The highest court in Maryland ruled a newspaper-owned forum Website does not have to reveal the names of three bloggers who anonymously posted comments about a Dunkin’ Donuts shop owned by Zebulon Brodie. Brodie alleged the statements about the shop he owned as, “one ‘of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen,’ were defamatory, and he subpoenaed Independent Newspapers for the identities of the anonymous commenters.” When the trial court ordered the newspaper company to identify the names of the bloggers they appealed and the highest court decided to take the case, which is unusual. The article stated, “In the opinion, the court recognized the need to balance the First Amendment issues with the right to seek protection against a defamation claim.” Then the court adopted a five-part test that, “recognizes that anonymous bloggers be notified when a subpoena is seeking their identity, requires the plaintiff to set forth a basis for his or her lawsuit, and weighs the First Amendment concerns against the need to protect the plaintiff from defamatory statements.” The Reporters Committee filed a friend-of-the-court brief so the court would protect the bloggers and adopt the five-part test.
I think this case is important because bloggers have the right to post whatever they want on the Internet especially in situations like this one. The whole point of blogging is to share ones opinion. The fact is three bloggers went on the Internet and posted their thoughts about a Dunkin’ Donuts shop and the owner got upset. In my opinion, the purpose of the lawsuit was to make Brodie feel better because he was embarrassed about that statements posted on the forum. If one person had posted on the forum Brodie wouldn’t have cared but because there were three he decided to take it to court. Instead of paying all the court and lawyer fees, Brodie should have paid a cleaning service to come sanitize his donut shop.
No comments:
Post a Comment