appellate court decision re:speach

This is from Electronic Privacy Information Center's (EPIC) recent Newsletter:

" In the first appellate court decision to consider the issue, a New
Jersey court on July 11 rejected a company's attempt to obtain the
identities of anonymous Internet critics. A three-judge panel of the
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled that the company,
Dendrite International, failed to meet the stringent legal standards
required to obtain subpoenas for the disclosure of the identities of
people who post comments on Internet message boards. The decision
affirms a lower court ruling issued last November (see EPIC Alert
7.21).

Dendrite had sued four people who anonymously posted messages critical
of the company on a Yahoo! message board, alleging that the posters
had made false statements, had violated employment agreements, and/or
had published secret information. Noting that "t is well-
established that rights afforded by the First Amendment remain
protected even when engaged in anonymously," the appeals court adopted
a four-part test to ensure that the right to speak anonymously can be
lost only if the plaintiff can show that it has a valid case against
the speakers that could not be pursued without identifying the
speakers.

Under this standard, a court should first require the plaintiff to
attempt to notify the anonymous posters that their identities are
being sought and give the "John Doe" defendants an opportunity to
oppose the request. Second, the plaintiffs must identify the exact
statements alleged to be unlawful. Third, the court must then
determine both whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief
and whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to support its claim.
Finally, if the first three criteria are met, the court must balance
the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against
the strength of the case and the necessity for identifying the poster.
The appeals court upheld the lower court ruling that Dendrite had not
met this standard, because there was no proof that the messages had
caused its stock price to fall or had otherwise caused it harm.

The procedures adopted by the court had been proposed in an amicus
brief filed by Public Citizen Litigation Group and the American Civil
Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation. The decision is likely to
be influential in other cases, which are growing in frequency; Yahoo!
recently told a judge in another case that it has received thousands
of subpoenas like Dendrite's.

The appeals court decision is available at:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/A2774-00.htm

The Public Citizen/ACLUNJF amicus brief is available at

http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/dendwebamicus.htm

 

LKH: The coourts are very protective of our freedom of speach...in the case where they know the plaintiff still would have to prove "damages". In your situation regarding that letter from TU...WHAT damages could they possibly claim? Consumers can't stop "utilizing their services", so they can't lose money....which is the only way you can hurt a million dollar corp...they can't claim emotional duress.... In order to prevail on a libel claim you must prove actual damages. I'd like to see what damages they say you have caused these multi-billion dollar companies simply by speaking the truth about their services.