JOLT Digest

By Ian B. Brooks

Illinois Establishes Standard for Identifying Anonymous Internet Commenters

Evan Brown at Internet Cases reports that the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District has set forth a standard for identifying an anonymous internet commenter in Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., No. 3-08-0805 (Ill. App. 3d June 1, 2010). A couple from Illinois, unhappy with anonymous comments on a local newspaper website, sought to identify the commenters. Illinois Rules on Civil Proceedings Rule 224 allows a petitioner to file a petition to identify a person “responsible in damages.” The trial court followed the analysis of Dendrite International. Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) and Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), in denying the petition. The appellate court reversed and remanded, setting forth a new standard that requires a court to “insure that the petition: (1) is verified; (2) states with particularity facts that would establish a cause of action for defamation; (3) seeks only the identity of the potential defendant and no other information necessary to establish the cause of action of defamation; and (4) is subjected to a hearing at which the court determines that the petition sufficiently states a cause of action for defamation against the unnamed potential defendant.” Maxon, slip op. at 9. As Brown notes, this standard — unlike that of past cases — does not require the petitioner to attempt to identify the commenter.

FCC Votes to Proceed with Net Neutrality Regulations

Joelle Tessler for the Associated Press reports that the Federal Communications Commission has voted to accept public comments on three proposed broadband regulations. The regulations are part of the FCC’s latest attempt to establish oversight of broadband providers. The proposal would redefine broadband access as a telecommunications service, allowing the FCC greater regulatory control. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski hopes to ensure that broadband providers treat network traffic equally, limiting their ability to selectively block traffic. JOLT Digest previously highlighted the objections of many members of Congress to the FCC’s attempts to regulate in the aftermath of Comcast Corp. v. FCC.

Napolitano Calls for Balance Between Civil Liberties and Security

Lolita C. Baldor for the Associated Press reports that in a recent speech, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano discussed the balance between fighting terrorism and maintaining civil liberties. Citing the recent homegrown, online terrorist recruitment efforts, Napolitano suggested that the law should allow the government to monitor these growing threats. Napolitano believes that by monitoring Internet communications the United States can better protect national security without necessarily “having a deleterious effect on individual rights.”

By Harry Zhou
Edited by Gary Pong
Editorial Policy

Libel litigation against bloggers has intensified in recent years as the blogosphere continues to experience rapid growth. The threats database of the Citizen Media Law Project (“CMLP”) shows that since 2000, there have been more than 310 lawsuits accusing blog and forum owners of defamation in U.S. courts. Often central to these disputes is the tension between the right to free speech and the need to restrict the rapid spread of defamatory materials on the Internet. The balance is particularly hard to strike when a plaintiff seeks a prior restraint, an extraordinary remedy that immediately enjoins the defendant’s speech at the onset of a lawsuit.

In December 2009, a New Jersey court issued such a prior restraint that compelled the complete shutdown of three blogs in Apex Tech. Group, Inc. v. Doe(s) 1-10. The order evoked keen debate among media law experts regarding the proper scope of prior restraints on Internet media such as blogs and forums. Kurt Opsahl, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), criticized the prior restraint for being “dangerously overreaching” in an EFF blog post. Vivek Wadhwa, a senior research associate at Harvard Law School, voiced his support for the takedown on TechCrunch, claiming that the EFF was “a tad overzealous” in defending the websites involved. Taken together, the two articles serve as an appropriate starting point for determining how much of a blog can be properly censored by a prior restraint under a defamation claim. (more…)

By Chinh Vo

Supreme Court to Decide on Law Regulating Sale of Violent Video Games to Kids

Wired reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states may forbid the sale or rental of violent video games to children. The Court will review a ruling by the Ninth Circuit that struck down a California law, imposing fines for selling “patently offensive” or “morbid” games to people under the age of 18, on First Amendment grounds. Similar laws have been overturned in other states, including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Oklahoma. According to the New York Times, the decision to hear the case — despite general agreement among lower courts — suggests that some justices intend to reexamine how the First Amendment applies to depictions of violence.

Senators Attack New Facebook Features on Privacy Grounds

TechCrunch and Ars Technica report that a group of four U.S. senators is calling on Facebook to change its privacy policies following the popular social networking site’s launch of major new features last week. Democrats Al Franken, Charles Schumer, Michael Bennet, and Mark Begich, in an open letter to Facebook, warned that the Federal Trade Commission may get involved if the company does not take “swift and productive steps” to protect the privacy of user information. Their primary concerns were the “expansion of publicly available data” that users must opt out of sharing and third-party advertisers’ ability to store user profile data indefinitely. These features, according to the senators, create a “potential gold mine of data for unsolicited advertisements.” The senators also asked the FTC to provide guidelines for the use of private information by social networking sites.

Court Orders Aspiring News Blogger to Reveal Sources

A New Jersey appellate court ruled that a blogger must disclose the sources behind online statements she posted, Wired reports. Shellee Hale was sued for defamation after accusing software company Too Much Media of fraudulent acts against its customers. The statements at issue were not posted on Hale’s own blog, but rather in the comments section of a message board. The appellate court was not convinced by Hale’s defense utilizing a New Jersey shield law, protecting reporters from being forced to reveal their sources, because Hale is not a journalist. The court stated there was no evidence demonstrating conduct consistent with professional news reporting that would warrant application of the newsperson’s privilege. Hale produced no records of her interviews and did not identify herself as a journalist to sources. The court emphasized that “new media should not be confused with news media.”

By Alissa Del Riego*
Edited by Miriam Weiler
Editorial Policy

The FTC’s new Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (“the guidelines”), regulating blog postings that endorse products, take effect December 1, 2009. These guidelines represent the first time since 1980 that the FTC has updated its policies to adapt to new social media and the ever-growing presence of advertisement on the Internet. The guidelines seek to provide consumers with enough information to allow them to distinguish between an online reviewer’s personal opinion about a product and a reviewer’s opinion whose objectivity may be questionable. The guidelines require bloggers to disclose any material relationship they might have with a company whose product they are endorsing online. Failure to disclose could result in disciplinary action (probably a fine) not only for the blogger, but also for the advertiser or manufacturer whose product the blogger is rating. Though the guidelines also address celebrity endorsements, this Comment will focus on the guidelines’ effect on blogging and other online social media.

The guidelines have received a lukewarm reception. Though some commentators have noted that the regulations are long overdue, bloggers and advertisers alike have voiced concerns and objections. This Comment evaluates the new guidelines by acknowledging their necessity, exploring their reach to determine whether they have gone beyond optimal regulation, and finally concluding that they have not.  Part I establishes consumers’ need for additional information when reading cyber reviews. By examining the language of the relevant guidelines and the illustrative examples provided by the FTC, Part II explores the guidelines, their breadth, and the parties affected. Part III analyzes the leading arguments against the guidelines and identifies additional arguments touching upon their regulatory efficiency. Part IV concludes, finding the guidelines a necessary and benign constraint given the lack of information available to online consumers. (more…)

By Tyler Lacey

Convicted Murderer Demands that Wikipedia Remove His Name from Victim’s Article

On November 11, Wired reported that a convicted murderer in Germany has issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Wikipedia remove his name from his victim’s Wikipedia article. Wolfgang Werle murdered Bavarian actor Walter Sadlmayr in 1990, and was released on parole in 2007. The letter demands legal fees and compensation for “emotional suffering” caused by the publication of Werle’s name in connection with the murder since his release. German media have already stopped using Werle’s name. Since Wikipedia is an American organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the issue as “an apparent conflict between the U.S. First Amendment — which protects truthful speech — and German law — which seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity.”

Senator Criticizes Verizon’s Increased Cancellation Fees as “Anti-Competitive”

On November 10, Ars Technica reported that United States Senator Amy Klobuchar wrote a letter to Verizon, criticizing the company’s announced increase in early cancellation fees for cell phone contracts. Verizon recently announced that, beginning November 15, the fee for cancelling a subsidized smartphone contract would double from a maximum of $175 to $350. Senator Klobuchar, who is a proponent of the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act, called the increase “anti-consumer and anti-competitive.” Senator Klobuchar also wrote a letter to the FCC, asking for an investigation into the competitive and economic impact of the decision on consumers. Verizon noted that consumers can avoid the early termination fees by purchasing smartphones without Verizon subsidies.

United Kingdom Proposes Mandatory Surveillance of Social Networks, Chat Rooms, and Video Games

On November 9, the BBC reported the United Kingdom government has proposed that communication service providers retain records from a variety of new sources including social networks, chat rooms and online games. The move is designed to monitor the parties to and date of each online communication, but not the “actual contents of what was said.” Specific legislation has not yet been introduced, but the proposal includes compensation for the communications providers that must implement the technically challenging requirements. The government has insisted that most concerns about the proposal have only to do with the “detail of what would be done with the information.”