by the courts a standard or unmas(ing an anonymous

    commercial spea(er deendant should include the elements o notice4 an opportunity to contest the

    subpoena4 and inally an e"aluation o the strength o the claim as deined in Solersthat includes

    pleading the elements o the claim and pro"iding e"idence to o"ercome a deendant=s motion or

    summary judgment# !hese prongs do not elegantly it into the Central 3udsontest4 which is the

    test the Ninth $ircuit suggests it might use4 but e"aluating whether speech is misleading may

    easily be subsumed into the analysis o the strength o the deamation claim# !he notice pro"ision

    does not at all it into Central 3udsonbut is statutorily reuired or cable I%Ps and the concept o

    notice and an opportunity to be heard is deeply rooted in our legal system#@8A showing o need is

    not justiied by Central 3udsonand as e*plained earlier would not be necessary in unmas(ing an

    anonymous deendant# Finally gi"en that the balancing prong would pro"ide greater protection

    DD See /leicher4supranote )?4 at +7# See alsoMaCCota4supranote D4 at D>>#

    D@ SeeIn Re Anonymous 0nline %pea(ers4 7 F#+d 7>+ and %olers4 @BB A#)d @?#

    @8 See,#%# $0N%!# AM.NJ# H & HIH#

    7

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    17/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    than CahillandIn &e Anonymous Online Spea-ersarticulated a desire or less protection than

    Cahilland urther gi"en the act that the prong was rejected by Solersthis element would not and

    li(ely should not be included when deciding whether to unmas( anonymous deendants in

    commercial speech cases#

    IH# N0NGPAR!'5I!N.%%.%

    A small subset o cases has dealt with the issue o corporate raud and subpoenaing nonG

    party witnesses# Neither o these cases ha"e adopted the standards and protections o*endriteor

    Cahill# Instead they ha"e adopted their own test as described below#

    A *oe v. 9TheMart.com

    In*oe v. 9TheMart.com Inc.:$the plaintis attempted to subpoena nonGparty witnesses in

    lawsuit alleging raud# !he court applied strict scrutiny#@)It also asserted that in cases in"ol"ing

    nonGparty witnesses the standard applied to unmas(ing the target o the subpoena must be higher

    than the standard applied in Seescandy.com#@+%ince the litigation can go orward without the

    presence o the nonGparty witness4 EnonGparty disclosure is only appropriate in the e*ceptional

    case where the compelling need or the disco"ery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights

    o the anonymous spea(er#@?!he court then adopted a ourGactor test in order to determine

    whether a subpoena or a nonGparty witness would be "alid:

    69 the subpoena see(ing the inormation was issued in good aith and not or any

    improper purpose4 6)9 the inormation sought relates to a core claim or deense4

    @ Joe "# )!heMart#com Inc#4 ?8 F#%upp#)d 8DD 65#J#5ash# )889#

    @)Id#

    @+Idat 8@>#

    @?Id#

    B

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    18/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    6+9 the identiying inormation is directly and materially rele"ant to that claim or

    deense4 and 6?9 inormation suicient to establish or to dispro"e that claim or

    deense is una"ailable rom any other source#@>

    !his test was subseuently adopted by another case in"ol"ing the subpoena o a nonGparty

    witness4 Sedersten v. Taylor#@7

    E. Enterline v. "ocono Medical Center

    !his case not only is one or subpoenaing a third party that ailed but also allowed

    the deendant to assert the rights o anonymous posters# InEnterline v. "ocono Medical

    Center:12renda .nterline had iled a lawsuit against the Pocono Medical $enter alleging

    se*ual harassment#@DAnonymous commenters on !he Pocono Record website made posts

    that suggested they had (nowledge o the acts in the lawsuit# @@%ubseuently .nterline

    subpoenaed the anonymous commenters#88!he court ruled that !he Pocono Record had

    standing to challenge the subpoena on behal o the anonymous commenters and

    subseuently applied the standard rom*oe v. 9TheMart.com#8!he court uashed the

    subpoena#8)

    @>Id#

    @7 %edersten "# !aylor4 )88@ 5L ?D8)>7B4 65#J#Mo )88@9#

    @B .nterline "# Pocono Med# $tr#4 +B Media L# Rep# 8>B 6M#J# Penn# )88D9#

    @DId#

    @@Idat 8>@#

    88Id#

    8Id#

    8)Id#

    D

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    19/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    !. A Standard for Third "arty Supoenas

    /i"en the small number o courts that ha"e dealt with the issue o subpoenaing third

    parties they ha"e managed to remain consistent and ollow the*oe v. 9TheMart.comstandard#

    !he our prongs in 9TheMart.comcould ha"e easily been satisied in the'ef-oecase that had

    been cited by the Ninth $ircuit# In ci"il cases this appears to be a reasonable consensus standard

    to ollow# As the court in 9TheMartnoted4 EnonGparty disclosure is only appropriate in the

    e*ceptional case where the compelling need or the disco"ery sought outweighs the First

    Amendment rights o the anonymous spea(er#8+2y insuring that the inormation is materially

    rele"ant and can not be obtained rom any other source the court protects the First Amendment

    rights o the spea(ers while balancing them against the rights o the litigants#

    H# ,NMA%1IN/P0LI!I$AL%P.A1.R%

    In &e Anonymous Online Spea-ershas suggested that a dierent standard apply based on

    the type o speech employed by the spea(er# !his paper e*plores what (ind o standard might

    apply to political speech below# It will do so by going through the ew cases that ha"e dealt with

    the issue and then considering their holdings and analysis in light o the guidance gi"en by the

    %upreme $ourt and the circuit courts#

    A *oe v. Cahill

    *oe v. Cahillis the irst state supreme court case to deal with unmas(ing an anonymous

    deendant in the case o political speech on the Internet#$%4!he case arose when Joe posted

    allegedly deamatory comments about Patric( $ahill4 a member o the city council in %myrna4

    8+ 9TheMart.com7?8 F#%upp )d at 8@>#

    8? $ahill4 DD? A#)d at ?>#

    @

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    20/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    Jelaware on a local news blog#8>!he $ahills wanted to bring suit against Joe or the comments

    and attempted to disco"er his identity by subpoenaing his Internet ser"ice pro"ider#875hen the

    ser"ice pro"ider recei"ed the reuest it notiied Joe as reuired by the $able $ommunications

    Pri"acy Act#8BIn response Joe iled an .mergency Motion or a Protecti"e 0rder to attempt to

    pre"ent $ahill rom disco"ering his identity# !he trial judge applied a good aith standard in

    allowing Joe=s identity to be disco"ered and on appeal the Jelaware %upreme $ourt re"ersed#8D

    In re"ersing the decision the court asserted that anonymous Internet speech in blogs or chat rooms

    has become the modern "ersion o pamphleteering#8@!he court noted that there were a large

    spectrum o standards rom which it could choose and that it was the irst state supreme court to

    address the issue o unmas(ing in the conte*t o political speech online# 8It then e*plained that a

    good aith standard and a motion to dismiss standard did not properly protect the right to

    anonymous speech#!he court adopted the test articulated in*endrite Int#l v. ,ohn *oe$$9insoar

    as the claim must be supported with acts suicient to deeat a summary judgment motion#+

    %peciically it adopted the irst three parts o the test:

    8>Id#

    87Id#

    8B ?B ,#%#$# >>#

    8D $ahill4 DD? A#)d at ?>#

    8@Idat ?>7#

    8Id#

    Idat ?>B#

    ) Jendrite Int=l4 Inc# "# 3ohn Joe4 BB> A#)d B>7#

    + $ahill4 DD? A#)d at ?78#

    )8

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    21/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    69 to underta(e eorts to notiy the anonymous poster that he is the subject o a

    subpoena or application or an order o disclosure4 and to withhold action to aord

    the anonymous deendant a reasonable opportunity to ile and ser"e opposition tothe application# In the internet conte*t4 the plaintis eorts should include posting

    a message o notiication o the disco"ery reuest to the anonymous deendant on

    the same message board as the original allegedly deamatory posting

    6)9 to set orth the e*act statements purportedly made by the anonymous poster

    that the plainti alleges constitute deamatory speech and

    6+9 to satisy the prima acie or Esummary judgment standard#?

    -owe"er the court rejected the ourth prong rom the*endritecase that reuired balancing the

    First Amendment right o anonymous ree speech against the strength o the prima acie case and

    necessity or disclosure#

    >

    In doing so the court reasoned that it adds no protection abo"e and

    beyond the summary judgment test and needlessly complicates the analysis#7

    . 'assa v. &on6stad

    In'assa v. &on6stadthe 5isconsin %upreme $ourt decided a case in"ol"ing the

    unmas(ing o anonymous Joe deendants that were in"ol"ed in publishing a political mailer that

    allegedly deamed a potential candidate or state senate#B!he court chose to adopt a motion to

    dismiss standard instead o the summary judgment standard used by the Cahillcourt#DIn doing

    so the court noted that unli(e Jelaware4 5isconsin reuires particularity in pleading a cause or

    deamation#@0ther than noting that similar to the Cahilltest a motion to dismiss in 5isconsin

    ?Id#

    >Id#

    7Id#

    B Lassa "# Rongstad4 BD N#5#)d 7B+4 7B@ 65isc# )8879#

    DIdat 7DB#

    @Id#

    )

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    22/25

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    23/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    not satisied#)B-owe"er the Illinois %upreme $ourt rejected the*oe v. Cahillstandard and

    instead adopted a motion to dismiss standard#)DIn Illinois this reuires the plainti to "eriy their

    complaint and state with particularity the acts that are cause or deamation#)@!hen the

    complaint is subjected to a hearing to "eriy it states all the elements o a claim or deamation#+8

    Furthermore Illinois %upreme $ourt stated that a trial court may reuire the plainti to pro"ide

    whate"er notice is within its power to the subject o the petition#+!he court articulated that the

    motion to dismiss standard was appropriate in a act pleading jurisdiction li(e Illinois but implied

    this might not be enough in a notice pleading jurisdiction#+)!his put Illinois in line with the

    5isconsin court#

    ,. Standard for (nmas-in6 "olitical Spea-ers

    /i"en the bac(ground and tradition articulated in TalleyandMcIntyre4 history suggests

    that a standard de"eloped or political speech should pro"ide at least the same i not a higher

    burden than a standard de"eloped or commercial speech#++'et other than in*oe v. Cahillthe

    courts in these political speech cases ha"e not imposed high bars to unmas(ing# 0nly two o the

    courts decided to ma(e the element o notice and an opportunity to be heard mandatory# !here

    was uni"ersal agreement among the courts that a plainti must plead the particular statements that

    )BIdat 7B)#

    )DIdat 7B7#

    )@Id#

    +8Id#

    +Idat 7B>#

    +) SeeIdat 7B7#

    ++ SeeIn Re Anonymous 0nline %pea(ers4 7 F#+d 7>+4 778#

    )+

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    24/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    are alleged to be deamatory# 2eyond that the majority o the courts did not adopt the reuirement

    that e"idence be pro"ided to deeat a summary judgment# !hese low standards may not be

    appropriate gi"en the de"elopments in precedent or commercial speech considering the role and

    heightened scrutiny that the %upreme $ourt has articulated or political speech#+?At a minimum

    the %upreme $ourt should ollow precedent and protections laid out by the test or commercial

    speech in Solers# !his is bolstered by the act that it is based on the Cahilltest which the Ninth

    $ircuit implied might be a good standard or political speech#+>%ince deendants are necessary

    or lawsuits to proceed the e*haustion actor would not apply here# Finally it could reuire that

    rather than simply reuiring the creation o enough e"idence to create a genuine issue o material

    act4 it could reuire suicient e"idence supporting each element o its claim on a prima acie

    basis#+7Also implementing the last balancing prong rom*endriteto consider the importance o

    the right to anonymous speech "ersus the strength o the prima acie claim would pro"ide urther

    protection that is justiied or political spea(ers#

    HI# $0N$L,%I0N

    $ourts ha"e adopted a large spectrum o standards and principles in cases in"ol"ing

    unmas(ing anonymous online spea(ers in a ci"il conte*t# !hese standards ha"e been described

    and implemented dierently based on local rules and also based on the type o speech at issue#

    'et the one area where courts ha"e managed to ind agreement is in the standard or subpoenaing

    thirdGparty witnesses# !he courts ha"e been ma(ing some mo"ement towards a consensus

    standard4 which was e*empliied by Solersbut almost ignored byIn &e Anonymous Online

    Spea-ers# Finally4 regardless o what standards the courts do decide to adopt or unmas(ing

    +? See id.

    +> See idat 77#

    +7 %ee /leicher4supranote )?4 at +>+#

    )?

  • 8/9/2019 The Regulation of Anonymous Speech in Online Mediums

    25/25

    Matthew Zagaja Media & Law Research Paper FINAL

    anonymous deendants4 the standard or political speech should be at least slightly higher than the

    standard or commercial speech#