Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 09/08/2005 6:03:25 AM PDT by Gabz
Court hears Del. blog case; Smyrna's Cahill claims libel on Web site postings
By Drew Volturo, Delaware State News DOVER - The Delaware Supreme Court waded chest-deep Wednesday into an Internet free-speech case, seeking to strike a balance between one person's right to free speech against another's claims of libel.
Smyrna Town Councilman Patrick J. Cahill and his wife Julie filed the suit last year in Superior Court alleging they were defamed by four anonymous posters to a community issues Web log - or blog - on the Internet.
The expletive-laced postings lambasted the councilman, claiming he had an "obvious mental deterioration" and implying that he is homosexual.
An attorney representing one of the posters, identified as John Doe No. 1 or Proud Citizen, said blogs present a unique twist on free speech cases.
"A blog allows a person who can be injured (by a post) to respond," Doe attorney David L. Finger told the five-member Supreme Court.
"Mr. Cahill could and did respond on the Web site. In fact, some of the (Doe posts in question) came from a back and forth."
But Cahill attorney Richard Katzenstein argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that the Internet alters the protections or rights of free speech and warned against establishing a different set of standards for anonymous speech over the Internet.
Nevertheless, the justices posed several questions to attorneys on both sides about how to apply the law to the blogs, which allow a free-flow of commentary without editorial control, unlike a newspaper's opinion section.
"This medium allows a full exposure of views immediately. Doesn't that make it different?" Justice Carolyn Berger asked Mr. Katzenstein.
"There's no basis of law for that," Mr. Katzenstein replied.
No Supreme Court, state or U.S., has weighed in on Internet free speech, leaving the matter for Delaware's high court to chart its own course.
"I believe this case is being watched," said Mr. Finger. "This is the first high court of any state to hear this (type of) case.
"The Delaware Supreme Court is very highly regarded, and their decision will influence other cases."
Mr. Cahill's suit seeks to unmask the four posters. John Doe No. 1 filed for a protective order to block his or her identity from being revealed.
New Castle County Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Slights III denied the protective order request June 14, requiring that Internet service provider Comcast Corp. release the identity of the blogger.
Mr. Finger and Paul A. Levy, an attorney representing free speech group Public Citizen, said the court used "a very weak standard" to order the revealing of the posters.
"It can't be too easy to unmask an anonymous speaker," Mr. Levy said. "There are cases filed to silence a speaker. The mere filing of a case has an enormous chilling effect on speech."
"What kind of message do we send to the trial courts?" Chief Justice Myron T. Steele asked about applying a different standard for the Internet. "What do we look for and tell them to do?"
Mr. Finger said Mr. Cahill must show "actual malice" - prove the statements made were known to be false - or that actual damage was done to the councilman.
Reading through the blog entries between John Doe No. 1 and Mr. Cahill after oral arguments, Mr. Finger noted that the exchange didn't compare with two Founding Fathers who disagreed strongly.
"If they think this is bad, look at (Thomas) Jefferson and (Alexander) Hamilton," Mr. Finger said. "This is a picnic by comparison."
The Supreme Court has 90 days to render a decision in the case.
Post comments on this issue at newsblog.info/0406.
Staff writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296 or dvolturo@newszap.com.
Update ping
Thought you might like to see this update
What sort of libel or slander prosecution has their ever been for graffiti about someone?
Do people actually believe what they read on the internet? That would appear to be their first mistake.
Did Kayne West libel the President when he said on national television that Bush doesn't like black people?
Thank you for the update pings!
You pose excellent questions........way beyond my ability to answer.
Apologies for the multiple pings.........but I remembered your interest in this case.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
This is where the folks who stand for freedom of speech divide from the legalistic or moralistic.
This case really will decide whether the internet is to be a bastion of free speech, responsible or not, or if it will be as ridiculously censored by government as TV and radio are.
As it stands, the internet is free, and that saves a lot of us from being completely negative about Americans' prospects for continued freedom. If this ruling says it's not, God help FR, and God help us all, because the Supreme Court as currently constituted will almost certainly uphold that, and FR will become a neutered-speech zone unless proven, grade-a-national politicians are under discussion.
If this ruling goes the other way, well, maybe the Republic still has a shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.