Considering that this blog is written anonymously, I would be remiss not to publish this press release sent out today by the Citizen Media Law Project and Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic.

Citizen Media Law Project and Cyberlaw Clinic Lead Amicus Effort Promoting Rights of Anonymous Online Speakers in Illinois

Cambridge, MA – March 25, 2009 - In a case involving important First Amendment rights, the Citizen Media Law Project (“CMLP”) joined a number of media and advocacy organizations, including Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Illinois Press Association, Online News Association, Public Citizen, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Tribune Company, in asking an Illinois appellate court to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online by imposing procedural safeguards before requiring that their identities be disclosed.

The amicus coalition, represented by Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic with the assistance of local counsel Michael T. Reagan of Herbolsheimer Lannon Henson Duncan and Reagan PC, submitted a “friend of the court” brief this week in the case of Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing.  The case is before the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District.  Plaintiffs argue that certain anonymous commenters defamed them on mywebtimes.com, a website for a local newspaper operated by Ottawa Publishing Company and based in Ottawa, IL.  Plaintiffs made a pre-litigation request for discovery, asking that Ottawa Publishing disclose the identities of the commenters behind the statements at issue.  The lower court rejected plaintiffs’ request for the information, and the case is presently on appeal.

In their brief, amici urge the appellate court to join the growing consensus among courts nationwide by holding that a party must demonstrate that its underlying claim has merit before the court will require the disclosure of an anonymous online speaker’s identity.  The brief highlights the long tradition of anonymous speech in the United States and the important role of anonymity in promoting an online marketplace of ideas.  Amici take no position on the merits of the plaintiffs’ defamation claims — rather, they urge that the Court balance the plaintiffs’ interest in pursuing legitimate legal remedies against the rights of individuals to speak anonymously by putting the onus on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that their claims have merit.

“Courts around the country have recognized that, although the right of free speech is not absolute, a plaintiff must show that its claims are legally and factually tenable before a court orders that the identity of an anonymous speaker be disclosed,” noted CMLP Assistant Director Sam Bayard.  “Anonymous speech on blogs, online fora, and other websites leads to a vibrant exchange of information, and putting a plaintiff to its proofs before unmasking an online commenter helps to ensure constitutionally-protected speech is not chilled.”

Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic, like CMLP, is based at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.  Harvard Law School and Clinic students Katherine L. Kriegman and Alexandra Davies provided substantial assistance in drafting the brief <http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-24-Amicus Curiae Brief.pdf>.

This is the second amicus brief on which the Citizen Media Law Project and the Cyberlaw Clinic have collaborated during the past year.  “Working with the CMLP on issues of importance to online media is always a tremendously rewarding experience for our Clinical students,” said Clinical Fellow Christopher Bavitz.

Read more about the case <http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/maxon-v-ottawa-publishing-company> and about issues concerning anonymous speech <http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speech> on the CMLP’s website <http://www.citmedialaw.org>.

Last night, Walter Isaacson continued his campaign to charge for the news by appearing on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Again, Isaacson used some really bad examples (the iTunes comparison) to defend the use of micro-payments for newspaper content. However, he did bring up one good point and that is how will foreign correspondents be paid if the news is always free? Watch the interview below and then come back for more:

You can see the discussion that has again bubbled to the surface because of Isaacson’s article, and I think that is the most positive thing to come out of all of this. At least people are talking about how to save the news. But the biggest problem, that we eluded to on Friday, still remains: The newspaper industry is simply too big to support itself in its current form. (Read more about who actually owns the news here.)

If they want to start charging for content, let them try it and see where it leads them. People will find a way around it and alternative sources will rise in popularity AND quality. Pretty soon the community newspaper with its fleet of five part-time reporters might be able to afford sending one of them to Baghdad to report. Then again, I learned more about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqi doctor walking around filming his daily work then I did from the past six years of coverage from CBS, NBC and ABC combined! If one person in Baghdad can make that much of a difference in the video world, who’s to say one person can’t accomplish the same in the print media.

For those of you who haven’t yet seen this, I found the following video via Polymeme, via the Opinionator Blog from the New York Times, via TechCrunch who got it from a Twitter user by the name of Popurls who happened to find it on YouTube while he or she “was bored.” How far we have come since 1981: