Courts Conflict on Anonymous, Allegedly Defamatory Online Speech

Prof. Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky has noted in the Duke Law Journal that the poor grammar, caterwauling, hyperbole and frequent name-calling associated with anonymous Internet posts has created a “First Amendment doctrine” that “cannot hold John Does to the standards of ' factual accuracy, because part of what gives the Internet such widespread appeal is the fact that it allows ordinary citizens to have informational conversations about issues of public concern.” See, “Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace.” In the same vein, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a think-tank that advocates for increasing privacy protections in all areas of online life, has noted that anonymity when speaking online serves the public and private good in a multitude of ways, from preventing retribution, to permitting inquiry of topics verboten in public or amongst “polite company.”