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 <declanat_private> From: David Sobel <sobelat_private> 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri May 18 2001 - 09:17:19 PDT