ILNews

Shield law ruling unique in nation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In balancing free speech and a person’s protection against defamation, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that anonymous online commenters to media websites are not “sources” protected by the state’s shield law if they aren’t part of the newsgathering process.

In the court’s Feb. 21 decision, Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote that an anonymous commenter is not a source as envisioned by Indiana’s Shield Law, and this holding is consistent with the state Legislature’s intent.
 

vaidik-nancy.jpg Vaidik

When it comes to determining when anonymous posters’ identities should be revealed because of potentially defamatory statements, the judges adopted a standard that’s increasingly being used by courts across the country.

“Our court struck a profound balance on the limits of this kind of activity, and said protecting online commenters with the shield law is a bad idea and can injure journalism,” said Indianapolis attorney Kevin Betz, who represented Jeffrey and Cynthia Miller in their defamation suit.

The Millers sued multiple parties who made remarks alleging Jeffrey Miller, the former president of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, misused money. A story published in The Indianapolis Star about how Junior Achievement had missed payments with contracts on a building project and misappropriated grant money led to an anonymous comment by “DownWithTheColts” on The Star’s website. Miller sought to add several anonymous online commenters from various media outlets to his suit.

A Marion Superior judge in February 2011 ordered the news outlets to turn over information to identify commenters. The Star refused, arguing it was protected by the First Amendment, the Indiana Constitution and the state shield law from having to comply with the discovery requests.

The Court of Appeals reversed in In Re: Indiana Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Indianapolis Star, Jeffrey M. Miller & Cynthia S. Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc, et al., No. 49A02-1103-PL-234, and held that Indiana’s Shield Law does not protect “DownWithTheColts” because the commenter is not a reporter, editor or owner of The Indianapolis Star and was not a source of information for the story because the comments were posted after the story was written.

Betz said he believes this appeal is unique because it’s the first appellate ruling he knows of nationally that has ruled on this issue of shield law protection for anonymous news comments.

Although the court rejected The Star’s shield law argument, the panel suggested that shield law protection could be warranted where commenters were considered sources and part of the newsgathering process.

Other jurisdictions

Indiana has joined a growing number of states that have adopted a heightened standard for courts to use to determine whether an anonymous online comment rises to the level of defamation. Most are using some variety of two standards: the Dendrite test, arising from a 2001 New Jersey case that involved anonymous commenters on a Yahoo! message board; or the Cahill test, which comes from a 2005 Delaware Supreme Court case that involved anonymous comments on a blog and modified the earlier Dendrite test.

Examples of the use of Dendrite and Cahill tests are scattered throughout case briefs and U.S. courts at the state and federal levels.

Tennessee and Maryland courts have applied Dendrite’s multistep analysis to determine if the plaintiffs were entitled to identification of an anonymous blogger. The Maryland appellate court concluded that too low a threshold “would inhibit the use of the Internet as a marketplace of ideas,” but that too high a threshold would “undermine personal accountability and the search for truth by requiring claimants to essentially prove their case before even knowing who the commentator was.”

The Western District of Washington has also adopted a Dendrite-style test, requiring a plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence to support all of the elements of a defamation claim and using the standard to quash a subpoena seeking the identity of an Internet site’s owner and operator that wrote about a marketing company.

Not every court examining anonymous comment cases have relied on Dendrite or Cahill. An Illinois appellate court refused to adopt either standard in 2010. The court rejected the idea that the plaintiff’s claim should be tested by a summary judgment standard rather than a motion to dismiss standard, reasoning that Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction that requires a legally and factually sufficient complaint. The court further held that once the plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case, he has made a valid claim for damages and has a right to expect a remedy.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held the type of appropriate test will vary depending on the type of speech. The appellate court last year denied a mandamus petition that would have directed the District of Idaho to vacate its order to unmask anonymous Internet posters after the lower court had considered several possible tests and applied Cahill.

In its ruling, the appellate court found the lower court didn’t inquire into the speakers’ identities and clarify the nature of speech, but still adopted the two-part test derived from Cahill. The 9th Circuit noted that applying the “rigorous” Cahill standard is “understandable” in cases involving political speech. But in the context of less-protected commercial speech, “Cahill’s bar extends too far” and the District Court’s two-part test was only appropriate, if ever, in a case concerning free speech.

In looking at which heightened standard to use for Indiana, Vaidik wrote that the Dendrite test is the most appropriate balance between protecting anonymous speech and preventing defamatory speech because of its flexibility. But because of the requirement to prove actual malice, the judges adopted a modified Dendrite test – similar to what the Arizona Court of Appeals did in 2007. The modified standard requires the plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence to support only those elements of his or her cause of action that are not dependent on the commenter’s identity. Prima facie evidence of actual malice isn’t required.

Applying that standard to Miller’s case, the court found that the statement made by “DownWithTheColts” is defamatory per se, and that Miller now needs to provide proof that the statement is false in order for his defamation claim to move forward.

In adopting that modified test, the appellate court allowed trial judges to use the summary judgment standard and weigh factors such as the type of speech, the speaker’s expectation of privacy, the potential consequence of a discovery order, the need for the speaker’s identity, and the availability of other discovery methods.

“With this decision, Indiana joins the growing consensus in state and federal courts around the country that the Dendrite balancing test is the best way to reconcile the free speech rights of anonymous Internet speakers against the interest of plaintiffs who really have been wronged by online speech in pursuing genuine legal claims,” said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with nonprofit advocacy organization Public Citizen in Washington, D.C., an amicus party opposing the disclosure of the commenter’s identity. “Requiring proof and a showing of genuine need for the speaker’s identity can help prevent powerful interests from discouraging criticism by the threat of baseless litigation.”

Washington, D.C., attorney Charles Tobin, who represented an amicus party made up of five media outlets, called the Indiana ruling First Amendment friendly.

“Courts have had to make policy decisions on whether we should promote growth of the Internet,” he said. “Some believe it’s a breeding ground for obnoxious speech, but if the First Amendment stands for anything, it’s that one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric. We may not like the message and may really hate the messenger, but we have to allow for maximum speech and the methods it is expressed.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • chilling effect on free speech and the net
    Very contrary to the trend of public opinion. Legislators should step in here and force defamation law to come in step with the times. Too often used by the rich and powerful to chill speech. Political correctness another such trend. So much for free inquiry and the marketplace of ideas.

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT