Another case on Internet anonymity

Evan Brown reports that an Arizona state court has adopted a three part test for unmasking anonymous online speakers:

The court looked to the 2005 case of Doe v. Cahill which requires (1) that the anonymous party sought to be unmask[ed] be given notice of the proceedings, and (2) that the party seeking the identity of the anonymous party put forth sufficient facts to survive a motion for summary judgment.

Doe appealed the lower court’s order which required he be identified. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals remanded the matter back to the trial court. It held that although the court correctly applied the two Cahill factors, it should have considered a third factor, namely, a balancing of the relative interests of the parties. Consideration of this third factor, the court held, would help ensure that the important First Amendment rights at issue in anonymous speech cases would be adequately protected.

I am thinking about the the first factor, that the anonymous party sought to be identified be given notice of the proceedings. I suppose the reason for this is so that this person, too, can seek consideration of his interests before the court, thereby putting some teeth into the third factor. (Otherwise “all parties'” interests cannot be considered.) But why should this only apply in cases such as this? Many third parties, possible witnesses, etc., are identified by civil discovery. Should they also be given the opportunity to object to being identified? Evidently not, because the engine driving this criterion is the First Amendment, which is not present in a typical business or tort litigation.

At least courts are setting forth standards that suggest there is no absolute right to Internet anonymity.

email

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

4 Responses to “Another case on Internet anonymity”

  1. December 19, 2007 at 9:27 am #

    This is an excellent compromise. I know that you and I have disagreed on internet anonymity, but I think that this splits the baby perfectly. I don’t believe that there should be an absolute right to I-anonymity either. However, fishing expeditions and witch hunts need a speed bump. This throws one in the way, but one that can be easily overcome by a non-frivolous claim.

  2. December 19, 2007 at 10:35 am #

    Had to comment on this one back “home.” See Commentary Here

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Score one for the Doe v. Cahill standard « The Legal Satyricon - December 19, 2007

    […] Hat tip to Evan Brown and Ron Coleman […]

  2. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Anonymous penumbras; submerged emanations - December 12, 2008

    […] doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate Internet anonymity’s value in certain circumstances.  But, like abortion, we should distinguish between cases where a departure from a general rule of […]