Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger

joel_archer writes "The Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official. Judge Steele described the Internet as a 'unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,' and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. 'We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,' Steele wrote."

Comments

Re:what right?

[Davorama]

Yeah, I didn't know about that either. An explaination is here. It appears to have to do with not supressing free speach in the form of leaflets.

Re:what right?

[np_bernstein]

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is not enumerated right to privacy either, but many, if not most, constitutional scholors agree that the right to privacy is indeed a right.

Anonymity

[YouTalkinToMe]

> ...will get you in trouble whether political or personal.

It makes a big difference, whether it is political or personal.

From the Electronic Privacy Information Center Archive (see http://www.epic.org/free_speech/default.html#anony mity for more info)

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."

In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."

Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.

Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.

Re:Sad

[CTachyon]

While no right to anonymous speech is spelled out in the Constitution or its Amendments, I would imagine that the founding fathers thought that anonymity was trivially implied by "[not] abridging the freedom of speech", since a law requiring "eunymity" of unpopular political speech effectively bans that speech. (Think Communist speech in the McCarthy era. Regardless of where one stands on the idea itself, Communist speech is protected by the First Amendment.)

The Founders themselves made heavy use of the anonymous pen name Publius when writing The Federalist Papers -- essentially an ad campaign for our current Constitution -- so it's easy to see where they stood on the subject when they wrote the Constitution.

Re:Sad

[thebdj]

Actually anonymity did not exactly win. The case has been remanded back to the lower court. The argument before the DE Supreme Court was that the individuals in question did not establish a prima facia case and that the judge over the case used a very relaxed standard that did not provide proper first ammendment protection. Based from what I heard this site was saying, I would not be too surprised in the end if the bloggers get unmasked. Of course, in order for that to happen the people behind this will have to continue the case, but I cannot see why they wouldn't if they have gone this far.