Companies and their employees at times face the difficult issue of protecting themselves from cybersmears by anonymous Internet users. One of the most problematic issues is the tension between identifying what is protected speech under the First Amendment and the standard that must be met in order to obtain the identity of an anonymous poster who has used the Internet to spread damaging statements.
While this tension has been discussed by a number of courts throughout the country, the Sixth District Court of Appeal in California recently added to the complexity of the issue when it weighed in on the different standards used to determine when the identity of anonymous Internet posters can be compelled. In Krinsky v. Doe 6, 08 C.D.O.S. 1658, the court of appeal recognized the First Amendment protections afforded to Internet users as well as the “harsh and unbridled invective” that often characterizes cyberdiscussion.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
