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_at_well.com>
From: David Sobel <sobel_at_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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on May 18 2001
Intro
