Order compelling Star to name online commenter stayed after arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Star won’t have to divulge the identity of an online commenter pending further order of the Indiana Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in a defamation case on Tuesday.

A panel of the court scheduled and heard arguments with dispatch because a trial court order compelled the Star to identify an anonymous online commenter by Nov. 16. The court issued a stay of that order that day and scheduled today’s arguments in Jeffrey M. Miller, et al. v. Junior Achievement, et al., 49A02-1211-PL-898.

At the center of the hearing is whether the Star must reveal the identity of a commenter whose screen name on was DownWithTheColts.

Barnes & Thornburg partner Jan Carroll argued for the Star that the newspaper wasn’t a party to the suit, and that a judge’s order requiring that it divulge a user’s name was a final judgment regarding its involvement in the case.   
“Once the bell is rung, it can’t be unrung,” she said. She argued that evidence at the trial court suggested that Miller wasn’t harmed by the comments and that there were larger issues at stake.

“Here we have an important constitutional issue,” Carroll said. “We are here because the Star is in the First Amendment business” and has an obligation and interest to preserve anonymous speech.

Miller’s attorney, Betz & Blevins partner Kevin Betz, argued that the Star was attempting to carve out legal paths to appeals that didn’t comport with rules and that following its strategy would “open up endless appeals.”

Betz said the Star had lost immunity from the Shield Law, that evidence presented at the trial court did establish a presumption of defamation, and that the Star’s appeal was untimely.

On the nature of DownWithTheColts’ online comments, he said, “It’s illegal speech that we want to chill.”

Judges Elaine Brown, Rudolph R. Pyle III and Presiding Judge Edward Najam focused their questions on appellate procedure and how the Star should be considered in applying party and nonparty rules.

Najam said at the close of arguments that the Nov. 16 order staying the trial court order compelling the Star to identify the commenter will continue pending further order of the court.

Miller, former CEO of Junior Achievement of Indiana, sued multiple parties for defamation and sought to add people who made anonymous comments on news organization websites that ran stories about Miller and Junior Achievement. 

The Court of Appeals in February reversed Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid, who issued an order in 2011 that the news outlets must identify people who posted comments on their websites. The Star appealed whether it had to provide Miller information to help him identify an anonymous commenter. The appellate court ordered the trial court to apply a modified version of the Dendrite test, which comes from New Jersey, under both the federal and state constitutions to determine if Miller satisfied the requirements for obtaining the commenter’s identity. 

The trial court again ordered the newspaper to disclose the commenter’s identity in October.



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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.