Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 10/06/2005 11:16:28 AM PDT by Gabz
DOVER — The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed a Smyrna councilman's attempt to unmask an anonymous Internet poster Wednesday, reversing a lower court's decision.
Smyrna Town Councilman Patrick J. Cahill and his wife Julia alleged in a September 2004 Superior Court suit that four anonymous posters to a Web log — or blog — defamed him by claiming he had an "obvious mental deterioration" and implying that he was homosexual.
The Internet free speech case is the first decided by any Supreme Court, which could give it national importance, said the attorney representing one anonymous poster.
"The Delaware Supreme Court recognized the importance of the issue and gave respect to the First Amendment interests involved," said Wilmington attorney David L. Finger, who represented one of the bloggers, identified as John Doe No. 1.
"The public's interest is being able to express their opinions anonymously.
"This is likely to be influential in other state and federal courts dealing with similar issues."
The case was argued before all five members of the Supreme Court Sept. 7 in Dover.
In a 33-page unanimous decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice Myron T. Steele wrote that the "good faith" standard used by a Superior Court judge who ordered the unmasking of John Doe No. 1 was insufficient.
"The Internet is a unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before," Justice Steele wrote.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously.
"The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
Cahill attorney Richard Katzenstein said he had just received the decision Wednesday afternoon and was "not in a position to comment."
In September 2004, the defendant wrote about Mr. Cahill on the Smyrna-Clayton Issues Blog, a public forum for residents to write about issues facing their local community.
"Anyone who has spent any amount of time with Cahill would be keenly aware of such character flaws, not to mention an obvious mental deterioration," the poster wrote.
The post also referred to Mr. Cahill as "Gahill," which the councilman said could lead people to believe he was having an extramarital, homosexual affair.
The Supreme Court concluded that using a "G" instead of a "C" is "just as likely to be a typographical error as an intended misguided insult."
The high court also ruled that the reference to "obvious mental deterioration" could not be interpreted as anything other than opinion, noting that at least one blog reader posted comments denouncing the claims.
Three free-speech advocacy groups, including the Delaware American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen, argued during the hearing that the court should apply a high standard to protect anonymous speech.
"Anonymous speech has been an important part of free speech since the Revolutionary War," said Drewery Fennell, executive director of the state ACLU.
Protecting anonymous speech is important, Ms. Fennell said, because many who keep their identities hidden are whistle-blowers.
"The court applied an appropriate standard," she said. "The anonymity of speech won't be disturbed unless the plaintiff can show they meet a legal standard of harm at the outset of the case."
Post comments on this issue at newsblog.info/04.
Staff writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296 or dvolturo@newszap.com.
BIG NEWS from a little state.
LINK to previous article.
Link to another Delaware paper (Gannett, can't post article here)
I'd like to welcome that news by reiterating that John F'n Kerry is a traitor, and that, John, if you reply via FreepMail I'll tell you who I am! :)
LOL!!!!
I haven't checked the blog yet - but imagine it is going to be very interesting :)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
ap on yahoo thread , same item. Thanks!
Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger (reverses lower court ruling)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497858/posts
The folks on the blog in that town are VERY unhappy to say the least. And while I can understand it to a certain extent, they are not looking at the big picture of what this really means.
Compared to some of the things I've been called on various forum and blogs (including FR), what occurred in this particular case is peanuts...........and I'm not a public official. People in public office need to have aligator hides and tis guy apparently needs to gain one.
BTW - I beat you by nearly 45 minutes.............LOL!!!!!
Wow! Some sanity in Delaware!!!
It's about the only sanity in Delaware.
Folks here don't wish to believe me, but southern Delaware Democrats are not only more conservative, but also more honorable than their Republican peers from nearly anywhere in the state.
Judge Steele, who wrote the opinion, is a Democrat. I've known him for more than 20 years and I have no problem addressing him as "Your Honor" because he is an honorable gentleman.
Amen, Bump and WooHOo! ;-)
Thank you, my FRiend :)
Well .. I don't necessarily agree - I know - you're going to throw things at me .. but this decision could have been done to PROTECT THOSE WHO CALL PRESIDENT BUSH - a murderer (that's slander) because the President has never ever been convicted of murdering anybody. I don't like it.
Accusing someone of being mentally unstable or a homosexual - when they're neither - IS REALLY SLANDER. Because the person cannot be identified .. the person harmed has no recourse. That's not FREE SPEECH. While people may say whatever they choose (free speech), they must also be held accountable for what they say - like yelling fire in a crowed theater type of speech.
I think this protects flame throwers - not free speech.
I understand the point you are making, but I don't think I am an in total agreement with you.
Yes, you are correct that this will protect the flamethrowers, but it also protects the legitimate whistle blowers and those are the ones I care far more about.
'Child abuser' is one of the nicer things I have been called on various blogs and forums, including Free Republic, and I've never abused a child in my life - but guess what? I don't want the pathetic people saying such things to be outed - I just prove them wrong by my own life and my own statements.
If we can't compare people we've never met to Hitler, what's the point of posting on a forum?
Nothing "protects legitimate whistle blowers" - unless they happen to be democrats or liberals. Whistle blowers who are conservatives DO NOT GET PROTECTED.
That's why this isn't a "free speech" issue - this is legitimizing SLANDER issue - and not being held accountable for false charges against a person.
I've been compared to Hitler, even here.
In actuality, the general consensus is that the John Doe's in this case are "Conservative Republicans". Unfortunately, a large majority of "conservative republicans" in Delaware are anything but either.
I've been following this case for more than a year - I remain happy with this ruling.
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.