Court ruling keeps online poster's ID from ex-Buffalo Grove trustee
The identity of an anonymous poster to a Daily Herald reader comment board does not have to be released to former Buffalo Grove trustee Lisa Stone, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled Thursday.
Stone claimed the commenter — known as “Hipcheck16” and in court records as John Doe — defamed her son during a contentious online exchange that occurred between the poster and her son during Stone's 2009 election campaign.
Reversing a circuit court ruling, the appellate court concluded that while citizens do not have the right to defame each other, “encouraging those easily offended by online commentary to sue to find the name of their ‘tormentors' would surely lead to unnecessary litigation, and would also have a chilling effect” on readers who post anonymously on newspaper and magazine comment boards and websites. Moreover, the court found that putting publishers in the position of “cyber-nanny” offends the “country's long history of protecting anonymous speech.”
“I'm happy with the opinion. I think it's a good result for my client,” said Mike Furlong, attorney for Hipcheck16, adding that he agreed with the court that his client's comments did not defame Stone's son.
Stone indicated she might appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The lawsuit arose from online exchanges in which Stone's teenage son and John Doe bickered back and forth in the reader comment section on dailyherald.com under fictitious user names. Stone claimed John Doe made inappropriate statements to her son. After the election, she filed suit, arguing that she needed to learn the man's identity in order to pursue a possible defamation lawsuit against him. Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence agreed, saying “the right to speak must be balanced against the right of an offended party to seek redress.”
The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, to Stone's disappointment.
“It's an issue that really does need exhaustive analysis,” said Stone, who claims Doe's comments were inappropriate when directed to a child. The appellate court, however, found the statement to be an “innocent construction.” Stone said she respectfully disagreed.
In determining who deserves protection on the Internet, “we shouldn't be protecting the adults over the kids,” she said.
“I understand the importance of freedom of speech. This is not a case of freedom of speech. It's a case of how adults speak to children,” she said.