« Ind. Law - More on: School vouchers and the Indiana constitution | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Session clock ticking at Indiana Statehouse: Budget, redistricting top priority list" »
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Ind. Courts - Who Said That? More on anonymous postings
Updating this ILB entry from March 3, this one from March 2, and this one from March 1, 2011, Jeff Swiatek of the Indianapolis Star has a lengthy, front-page story today that takes a deeper look at the issues. Some quotes, but there is a lot more in the story:
A Marion County judge in the past few weeks ordered two newspaper-owned websites to hand over identifying information about the authors of pseudonymous online posts.And this is interesting:The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, who wants the names of the anonymous posters to The Indianapolis Star's and Indianapolis Business Journal's websites in order to sue them for comments they made about him. * * *
One thing is clear in such cases:
The federal Communications Decency Act gives website operators protections against being sued over defamatory comments made by posters.
But equally clear is that courts haven't granted such wholesale protection to the posters themselves.
"They are just as liable as anyone else for their statements," even if made anonymously, said Daniel Byron, an expert on media law at Bingham McHale in Indianapolis. "If it is a false statement that injures someone . . . then, yes, they would be responsible" and open to defamation charges, he said.
Online reader boards are typically full of posts that veer far beyond the bounds of civil discourse: Racial and ethnic slurs. Anti-religious rants. * * *
Although defamation is often easy enough to spot, what muddies the legal waters are journalism shield laws and other protections given to news media outlets to protect them from attempts to expose sources.
The shield laws were written years ago and had in mind the old-fashioned way of sourcing news: direct conversation or correspondence between reporter and source.
With the digital era upon us, courts now have to crack this hard nut: Are the popular, free-wheeling public comment boards that news outlets run also part of their legitimate news-gathering efforts?
The Star thinks so. * * *
The Star hasn't turned over the sought-after identities of the posters on its website and hasn't said whether it will appeal the judge's ruling. The IBJ has turned over the information. A third media outlet, WRTV (Channel 6), is still fighting a subpoena in Miller's case.
Kevin Goldberg, legal counsel for the American Society of News Editors, said many media outlets see value in going to battle over being forced to release names of anonymous posters, even they rack up costly legal bills."The nature of news is changing. More and more, we are seeing these people (anonymous posters) really are becoming sources" of legitimate news and information, he said.
Newspapers and other news outlets don't want that source of information to dry up under the threat of defamation suits. * * *
A minority of newspapers sidestep the sticky issue by banning anonymous posters to their websites. The biggest to do so was the Buffalo News last year.
"We became more and more concerned about the tone of some of the comments," said Margaret Sullivan, editor of the New York newspaper, which has a daily circulation of 178,000. "You got all kinds of nasty, really hateful kinds of things."
What the News found was that axing anonymity in favor of real-name-only comments led to "much higher-level comments," she said.
One drawback: There are many fewer of them. The News has approved 3,700 people to comment on its site, and they pipe up on the comment boards far less often than under the old system.
Even so, said Sullivan, "while the volume is down significantly, quality went up, and I'll take that any day. We are really pleased."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 6, 2011 12:09 PM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions