Sunday, November 23, 2003
Lower courts ordered the person who posted about a judge to reveal his identity.
PITTSBURGH (AP) -- There is a "significant possibility" the constitutional rights of an anonymous Internet author would be violated if forced to reveal his identity, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday before kicking a defamation suit by a public official back down to the Superior Court.
In a case being followed closely by national civil-rights groups, the Supreme Court ordered the lower court to determine whether a public official must prove financial harm before the identity of a person accused of defamation is revealed.
The case revolves around someone using the screen name "Grant Street 99." The author posted online accusations in 1999 that Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin had engaged in misconduct by lobbying the governor's office for the appointment of an attorney for a judicial vacancy.
What judge wants
Judge Melvin, who denies the accusation, has said she doesn't care who the person is who posted the accusation, but that she wants a retraction.
Judge Melvin claimed defamation and sought the identity of the author arguing that identity is required to prove malice.
Two lower courts have ruled the constitutional issue is separate, and ordered the person to reveal his identity.
The Supreme Court ruled, however, that while another court could revisit the constitutionality of the First Amendment issue, once the author's identity is revealed it may be too late to protect his constitutional rights.
"We must also give critical attention to the remaining criteria of whether the trial court's discovery order directly affects a right that is too important to be denied review and whether the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost."
Judge Melvin's attorney, Robert Lampl, said he had not seen the decision and could not comment.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has taken up the case, said the language in the Supreme Court's decision was reason for optimism.
"The language clearly shows that belief that there is a very important right to anonymous political speech that may be infringed upon by the plaintiff, Judge Melvin," said Ann Beeson, the associate legal director for the ACLU.
Beeson argued before the state Supreme Court in March that Internet speech is akin to anonymous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the identity of their authors should remain secret.
Forcing authors on chat rooms to reveal their identities, especially regarding political speech, would create a chilled environment on the Internet, Beeson said.
In remanding the case back to a lower court, the Supreme Court wrote Wednesday that "this court does not take lightly the importance of anonymous political speech."