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.”

As a priori important these justifications for anonymity may be, like anything else, it does not occur unfettered from overarching prohibitions against defamation and libel. Lidsky acknowledges as such when she conceptualizes of online message board speech as distinct in its freewheeling and irreverent nature. As more and more users devote time online to often incendiary and accusatory speech under a veil of anonymity, courts at both the state and federal level have confronted recent cases that pit a plaintiff alleging defamation against a website where the comments were posted.