Digital Media Lawyer Blog

Digital media law update: In a January 21 decision, a California Federal judge permitted a plaintiff to discover the identity of the operator of a counterfeit online poker chip business, without requiring the plaintiff to providing evidence to support its allegations. The court merely required the plaintiff to (1) show that the anonymous defendant was a real person who could be sued in a Federal court, (2) recount the steps it had taken to locate the defendant, (3) show that its action could survive a motion to dismiss, and (4) file its request for discovery with the Court. See Zynga v. Does 1-5 d/b/a Easy Chips, Northern District of California, No. 5:09-cv-05232, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff Zynga's Motion for Leave to Conduct Third Party Discovery (January 21, 2010). While the standard imposed by the Court here was far lighter than that typically imposed in cases involving Internet defamation, it was not necessarily inappropriate in this case.

We have frequently written about the differing standards that courts use when confronted with a request from plaintiffs to uncover the identity of the anonymous author of material posted on the Internet. The right to speak and write anonymously is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- and to an even greater extent by some State constitutions. However, the extent of the right to anonymous speech varies based on the content of the speech. At one end of the spectrum, the author of purely political anonymous speech may be given absolute protection against disclosure of his identity. At the other end, the author of defamatory speech may ultimately be given no protection from disclosure at all, since defamatory speech is considered unprotected under the U.S. Constitution. Fn1

While certain types of speech, such as defamation, may get little or no protection, a court considering a complaint is not in a position to know whether the allegations have any merit. There is always a danger that the allegations will prove untrue, or that the defendant will be able to establish a valid affirmative defense. As such, to protect the rights of anonymous authors, courts around the U.S. generally require a plaintiff to show that their claims have at least some level of merit before being permitted to discover the identity of the anonymous author of the speech at issue.

These standards can vary greatly from court to court. Some courts impose what we have termed a "light" standard, and merely required the plaintiff to show that his complaint would withstand a motion to dismiss or that it was filed in "good faith." This light standard was applied in the recent Liskula Cohen case. See In re Liskula Cohen, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York: Part 11, Index No. 100012/09. While this test has different labels, it ultimately merely requires the plaintiff to show that his complaint meets pleading standards -- no evidence or proof is required.

Continue reading "Zynga v. Does d/b/a Easy Chips: California Federal Judge Applies Light Standard for Uncovering Identity of Anonymous Proprietor of On-line Business" »

Communications Decency Act update: A New Jersey Superior Court judge recently evoked controversy among First Amendment and media law experts by ordering GoDaddy, Domains by Proxy, ASP.net and Verisign to "shut down and disable" three websites which published allegedly defamatory posts. See Apex Technology Group, Inc. v. Doe, N.J. Superior Ct., Law Division, Middlesex County, No. MID-L-7878-09, Order (Dec. 23, 2009). The preliminary injunction order was issued based on the plaintiffs' claim that it had been defamed by postings that appeared on the sites www.endh1b.com, www.itgrunt.com, and www.guestworkerfraud.com. The order also directed the three websites to take down the posts, as well.

No one on the defense side was represented at the preliminary injunction hearing. The court order also suggests that no one at the domain name registries/registrar/web hosting companies received notice of or were represented at the hearing. As a result, the order appears to be rife with substantive and procedural defects. (Not an unusual result when an order is issued without the benefit of defense counsel briefing).

But what about the substantive issue at stake in this order: What rights does a person who is the object of a defamatory Internet post have to get the post removed? Can the aggrieved seek an injunction against the author of the post? If she can't locate the author, who may be anonymous, does she have the right to get an injunction against the host of the website to get it removed?

In fact, the law is somewhat unsettled in this area, and the relief available may depend on the jurisdiction in which the plaintiff sues.

• The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars injunctive relief, but only until a jury trial on whether the statement in question is defamatory has been conducted.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, but this protection is not unlimited. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that a media outlet may be enjoined from further publication of a libelous statement. See Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). However, such an injunction may only be issued after a full jury determination that the statement is in fact defamatory. See Kramer v. Thompson, 947 F.2d 666, 676 n. 25 (3d. Cir. 1991) (summarizing cases).

Continue reading "Apex Technology v. Doe: May a Court Enter an Injunction Requiring an ISP to Take Down an Allegedly Defamatory Third Party Post?" »

Digital media law update: In a victory for new media rights, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that the Government may not prohibit corporations from making independent expenditures on media in support of political causes. This opinion invalidated a federal statute, 2 U.S.C. §441b, that prohibited corporations -- except those involved in traditional broadcast media -- from making independent expenditures to publicly advocate the election or defeat of a Federal candidate 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S.____ (2010). This ruling is important for the multitudes of businesses (like my own) who make direct expenditures on political advocacy through blogs and other forms of interactive media.

The Court's decision arose out of a controversy over the film Hillary: The Movie, a film criticizing Sen. Hillary Clinton, that nonprofit organization Citizens United wished to broadcast during the 2008 election season. Citizens United was concerned that the film and ads that supported it would be covered by §441b's ban on corporate-funded expenditures, so it filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Federal Election Commission (FEC). A District of Columbia District Court three-judge panel denied Citizens United's petition for a preliminary injunction, holding that §441b was facially constitutional under Supreme Court precedent.

The Supreme Court has now overruled that District Court ruling. The opinion was written by the "centrist" Justice Kennedy, with concurrences by Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

Justice Kennedy's opinion characterized §441b's prohibition on independent corporate expenditures as a "ban on speech." He noted that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest." Few restrictions on speech have ever satisfied this test.

According to Kennedy, "the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints," Indeed, "[s]peech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means of content control." This means that the Government cannot impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. That includes corporations, because "First Amendment protections extend to corporations." Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection "simply because its source is a corporation."

Kennedy admitted that since the latter part of the 19th Century, state and federal laws have imposed a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates. However, laws prohibiting corporate expenditures for independent corporate advocacy were not enacted until 1947. Corporate expenditures that are made to candidates are different from independent expenditures, because donations made directly to candidates raise the possibility of corruption -- as held in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 47-48 (1976). As such, until 1990, the Supreme Court upheld laws restricting corporate donations to candidates, but struck down laws restrictions on corporate independent expenditures. See, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Belotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784 (1978).

Continue reading "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC): Supreme Court Ruling Is a Major Victory for New Media First Amendment Rights" »