A few months ago, we wrote about a case in Indiana involving an attempt to unmask an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website who effectively accused someone of embezzlement. There were a few legal questions involved in the case, and the one we had focused on involved the newspaper itself trying to protect that commenter under Indiana Journalism shield laws. At the time, we'd argued that the shield law should probably be limited to cases where the individuals actually were acting as a source... and that basic First Amendment case law could handle the anonymity question outside of the shield law.

It looks like the court effectively agreed with just about everything we said. The court rejected the shield law argument, but not in a broad way saying that commenters aren't protected under the shield, but that this comment wasn't really a "source" in any meaningful way, and the newspaper didn't use the comment as the basis for any additional reporting. However, the court pretty clearly suggests that in other cases, commenters could be considered sources and could be protected by shield laws.

However, perhaps more importantly, the court set a relatively high bar for unveiling the anonymous commenter -- adopting the Dendrite rules that give the anonymous person a chance to respond and which require the plaintiff to present a significant amount of evidence that the comments violate the law before any unmasking is ordered. While the Dendrite rule still is not standard, it is spreading, and it's nice to see Indiana adopt it as well.

If you run a site that allows comments, and some of those commenters are incredibly annoying... is the responsibility on you, as the site owner, to deal with those annoying commenters, or can you actually go to court against people for being jerks on your site? Apparently, Major League Baseball is choosing the latter option. It's going to court to try to get the identity of some commenters on its website who have been posting comments that are:

"threatening, abusive, obscene, vulgar, demeaning, offensive, pornographic, profane, sexually explicit, indecent and inappropriate"

Of course, that probably describes a rather large percentage of comments on some websites these days. Apparently MLB tried to deal with it internally, but failed in blocking those users. So rather than amp up its technical skills, MLB is going to court to demand that ISPs identify who it is that's been posting these comments, so that it can "pursue appropriate action."

In a world where we're seeing people charged with being jerks online, it seems like we're entering a dangerous world, with massive chilling effects on free speech. Obviously, being a jerk, and posting inappropriate material is annoying -- and MLB has every right to set up technological or moderation measures to deal with it. But potentially suing those individuals seems to cross a dangerous line.

Slashdot points us to the news that the police chief in Austin Texas is so upset about anonymous commenters, or commenters pretending to be police officers, on various internet websites that he's going to start going after them. His complaint? Those comments "erode public trust in the [police] department." Funny, I would think that wasting public resources going after a bunch of random internet commenters rather than focusing on actual crime prevention and solving would do a lot more to erode the public trust in the police department.

While other countries often don't respect the right to be anonymous, the US has shown a strong willingness to protect anonymity rights. And, here's another such case, but for a somewhat different reason. Gigalaw points us to the news that a court has ruled that the Billings Gazette newspaper doesn't need to reveal anonymous commenters, relying on the same state (not federal) law that protects reporters in the state from having to reveal sources. The law specifically says that news organizations are protected from being forced to disclose "any information obtained or prepared" by the news organization -- and the identify of anonymous commenters apparently qualifies.