Source: https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/Anonymous_speech
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:38:34+00:00

Document:
Inherent in the panoply of protections afforded by the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously in diverse contexts. This right arises from a long tradition of American advocates speaking anonymously through pseudonyms, such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who authored the Federalist Papers but signed them only as "Publius."
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "an author's decision to remain anonymous . . . is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." This is because "the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry." The Supreme Court has also held that there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to . . . [the Internet] medium." Accordingly, "[i]t is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection" and that "[t]his protection extends to anonymous internet speech."
One question is whether the right to anonymity is absolute, or if there are circumstances where the right must give way to other more paramount interests, such as obtaining information to facilitate a plaintiff's pursuit of a civil lawsuit.
(3) all other means of proving the issue have been exhausted.
(5) that the court then balance the First Amendment right of anonymous speech against the strength of the plaintiff's prima facie claim and the need for disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity.
Several courts have adopted this test or some close variant of it.
The court further stated that "non-party disclosure is only appropriate in the exceptional case where the compelling need for the discovery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights of the anonymous speaker." Similar balancing approaches weighing anonymous Internet posters' First Amendment right to anonymity against plaintiffs' need to learn that identity have also been adopted by state courts.
Because the First Amendment protects both anonymous speech and the freedom of association, efforts to use the power of the courts to pierce anonymity are subject to a qualified privilege. Courts must "be vigilant . . . [and] guard against undue hinderance to . . . the exchange of ideas." This vigilant review "must be undertaken and analyzed on a case-by-case basis," where the court's "guiding principle is a result based on a meaningful analysis and a proper balancing of the equities and rights at issue." Just as in other cases in which litigants seek information that may be privileged, courts must consider the privilege before authorizing discovery.
↑ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (full-text).
↑ Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 166-67 (2002 (full-text); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-42 (1995) (full-text).
↑ McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 342.
↑ Id. See also Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960) (full-text) (finding a municipal ordinance requiring identification of hand-bills unconstitutional, noting that "[a]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.").
↑ Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 456 (Del. 2005) (full-text). See also Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092-93 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (full-text); Global Telemedia Int'l, Inc. v. Doe 1, 132 F.Supp. 2d 1261, 1264-66 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (full-text); American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson, 4 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998) (full-text). See generally Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 853 (1997) (full-text)..
↑ McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 347; see also Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524 (1960) (full-text) (due process requires a showing of a compelling interest where compelled disclosure threatens fundamental rights).
↑ See, e.g., Fed. Election Comm'n v. Florida for Kennedy Comm., 681 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (11th Cir. 1982) (full-text).
↑ Lee v. Dep't of Justice, 413 F.3d 53, 59-60 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(full-text); United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487, 1504 (11th Cir. 1986) (full-text).
↑ 775 A.2d 756, 760-61 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (full-text).
↑ See, e.g., Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415. 966 A.2d 432, 457 (2009) (full-text); Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 217 Ariz. 103, 170 P.3d 712, 718-20 (App. 2007) (full-text); Greenbaum v. Google, Inc., 18 Misc. 3d 185, 845 N.Y.S.2d 695, 698-99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2997) (full-text); Highfields Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F.Supp.2d 969, 974-76 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (full-text); Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d at 460; In re Baxter, 2001 WL 34806203, at *12, US Dist. LEXIS 26001 (W.D. La. Dec. 20, 2001).
↑ See Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d at 460; accord Best Western Int'l, Inc. v. Doe, 2006 WL 2091695, at *4-5 (D. Ariz. July 25, 2006); Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 231, 245-46 (2008) (ful-text).
↑ 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (full-text).
↑ See Immunomedics, Inc. v. Doe, 342 N.J.Super. 160, 165, 775 A.2d 773 (App. Div. 2001) (full-text) (instructing judges to balance First Amendment rights against the strength of a plaintiff's case when deciding whether to disclose the identity of Internet users).
↑ Buckley v. American Constitutional L. Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 192 (1999) (full-text).
↑ Dendrite Int'l, 775 A.2d at 761.
↑ See, e.g., [[Sony Music Entertaiment v. Does|Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (full-text) ("Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns.").
↑ Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.