MD Appellate Ct. Sets "New Standard" For Anonymous Posting

A Maryland court of appeals has set what they are calling a new "standard that should be applied to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation." The court overturned an earlier ruling that would have required NewsZap.com to turn over the names of anonymous posters who posted negative remarks about the cleanliness of a Centreville Dunkin' Donuts. "In a defamation case involving anonymous speakers, the ruling said, courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond. The plaintiff must then hand over the exact statements in question, so the court can decide whether the comments are obviously defamatory. Finally, the ruling says, the court must weigh the anonymous poster's right to free speech against the strength of the defamation case and the necessity of disclosing the poster's identity."

Comments

It isn't "a" Maryland court of appeals ...

[grandpa-geek]

... it is "the" Maryland Court of Appeals. In other states it would be known as the state supreme court.

A similar situation is that what other states call the "state house of representatives" in Maryland is called the House of Delegates. (Virginia calls its lower house that also.)

Re:This is really dumb...

[UnknowingFool]

The appeals court disagreed with you in this decision in general.

The anonymity of speech, however, is not absolute and may be limited by defamation considerations.

In this particular case, the plaintiff sued the wrong people and the appeals court ruled that the original judge should not have compelled the NewsZap.com to identify the defendants.

This case involved 5 anonymous users and the plaintiff Brodie. The first 3 users discussed how a historical home sold by Brodie was burned down and demolished by the new owners. One user chastises the new owners and Mr. Brodie. The other two comment and ask for more information without specially posting any negative comments about Mr. Brodie.

In response to these comments, two other users make negative remarks about the cleanliness of the Dunkin' Donuts Mr. Brodie owns. One of the first 3 users comments on this but make no negative remarks.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Brodie however sued only the first 3 and tried to add the other 2 later after the statute of limitations ran out. The appeals court ruled that Mr. Brodie has no real case against the first 3 users as their comments were not libelous in nature. He would have had a case against the other 2 users but did not sue them. Thus Newszap.com should not have been compelled to identify any users.

Re:wow...

[UnknowingFool]

An anonymous statement holds no weight and thus cannot be defamatory.

This specific ruling disagrees with you, page 17:

The anonymity of speech, however, is not absolute and may be limited by defamation considerations. Beauharnais v. Illinois

In this case, the court held that 3 of the defendants made no defamatory statements so their identities should not be revealed. The other 2 did make defamatory remarks but were not sued by the plaintiff before the statute of limitations ran out and thus should not identified.