CDR: another judge farts: anonymous speech

[David Honig]

Anonymous Net Posting Not
        Protected

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Internet-Defamation.html

        By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

        Filed at 4:29 p.m. ET

        MIAMI (AP) -- In a ruling that challenges online
        anonymity, a Florida appeals court declared Monday
        that Internet service providers must divulge the
        identities of people who post defamatory messages on
        the Internet.

        Critics of the ruling say it could have a chilling effect
        on free expression in Internet chat rooms.

        The ruling comes against the efforts of the American
        Civil Liberties Union to protect the identity of eight
        individuals who posted anonymous missives on a
        Yahoo! financial chat room about Erik Hvide, the
        former CEO of Hvide Marine Inc.

        Hvide alleges that personal attacks against him also
        caused damage to the company's image.

        Hvide's attorney Bruce Fischman hailed the ruling,
        saying it would force Internet users to ``think a bit
        before they speak.''

        The ACLU had wanted the court first to rule on whether
        Hyde had actually been defamed before identifying the
        defendants, named in court papers only as John Doe. If
        there was no showing of defamation, the ACLU
        reasoned, the critics should remain anonymous.

        However, on Thursday, the court dissolved a stay
        freezing subpoenas for the records of Yahoo! Inc. and
        America Online Inc., whose service was used by one of
        the defendants in the defamation case.

        Lauren Gelman, public policy director with the
        Electronic Frontier Foundation, is concerned that other
        courts could follow the lead of the 3rd District Court of
        Appeals in approving subpoenas.

        ``This kind of speech happens all the time in all kinds
        of chat rooms,'' Gelman said. ``We don't want to see
        these subpoenas become regularly used to cause people
        to self-censor themselves.''

        Both Internet companies took a back seat in the lawsuit,
        saying they would do whatever the judges said.

        Lyrissa Lidsky, who argued the case on behalf of the
        ACLU, called the decision a surprise and a setback.

        Nevertheless, she said, ``It's not a defeat for all the
        other John Does in the pipeline'' fighting
        Internet-related subpoenas because the court did not
        explain its legal reasoning.

        An appeal is being explored.

        ``The court had the potential to set an important
        precedent about the right to speak anonymously on the
        Internet,'' Lidsky said. ``The courts are eventually going
        to have to come to grips with this issue and decide how
        broad free speech rights are in cyberspace.''

        The issue is largely untested in the nation's courts.

        A Virginia federal judge sided with a government
        subpoena request in a criminal case, but civil suits in
        California and Virginia have not settled the subpoena
        questions involving anonymous Internet users.