FC: California court awards attorney fees to anonymous posters

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Court order in Global Telemedia anonymity case:
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/f7212ed54f47e7c588256a0d005e4715?OpenDocument

And, a related story about Indian police banning anonymity by requiring 
visitors to cybercafes to provide ID:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/010516/48/vla9.html

-Declan

---

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:19:35 -0400
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
From: David Sobel <sobel () epic org>
Subject: Court awards att'y fees to anonymous posters


Declan -

FYI.

- D.



For Immediate Release:                          Contact: Megan E. Gray, 
(213) 975-1763
May 18, 2001


Court Orders Company and Its Officers to Pay Internet Posters
More Than $55,000 in Attorneys' Fees

Anti-SLAPP Statute Mandates Money Award When Lawsuit
Is Filed In Violation of Free Speech Rights


LOS ANGELES, CA --  In a first of its kind, a federal court in California 
has ordered a publicly traded company and two of its executive officers to 
pay more than $55,000 in attorneys' fees incurred by two individuals that 
they sued for posting critical comments on a popular Internet message board.

On February 26, 2001, the court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Global 
Telemedia International, Inc. ("GTMI," now trading as "GLTI") and its 
officers Jonathan Bentley-Stevens and Regina Peralta against several 
anonymous John Does for negative posts on a Raging Bull message board.  The 
plaintiffs had claimed that certain posts had crossed the line into 
defamation and interference with economic prospects.  Defendants argued 
that the suit was brought against them as a "transparent effort to 
intimidate and silence individuals who are critical of GTMI's corporate 
performance."  These disfavored lawsuits are commonly referred to as 
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation or SLAPP lawsuits.  Under 
California law, a defendant can move to dismiss the lawsuit if the alleged 
bad acts arose from his exercise of free speech in connection with a public 
issue and if the plaintiff cannot show a probability of success on the 
merits.

Recently, after prevailing in their motions to dismiss the lawsuit, the 
posters filed motions asking the Court to order the plaintiffs to pay all 
their attorneys' fees incurred in defending against the meritless 
lawsuit.  Under California law, an award of attorneys' fees is mandatory if 
a case is shown to be a SLAPP lawsuit.  Yesterday, the posters learned that 
the Court granted their motions, awarding over $55,000.

This is the first time a court has applied the mandatory attorney-fee 
provision in the anti-SLAPP statute to a defamation lawsuit involving 
anonymous internet message-board posters.  The large attorney-fee award may 
stem the hundreds of "cybergag" lawsuits being filed around the country to 
stifle internet speech expressing negative opinions about matters of public 
interest, like poor corporate performance.

The attorneys for one of the defendants, Megan Gray and Brian Ross of Baker 
& Hostetler LLP, are pleased with the court's ruling.  Gray stated, "This 
is exactly the kind of case that the anti-SLAPP statute, and its mandatory 
attorney-fee award, was designed for -- plaintiffs need to realize that 
there is a significant downside to filing a frivolous lawsuit aimed at 
chilling protected speech."

In the Court's prior order, Judge David Carter determined that internet 
message boards are, as a general matter, forums for the expression of 
opinion, not fact.  " The statements were posted anonymously in the general 
cacophony of an internet chat-room which posts around 1,000 messages a week 
on GTMI…They were part of an on-going, free-wheeling and highly animated 
exchange about GTMI and its turbulent history.  Importantly, the postings 
are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases…the posts are written 
with a great deal of linguistic informality."  Turning to the specific 
posts, the court held that "reasonable readers would not take these posts 
to be anything more than a disappointed investor who is making sarcastic 
cracks about the company.  The reasonable reader, looking at the hundreds 
and thousands of postings about the company from a wide variety of posters, 
would not expect that the defendant was airing anything other than his 
personal views of the company and its prospects."
###
Megan Gray and Brian Ross are attorneys with Baker & Hostetler in Los 
Angeles.  They represent many clients in connection with internet issues, 
online privacy, anonymous speech, and related issues.  With approximately 
400 attorneys, Baker & Hostetler LLP is among the nation's top law 
firms.  With lawyers practicing in virtually all areas of law, Baker & 
Hostetler also has a significant technology, First Amendment, and 
intellectual property practice.  The Firm has offices in Los Angeles, Costa 
Mesa, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Houston, Orlando, and 
Washington.  More information about Baker & Hostetler can be found at 
www.bakerlaw.com.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------