Posted on 11/02/2005 3:57:34 PM PST by Moose Dung
Court Hears Internet Anonymity Case
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- The publisher of a financial newsletter told Maryland's second highest court Wednesday that he should not be forced to disclose his subscriber list and other information sought by an Arizona company seeking those it says made defamatory online comments.
The publisher, Timothy M. Mulligan, told the judges "almost everything we publish could potentially be subpoenaed," putting him in the position of constantly appearing for depositions if his request to quash a subpoena by the Arizona drug company, Matrixx Initiatives, is denied.
The judges, however, appeared to side with Matrixx, repeatedly asking why Mulligan should not appear for the deposition and invoke his right not to reveal his subscribers and sources under Maryland's so-called "Shield Law," which protects the rights of the press.
"My sense is it didn't go well," Mulligan said after the hearing.
"It's not clear yet, but it will probably be in litigation for years because I have no intention of giving up my sources or subscribers."
After the hearing, Matrixx attorney David Tobin said "no one has the right to make defamatory comments. That is not protected speech."
Internet postings have become the subject of a number of court battles, especially in cases where they have affected the stock prices of companies. Free speech advocates have also become involved and the issue has even entered the political arena in Maryland.
Joseph F. Steffen Jr., a former aide to Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., resigned last winter after it was revealed that he had posted rumors about Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's personal life on Internet chat sites. O'Malley is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor and would face Ehrlich in the general election if he wins.
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
dung.
The internet is the ONLY uncensored, unfiltered voice the average American has anymore, it must be protected. There must be a fine line of course, revealing classified information or endangering lives must be punished. But otherwise, 'keep your laws off my net'.
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say what no one objects to. It is the freedom to say what is objectionable, what others would prefer remained unsaid, to say what is controversial. A Constitutional Ammendment that only guarantees the right to say that which no one finds objectionable is empty, useless text.
You're right. I'm back in school after a 15year hiatus, and many in the current generation raised in political correctness actually believe that speech they deem "offensive" should be barred.
More lies about Steffen. Steffen never posted squat on internet chat sites. MD4Bush, a Rat HQ boy, posted private freepmails here between the two of them.
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.