ACLU Defends Net Discussion Anonymity By CHARLES SHEEHAN (AP)
PITTSBURGH -- Messages about public figures in Internet chat rooms are akin to anonymous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and their authors should have the same right to keep their identities secret, advocates told Pennsylvania's highest court.
The American Civil Liberties Union and a number of Internet companies have lined up to protect the identity of a person who alleged in a political online chat room that a state court judge behaved unethically.
The groups argue the Internet is the equivalent of the anonymous sheets patriots once nailed to trees and courthouse doors to criticize the English monarchy before America declared independence. Paine's influential pamphlet, "Common Sense," came out in January 1776.
Attorneys for Superior Court Judge Jane Ore Melvin say the chat-room message, insinuating she illegally lobbied then-Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend to a vacant spot on the Allegheny County bench, was defamatory.
Her defamation lawsuit is pending while her lawyers try to get America Online to disclose the identity of the author. The appeal argued before the state Supreme Court on Monday was from an appeals court ruling that said the author must be identified.
There was no indication when a ruling will come from the Supreme Court.
Lower courts in four other states -- New Jersey, Washington, California, Virginia -- have ruled that extreme caution should be used when deciding whether to reveal the identity of Internet users. Similar suits are pending in numerous states, according to the ACLU.
One of Melvin's attorneys, Robert Lampl, argued that although the Internet is a new mode of communication, it should not free individuals to slander public officials.
But Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the ACLU, told the high court that forcing service providers to divulge the identity of chat-room users, who often use pseudonyms, would create a chilling environment and inhibit frank discussion, especially about the government.
"We are not saying that there should be complete immunity from suit whenever someone says something anonymous on the Internet," Beeson said. "We are only arguing that, especially when it's a public official that is criticized -- that public official has to show that she actually suffered some harm from the statement before she can proceed to unmask the speaker."
Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the bar for proving harm to a public official is considerably higher than for others.
Experts say it will be difficult for the judge, who was recently endorsed by the state Republican Party to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, to prove she suffered harm.
"When you have speech about a public official, it's going to get the highest level of First Amendment protection and in this case in particular," said Robert Richards, a professor of communications and law at Penn State University.
"Courts that have dealt with this issue recently have recognized the Internet as one of the broadest vehicles of speech yet and that it deserves a high degree of protection."
Beeson said political dissenters in the 21st century have the same fears of reprisal, and the same need to remain anonymous, as the pamphleteers of the pre-Revolutionary era.
"Just like the founders of this country did and they did it for a very good reason," Beeson said. "They wanted to be able to criticize the government and not suffer retaliation."
Asked by Justice J. Michael Eakin what harm Melvin had suffered, her attorney replied that she was "humiliated, embarrassed. People shun her."
"Public officials have to withstand criticism, sometimes brutal," Lampl said. "What they don't have to withstand is falsehood."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-internet-defamation0304mar04,0,4575065.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines
While it is legal in the US to threaten the entire police force under the 1st ammendment,I have been charged here in Australia with threatening the entire state police force.This on Indymedia where the police say,"anyone can download".At a bail hearing they described me as an 'anarchist' bent on 'assassination politics'. The trial is now set for June 30 over TWO YEARS after my laptop was seized by police.(they still have claiming to need it as evidence though none has been supplied in the discovery brief.)My lawyer is getting an independant expert to examine the HDD and we are asking for more details of the charge.The charge that is based soley on assertion and has no witness's or physical evidence apart from an e-mail dated TWO HOURS after the alleged 'threat' went up.The complainent,a police constable, has already sworn on oath that he 'knows nothing about computors." Posting at Indy seems to leave no trace on the HDD used.This can be tested by making a long unique Indy post,disconecting,then running a HDD search for the unique post on your HDD.So it would appear at the moment it is safe to contribute anonymously to IMC's,(they don't keep logs either.)My case should confirm this one way or the other.I am one proud anarchist labrat. Long Live Anonymous Anarchism!
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/03/04/4746972
