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. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

    2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

    3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

    4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

    5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).

    ADVERTISEMENT