Doe v. 2THEMART.Com Inc.
Decision Date | 26 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. C01-453Z.,C01-453Z. |
Parties | John DOE, Plaintiff, v. 2THEMART.COM INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Aaron Caplan, Seattle, WA, Cindy Cohn, San Francisco, CA, for John Doe, Plaintiff.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of J. Doe (Doe) to proceed under a pseudonym and to quash a subpoena issued by 2TheMart.com (TMRT) to a local internet service provider, Silicon Investor/InfoSpace, Inc. (InfoSpace). The motion raises important First Amendment issues regarding Doe's right to speak anonymously on the Internet and to proceed in this Court using a pseudonym in order to protect that right. The Court heard oral argument on the motion and issued an oral ruling on April 19, 2001. Due to the importance of the constitutional issues raised by this motion, the Court now issues this written order.
There is a federal court lawsuit pending in the Central District of California in which the shareholders of TMRT have brought a shareholder derivative class action against the company and its officers and directors alleging fraud on the market. In that litigation, the defendants have asserted as an affirmative defense that no act or omission by the defendants caused the plaintiffs' injury. By subpoena, TMRT seeks to obtain the identity of twenty-three speakers who have participated anonymously on Internet message boards operated by InfoSpace. That subpoena is the subject of the present motion to quash.
InfoSpace is a Seattle based Internet company that operates a website called "Silicon Investor." The Silicon Investor site contains a series of electronic bulletin boards, and some of these bulletin boards are devoted to specific publically traded companies. InfoSpace users can freely post and exchange messages on these boards. Many do so using Internet pseudonyms, the often fanciful names that people choose for themselves when interacting on the Internet. By using a pseudonym, a person who posts or responds to a message on an Internet bulletin board maintains anonymity.
One of the Internet bulletin boards on the Silicon Investor website is specifically devoted to TMRT. According to the brief filed on behalf of J. Doe, See Doe's memorandum, docket no. 2 at 4. Past messages posted on the site are archived, so any new user can read and print copies of prior postings.
Some of the messages posted on the TMRT site have been less than flattering to the company. In fact, some have been downright nasty. For example, a user calling himself "Truthseeker" posted a message stating Another poster named "Cuemaster" indicated that Another user, not identified in the exhibits, wrote "Lying, cheating, thieving, stealing, lowlife criminals!!!!" Other postings advised TMRT investors to sell their stock. "They [TMRT] are not building anything, except extensions on their homes ... bail out now."
TMRT, the defendant in the California lawsuit, issued the present subpoena to InfoSpace pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(2). The subpoena seeks, among other things, "[a]ll identifying information and documents, including, but not limited to, computerized or computer stored records and logs, electronic mail (E-mail), and postings on your online message boards," concerning a list of twenty-three InfoSpace users, including Truthseeker, Cuemaster, and the current J. Doe, who used the pseudonym NoGuano. These users have posted messages on the TMRT bulletin board or have communicated via the Internet with users who have posted such messages. The subpoena would require InfoSpace to disclose the subscriber information for these twenty-three users, thereby stripping them of their Internet anonymity.1
InfoSpace notified these users by e-mail that it had received the subpoena, and gave them time to file a motion to quash. One such user who used the Internet pseudonym NoGuano now seeks to quash the subpoena.2
NoGuano alleges that enforcement of the subpoena would violate his or her First Amendment right to speak anonymously. In response to the motion this Court issued a Minute Order directing the interested parties TMRT, InfoSpace, and NoGuano to file additional briefing. All interested parties filed briefing as directed and participated in oral argument.3
The Internet represents a revolutionary advance in communication technology. It has been suggested that the Internet may be the "greatest innovation in speech since the invention of the printing press[.]" See Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Open Internet Access and Freedom of Speech: A First Amendment Catch-22, 75 Tul.L.Rev. 87, 88 (2000). It allows people from all over the world to exchange ideas and information freely and in "real-time." Through the use of the Internet, "any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997).
The rapid growth of Internet communication and Internet commerce has raised novel and complex legal issues and has challenged existing legal doctrine in many areas. This motion raises important and challenging questions of: (1) what is the scope of an individual's First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet, and (2) what showing must be made by a private party seeking to discover the identity of anonymous Internet users through the enforcement of a civil subpoena?4
The right to the freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[.]" U.S. Const. amend. I. This limitation on governmental interference with free speech applies directly to the federal government, and has been imposed on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 779-80, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978).
A court order, even when issued at the request of a private party in a civil lawsuit, constitutes state action and as such is subject to constitutional limitations. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). For this reason, numerous cases have discussed the limitations on the subpoena power when that power is invoked in such a manner that it impacts First Amendment rights. See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 461, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958) ( ); Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 89 F.R.D. 489 (C.D.Cal.1981) ( ); Snedigar v. Hoddersen, 114 Wash.2d 153, 786 P.2d 781 (1990) ( ).
First Amendment protections extend to speech via the Internet. "Through the use of web pages, mail exploders and newsgroups, [any person] can become a pamphleteer." Reno, 521 U.S. at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329. A component of the First Amendment is the right to speak with anonymity. This component of free speech is well established. See, e.g., Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 200, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999) ( ); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) ) ; Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 65, 80 S.Ct. 536, 4 L.Ed.2d 559 (1960) ( )
The right to speak anonymously was of fundamental importance to the establishment of our Constitution. Throughout the revolutionary and early federal period in American history, anonymous speech and the use of pseudonyms were powerful tools of political debate. The Federalist Papers (authored by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) were written anonymously under the name "Publius." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc.
...person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates further than it could from any soapbox."); 2TheMart.Com, 140 F.Supp.2d at 1092 ("First Amendment protections extend to speech via the An individual's anonymity may be important for encouraging the type of expressio......
-
In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-MS-0040 (JDB) (D. D.C. 4/24/2003)
...person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates further than it could from any soapbox."); 2TheMart.Com, 140 F. Supp.2d at 1092 ("First Amendment protections extend to speech via the An individual's anonymity may be important for encouraging the type of expressi......
-
Doe v. Ashcroft
...Amendment protection against the Government obtaining financial records maintained by a bank). 170. See, e.g., Doe v. 2TheMart.Com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092 (W.D.Wash.2001) ("The right to speak anonymously extends to speech via the Internet."); Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.Com, 185 F......
-
Doe v. Harris
...message simply because they do not like its proponent.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 342, 115 S.Ct. 1511 ; see also Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092 (W.D.Wash.2001) (“Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far ranging exchange of ideas.”).We thus agree with the dis......
-
No Place To Hide: First Amendment Protection For Location Privacy
...2005) (citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997). 19 In Re Does, 242 S.W.3d 805 (Texas App. 2007) (citing Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (D.Wash. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought ab......
-
Privilege and work product
...privileges have been upheld in a number of cases involving subpoenas to Internet service providers. a. In Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc. , 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001), the court quashed a subpoena issued to an ISP seeking the names of anonymous participants in a message board. The cour......
-
Privilege and work product
...privileges have been upheld in a number of cases involving subpoenas to Internet service providers. a. In Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc. , 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001), the court quashed a subpoena issued to an ISP seeking the names of anonymous participants in a message board. The cour......
-
Privilege and work product
...privileges have been upheld in a number of cases involving subpoenas to Internet service providers. a. In Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc. , 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001), the court quashed a subpoena issued to an ISP seeking the names of anonymous participants in a message board. The cour......
-
The Unidentified Wrongdoer
...U.S. 334, 341-42, 357 (1995) (same); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65 (1960) (same).60. See, e.g., Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2001) ("The right to speak anonymously extends to speech via the Internet.").61. See, e.g., Perry & Zarsky, Liability ......