A Maryland appeals court will hear arguments today in a case that could help determine whether someone who makes an anonymous -- and disparaging -- Internet posting in chat rooms or on message boards could be unmasked.
A decision could add to an emerging body of law shaping free-speech boundaries in the Internet age, when people using screen names as aliases regularly gripe online about politicians, employers and investments.
The area is of great concern on Wall Street, where online postings have affected stock prices and tarnished corporate reputations.
The case stems from efforts by an Arizona drug company to obtain the names of subscribers to a financial newsletter based in Rockville, in hopes that those people might lead to others who allegedly defamed the company online.
The newsletter's publisher, Timothy M. Mulligan, is fighting the subpoena with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen and other advocacy groups.
Courts across the country have addressed John Doe subpoenas, which are used to elicit the names of those making anonymous Internet postings, and have come to differing conclusions.
The case is the first in the state to touch on the issue, albeit tangentially, said Paul Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen who has been involved in more than a dozen cases nationwide. A decision could take months.
Tracing a tradition of anonymity in American life to the backers of the Constitution who used pseudonyms, the ACLU argued with the other groups in an amicus brief that the First Amendment protects the rights of readers as well as the right to speak in cyberspace without identifying oneself and without fear of retaliation.
Lawyers on both sides of the subpoenas agree that a courtroom process is needed to determine when identities should be revealed. The disagreement lies in defining the standards that should be met for an unmasking.
"Anonymity is a part of American culture, I'll give you that," said Bruce D. Fischman, a Miami attorney who has represented Walgreens Co., HealthSouth Corp. and other companies in defamation lawsuits over Internet postings. "But there is another side of the equation, and that is that people are getting hurt, and there should be a process in place to bring those people who are hurting them to justice."
