![\"freelance](\"\/legal-resources\/wp-content\/uploads\/cybersmear-lg.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The free wheeling give and take in various online forums is leading to more defamation claims by individuals and businesses. Given that so many online speakers are anonymous, however, Internet service providers sometimes become trapped between the speaker and his offended subject. Before the alleged victim can seek redress, the perpetrator must be identified, and providers often resist divulging such information. Courts are still in the early stages of setting rules for these legal contests.<\/p>\n
An electronics company brought an action in California against an anonymous individual who allegedly had trashed the company\u2019s publicly traded stock on an Internet message board. Among other comments, the secretive critic had said that the company produced \u201clow tech crap\u201d and that its president was manipulating stock prices. In its efforts to identify the speaker, the company discovered that his online name was registered with a service provider with headquarters in Virginia.<\/p>\n
When the plaintiff sought permission from a Virginia court to examine the provider\u2019s records, the request was met with stiff resistance. The provider argued that it would infringe on the constitutional right to speak anonymously if it were forced to reveal subscriber information. Citing the principle that the courts of one state generally should respect court orders from a sister court, the Virginia court allowed the review of the provider\u2019s records. The right to free speech was not an impediment to the court\u2019s ruling, as \u201cthe constitutional guarantees of free speech afford no more protection to the speaker than they do to any other tortfeasor who employs words to commit a criminal or civil wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wounded by disparaging comments posted anonymously on an Internet message board, another company similarly sought to unmask its detractors by forcing information from a provider. In that case, the court saw more merit in the free speech defense raised by the provider, but it did not completely block the request for subscriber information. The court balanced the right to speak anonymously with the right of the injured company to protect its proprietary interests and its reputation.<\/p>\n
The result was a compromise of sorts: The company could gain access to the speakers\u2019 identities only if it first showed to the court\u2019s satisfaction that it could make out a plausible defamation case against them. This meant exactly identifying the offending statements and demonstrating how they harmed the plaintiff. In this case, the critics remained safely in the dark because the company could not substantiate its claims that the comments adversely affected its stock price and its hiring practices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
![\"freelance](\"\/legal-resources\/wp-content\/uploads\/cybersmear-sm.jpg\")
The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce clauses in commercial contracts that require arbitration of disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from the Act. For other types of workers, the effect of the Supreme Court ruling was to reaffirm the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in agreements entered into by workers engaged in interstate commerce. Continue reading