Morris: Internet is the Wild West of blog posting

March 16, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

commentary-morris-gregWhen you post a comment to a story on a media website, you are responsible for your words. At least that is the case at this time. Contrary to that opinion, many people think hiding behind an anonymous identity online should be a protected right.

This topic has been in the news recently. The Indianapolis Star wrote last week about a Marion County judge’s recently ordering the newspaper to identify anonymous posters to its website as it relates to an expanded defamation lawsuit filed by the former chief executive of Junior Achievement, Jeffrey Miller. The Star reported that WRTV-TV Channel 6 is under a similar order from the judge.

Indianapolis Business Journal, a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer, was pulled into this controversy in the middle of last year. IBJ received a subpoena and was asked to produce documents and records as a non-party in the lawsuit filed by Miller against Junior Achievement and other defendants. The suit alleges defamation, tortious interference with a business and/or contractual relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

IBJ had written stories last March and April related to Miller’s exit from Junior Achievement and the above-mentioned lawsuit. The paper was asked to provide the identity of seven individuals who posted comments in response to some of those stories. IBJ resisted and a brief was filed on our behalf in support of a motion to quash the subpoena. IBJ did not believe the plaintiff had carried out his legally required burden to show how the request outweighed the First Amendment rights of the individuals he sought to identify.

The motion to quash was overruled and IBJ was required to turn over the identifying information. Most of the posters were operating with anonymous identities. They did not provide true names or e-mail addresses when they registered to post comments. However, whenever a comment is posted, an Internet Protocol address is recorded and that is where identities can be uncovered.

The Internet is a wonderful and amazing thing. But navigating it is like operating in the Wild West. There is little conformity and there are few rules. The rules that do exist seem to change daily. In the world of printed newspapers, there are fairly clear operating standards and libel laws that are meant to protect freedom of speech and the rights of individuals. Libel law strikes a balance between the protection of reputation and our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.” (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964) In Indiana, this has been ruled to mean that a statement is not libelous unless it is a false statement that is harmful to someone’s reputation and made with actual malice. This protection under the First Amendment is afforded everyone, even those who post comments anonymously. 

But protections are less clear as they apply to learning the identity of those who post anonymously. The recent court orders discussed here send a message that you cannot make allegedly libelous comments and hide behind an anonymous identity in cyberspace. Some would argue that you should be able to, but why shouldn’t we require true identities on the Internet? We wouldn’t print a letter to the editor without believing we had a real name.

I predict we will see a lot more legal activity in this area before it’s all done. Could we see a Supreme Court decision someday? It’s possible. There are no easy answers. You need to be accountable for your words. But how do we prevent an avalanche of lawsuits that could intimidate people into being afraid to voice their opinions?

There is no doubt that some of the comments get out of control on many websites. It is a full-time job monitoring them. We leave comments up in their entirety or remove them. They are never altered. IBJ has wrestled with how to deal with this national phenomenon. We want to encourage reader interaction and expression of views, but there are rules. Here’s a partial list of those rules:

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive or hateful.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

The online conversation and debate will continue. As it does, let’s remember we are responsible for our words.•

Greg Morris is publisher of IBJ, and president of IBJ Media. To comment on this column, send e-mail to


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?