AP on anonymity case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

"Justices hear arguments about anonymous speech on the Internet"
<http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D87I4DM80-10.shtml>

Snip:

"The reason why Internet cases are so scary...is that the technology
exists to identify anybody," Levy said.

Justice Howard Dana said he didn´t understand why the e-mail sender was
spending so much money and going to such great lengths to shield his
identity.

"What is the problem?" he said.

The whole shebang:
 
PORTLAND, Maine ‹ Supreme court justices heard arguments Tuesday in a
case that will determine if the sender of an unflattering e-mail who
purported to be someone else will have to reveal his or her identity.

The case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court stems from a Dec. 24,
2003, e-mail that was sent to Ronald Fitch and five other residents of
Great Diamond Island in Casco Bay. The e-mail was created using a
Hotmail account in Fitch´s name and contained a cartoon lampooning
Fitch, his wife and their dead St. Bernard.

A lawyer for the sender of the e-mail told justices that the Internet
service provider, a cable company, can´t be forced under federal law to
disclose subscriber names except in criminal cases. An attorney for a
public interest group that joined the case said the e-mail is a form of
anonymous free speech and protected under the First Amendment.

But Tom Connolly, who represents Fitch, told justices that the sender of
the e-mail stole his client´s identity.

"This is not anonymous speech. Anonymous is non-attributed. Fraud,
though, is falsely attributed," he said.

When the e-mail was sent, Great Diamond Island residents were engaged in
an ongoing battle over use of golf carts on the island, which is part of
Portland and two miles by ferry from the city´s waterfront.

The e-mail falsely claimed to be from Ronald Fitch and read, "One and
all, Thank you for all the continued good work, Ron." The cartoon that
was attached showed unflattering cartoon images of Fitch and his wife
standing under a sign that read, "Welcome to Paradise."

It´s thought that Fitch was being ridiculed in the e-mail because some
islanders didn´t like the influence he was exerting in the golf cart
dispute, which has since been resolved.

Using the e-mail header information, Fitch traced the e-mail to a Time
Warner Cable account and sued the sender, who is identified in the suit
as "John or Jane Doe." Fitch is seeking compensation for violation of
privacy, misappropriation of identity, fraud, putting Fitch in a false
light and infliction of emotional distress.

Doe has fought to remain anonymous, arguing that releasing his or her
identity would be a breach of the right to privacy and anonymity.

Last May, Superior Court Justice Thomas Warren sided with Fitch and
ordered Time Warner to reveal the identity of the person who established
the account used to send the e-mail. The decision was then appealed.

At Tuesday´s hearing, justices were quick to ask what interest was being
served by allowing someone to send out hurtful e-mails while
"masquerading" as somebody else.

"What´s the public interest in protecting an identity thief?" Justice
Donald Alexander asked more than once.

George Marcus, who represents Doe, told justices that 1984 federal cable
law protects his client from being identified.

Paul Levy of the Public Citizen´s Litigation Group, a Washington-based
public interest law firm, argued that the case is about anonymous free
speech, not identity theft or fraud. A set of standards, he said, needs
to be set before anonymous e-mail senders should be forced to reveal
their identities.

Levy´s group, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Maine
Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed
briefs as friends of the court.

Levy said numerous anonymous speech cases involving the Internet have
shown up in courtrooms in recent years, and that courts have to be
extremely careful in their decisions because of the power of the Internet.

"The reason why Internet cases are so scary...is that the technology
exists to identify anybody," Levy said.

Justice Howard Dana said he didn´t understand why the e-mail sender was
spending so much money and going to such great lengths to shield his
identity.

"What is the problem?" he said.


------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/