IBJNews

Appeals court rules on anonymous online comment case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered a Marion County judge to reconsider whether The Indianapolis Star must identify an online user who posted an anonymous comment that now is part of a defamation lawsuit.

Jeffrey M. Miller, former CEO of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, sued JA; its current CEO, Jennifer Burk; and Central Indiana Community Foundation and its president, Brian Payne, for defamation in March 2010 after IBJ and other media outlets ran stories about JA and Miller. He later added as defendants about a dozen people who made anonymous comments about the coverage on news organization websites.

After a Star article on JA facing questions about an audit tied to funding for a building project, anonymous poster “DownWithTheColts” wrote, “This is not JA’s responsibility. They need to look at the FORMER president of JA and others on the [Foundation] board. The 'missing' money can be found in their bank accounts.”

Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid last year ordered IBJ, the Star and WTRV-TV Channel 6 to identify people who posted comments on their websites; only the Star refused to comply. At issue is whether the Star has to provide Miller information to help him identify “DownWithTheColts.”

The appellate judges decided that the heart of the case is whether “DownWithTheColts” is “the source of any information” provided to a news outlet under Indiana’s Shield Law. The judges compared the online comment forum to that of a bulletin board outside of the Star’s office building that asks for anyone to tack an announcement.

The newspaper did not use the comment by “DownWithTheColts” to write its story or as a lead for another story, the panel said. And an anonymous commenter is not a source as envisioned by Indiana’s Shield Law, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

The judges then reviewed anonymous speech rights under the state and federal constitutions. They found that the statement made by “DownWithTheColts” is defamatory, but Miller has not yet proven that it is false, which Vaidik wrote is necessary for his defamation claim to move forward. And it will be impossible for Miller to prove actual malice under Indiana law without the identity of “DownWithTheColts.”

“While we do not want defamatory commenters to hide behind the First Amendment protection of anonymous speech, we must balance the prospect of too readily revealing the identity of these anonymous commenters,” she wrote.

The judges ordered Reid to apply the so-called Dendrite test, which comes from a New Jersey case involving anonymous commenters on a Yahoo! message board, saying it draws the most appropriate balance between protecting anonymous speech and preventing defamatory speech. But because of Indiana's requirement to prove actual malice, the judges modified the test to require Miller to produce prima facie evidence to support only those elements of his cause that are not dependent on the commenter’s identity. Preliminary evidence of actual malice is not required.

The COA sent the case back to the trial court to apply the modified version of the Dendrite test under both the federal and state constitutions to determine if Miller has satisfied the requirements for obtaining the identity of “DownWithTheColts.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Free Speech
    I have been away for a while. Is this still the United States of America? I cannot really tell from the article. If anyone reading this is aware of sudden changes to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, please post an update. Thank you in advance, if you are still called an American Citizen. If we are still free, and our First Amendment Rights are in place, I offer, "Praise the Lord".
  • guess who?
    I ain't seen nothing... I ain't saying nothing!
    • Anonymous Kicks @ss!
      Long live Anonymous!

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Aaron is my fav!

    2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

    3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

    4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

    5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

    ADVERTISEMENT