PITTSBURGH — A state court has ruled that the anonymous online
critics of a state appeals court judge should be identified — but only to
the judge's attorneys.
Allegheny County Judge R. Stanton Wettick ruled that Superior Court
Judge Joan Orie Melvin's attorneys could obtain the names of up to 13 "John
Does" from America Online for her libel lawsuit.
The creators of the Internet site
Grant Street
'99 had faulted Melvin for what they described as her attempts to persuade
Gov. Tom Ridge to pick a friend for a recent vacancy in Allegheny County Court.
Melvin said she did not attempt to influence Ridge and accused the site's
creators of libel.
The chatty site gets its name from the Pittsburgh street that is the
address of numerous government offices, including the county courthouse. It
remained available Nov. 15, but a message said it had not been updated since
Dec. 27.
Melvin's attorneys say the authors of Grant Street '99 messages last
year are believed to be America Online users.
"This is good. The judge now has a chance to vindicate herself," said
John Lacher, Melvin's attorney.
Wettick ruled against the critics' motion to throw out the case.
The judge ruled, however, that the names should only be disclosed to Melvin's
attorneys. According to the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, Wettick ordered both sides to prepare a
confidentiality order, which would protect the critics from being identified
publicly until the court decides whether the case will go to trial.
"Anonymous Internet speakers, unlike the national media, are
vulnerable because they lack power or money. Without anonymity, speakers will
be less willing to express controversial positions because of fears of
reprisal," Wettick wrote in his opinion, according to an American Civil
Liberties Union news release.
"There is good and bad in this. It is to our knowledge the first
formal statement by a court that a speaker is entitled to stay anonymous until
a judge has had a chance to toss the case," said Ronald Barber, an attorney for
the creators of Grant Street '99.
Ann Beeson, an ACLU attorney representing the John Does, praised the
judge for setting a high standard for obtaining the names.
"We agree that if the statements are truly defamatory, the names
should come out. We have no problem with that," Beeson said from New York.
Before the ruling, she said, the question was open whether only a
lawsuit would be needed to get the names of Internet critics.
Wettick ruled that any jury would have to know the character and
status of the person making the statements about the judge before it could
decide whether they were false and malicious — two standards for libel
against public officials.
"It would make a significant difference to the jury whether John Doe
is a prisoner whom plaintiff sentenced to a 20-year jail term" or a
high-ranking state official, Wettick said.
He acknowledged there are situations where a person might legally have
a right to stay anonymous and make potentially controversial statements —
for example, a teacher seeking to form a union through an Internet site.
But he says "case law does not extend First Amendment protections to
anonymous speech that is defamatory, if untrue."
Lacher said he did not know when he would obtain the names of what
Melvin says are 13 of her critics, but he said it would not happen soon.
Barber said no decision has been made on whether to appeal the ruling
and would not say how many people he represents.