ACLU, Internet Providers Oppose Disclosure Of Chat-Room Poster

A number of Internet companies and the American Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to protect the identity of a person who claimed in a political online chat room that a state court judge behaved unethically.

The groups argue the Internet is the equivalent of the anonymous sheets patriots once nailed to trees and courthouse doors to criticize the English monarchy before the United States declared its independence. One such screed, Thomas Paine's influential pamphlet, 'Common Sense,' was published in January of 1776.

Attorneys for Superior Court Judge Jane Ore Melvin say the chat room message, insinuating she illegally lobbied then-Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend to a vacant spot on the Allegheny County bench, was defamatory.

Her defamation lawsuit is pending while her lawyers try to get America Online to disclose the identity of the author. The recent appeal argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was from an appeals court ruling that said the author must be identified.

There was no indication when a ruling will come from the Supreme Court. Lower courts in four other states ' New Jersey, Washington, California and Virginia ' have ruled that extreme caution should be used when deciding whether to reveal the identity of Internet users. Similar suits are pending in numerous states, according to the ACLU.

One of Melvin's attorneys, Robert Lampl, argued that although the Internet opens doors to new modes of communication, it should not free individuals to slander public officials.

But Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the ACLU, told the high court that forcing service providers to divulge the identity of chat-room users, who often use pseudonyms, would create a chilling environment and inhibit frank discussion, especially about the government.

'We are not saying that there should be complete immunity from suit whenever someone says something anonymous on the Internet,' Beeson says. 'We are only arguing that, especially when it's a public official that is criticized, that public official has to show that she actually suffered some harm from the statement before she can proceed to unmask the speaker.'

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the bar for proving harm to a public official (ie, the actual malice standard) is considerably higher than for others.

Experts say it will be difficult for the judge, who was recently endorsed by the state Republican Party to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, to prove she suffered harm.

'When you have speech about a public official, it's going to get the highest level of First Amendment protection and in this case in particular,' says Robert Richards, a professor of communications and law at Pennsylvania State University.

'Courts that have dealt with this issue recently have recognized the Internet as one of the broadest vehicles of speech yet and that it deserves a high degree of protection.'

Beeson noted that political dissenters in the 21st century have the same fears of reprisal, and the same need to remain anonymous, as the pamphleteers of the pre-Revolutionary era.

'Just like the founders of this country did and they did it for a very good reason,' Beeson says. 'They wanted to be able to criticize the government and not suffer retaliation.'

Asked by Justice J. Michael Eakin what harm Melvin had suffered, her attorney replied that she was 'humiliated, embarrassed. People shun her.'

'Public officials have to withstand criticism, sometimes brutal,' Lampl says. 'What they don't have to withstand is falsehood.'

Information from AP contributed to this article.

A number of Internet companies and the American Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to protect the identity of a person who claimed in a political online chat room that a state court judge behaved unethically.

The groups argue the Internet is the equivalent of the anonymous sheets patriots once nailed to trees and courthouse doors to criticize the English monarchy before the United States declared its independence. One such screed, Thomas Paine's influential pamphlet, 'Common Sense,' was published in January of 1776.

Attorneys for Superior Court Judge Jane Ore Melvin say the chat room message, insinuating she illegally lobbied then-Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend to a vacant spot on the Allegheny County bench, was defamatory.

Her defamation lawsuit is pending while her lawyers try to get America Online to disclose the identity of the author. The recent appeal argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was from an appeals court ruling that said the author must be identified.

There was no indication when a ruling will come from the Supreme Court. Lower courts in four other states ' New Jersey, Washington, California and Virginia ' have ruled that extreme caution should be used when deciding whether to reveal the identity of Internet users. Similar suits are pending in numerous states, according to the ACLU.

One of Melvin's attorneys, Robert Lampl, argued that although the Internet opens doors to new modes of communication, it should not free individuals to slander public officials.

But Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the ACLU, told the high court that forcing service providers to divulge the identity of chat-room users, who often use pseudonyms, would create a chilling environment and inhibit frank discussion, especially about the government.

'We are not saying that there should be complete immunity from suit whenever someone says something anonymous on the Internet,' Beeson says. 'We are only arguing that, especially when it's a public official that is criticized, that public official has to show that she actually suffered some harm from the statement before she can proceed to unmask the speaker.'

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the bar for proving harm to a public official (ie, the actual malice standard) is considerably higher than for others.

Experts say it will be difficult for the judge, who was recently endorsed by the state Republican Party to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, to prove she suffered harm.

'When you have speech about a public official, it's going to get the highest level of First Amendment protection and in this case in particular,' says Robert Richards, a professor of communications and law at Pennsylvania State University.

'Courts that have dealt with this issue recently have recognized the Internet as one of the broadest vehicles of speech yet and that it deserves a high degree of protection.'

Beeson noted that political dissenters in the 21st century have the same fears of reprisal, and the same need to remain anonymous, as the pamphleteers of the pre-Revolutionary era.

'Just like the founders of this country did and they did it for a very good reason,' Beeson says. 'They wanted to be able to criticize the government and not suffer retaliation.'

Asked by Justice J. Michael Eakin what harm Melvin had suffered, her attorney replied that she was 'humiliated, embarrassed. People shun her.'

'Public officials have to withstand criticism, sometimes brutal,' Lampl says. 'What they don't have to withstand is falsehood.'

Information from AP contributed to this article.