Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan’s “elevator pitch”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Supreme Court…
OPINION
The plaintiff, Bill Hadley, filed a defamation lawsuit against the defendant, Subscriber Doe, a/k/a “Fuboy,” based on statements made by Fuboy in the comments section of a newspaper website. After the suit was filed, Hadley requested the circuit court, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 224 (eff. May 30, 2008)), to order Fuboy’s internet service provider to disclose Fuboy’s identity. The circuit court granted the request and the appellate court affirmed. 2014 IL App (2d) 130489. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.
BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2011, the Freeport Journal Standard published an online newspaper article entitled “Hadley returns to county politics. Candidate stresses fiscal responsibility.” The article discussed plaintiff Bill Hadley’s decision to again seek election to the county board of Stephenson County, Illinois. Online readers could post comments in response to the article after completing a basic registration process.
On December 29, an individual using the name “Fuboy” posted the following comment: “Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has of Empire [Elementary School in Freeport, Illinois] from his front door.”
Fuboy also made a second comment, stating: “Anybody know the tale of Hadley’s suicide attempt? It is kinda ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ with Pottersville win[n]ing out. We can just be happy that Stephenson County is fortunate enough to have this guy want to be of ‘service’ again.”
Man, do I ever hate newspaper comment sections.
* From the analysis…
Giving the words used by Fuboy their natural and obvious meaning, and considering the timing of the comment, we find the idea Fuboy intended to convey to the reasonable reader by his statement, “Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has of Empire from his front door,” was that Hadley was a pedophile or had engaged in sexual acts with children.
Fuboy contends, however, that the comment is susceptible to an innocent construction. He maintains the appellate court failed to consider the political context in which the statement was made, as well as the fact that it was made in an effort to seek debate over the candidate. We do not find this argument persuasive.
Me neither.
I have tracked down more than a few nasty commenters over the years. For whatever insane reason, some people think that they can say anything they want in an anonymous context. They can’t. Not here, at least.
And the Illinois Supreme Court thankfully upheld that viewpoint today.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 9:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan’s “elevator pitch”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Supreme Court did the right thing today. On a side note, Rich, you do a good job moderating comments here. I’ve been deleted dozens of times. Sometimes I don’t agree with it, but if I want to say whatever I want, I should get my own blog.
Comment by John A Logan Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:00 am
I hate comment sections and avoid them like the plague, but what responsibility does a newspaper (or Capitol Fax) for that matter to police their forums, especially if they’re moderated?
Comment by Carhartt Representative Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:00 am
I’ve always been amazed at the willingness of newspapers and magazines to debase their brands by giving over their online editions to knuckle-draggers.
They wouldn’t allow that garbage in tneir print sections. You can’t post an intern to enforce standards online?
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:02 am
Anyone willing to publically claim that one of their fellow citizens is a pedophile because they’ve announced their willingness to submit to the will of the electorate - needs to be seen as an assassin.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:04 am
But the first amendment rules… he will never be convicted– Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Comment by Liberty Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:10 am
===Hustler Magazine v. Falwell===
That case, unlike this one, revolved around a clear case of satire, which is protected. This, however, is clearly not.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:13 am
==But the first amendment rules==
The First Amendment doesn’t protect everything. That’s a fallacy.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:16 am
Accusing a public official/figure of a serious crime without any basis is libel and actionable.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:18 am
I won’t even comment on Above The Law because the comment section is such a cesspool. It’s a loss for them generally because the quality of their content has improved so much over the last couple years that they could have a great & informative comment section if they put some work into moderating it.
Comment by Rayne of Terror Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:20 am
I couldn’t agree more with this decision, and I’m pretty twitchy when it comes to restricting online speech… This was defamation. Being anonymous and online doesn’t change that.
There are plenty of cases I’d disagree with…my “favorites” are businesses suing over negative reviews for defamation or some form of restraint of trade. Our libel laws could use some tweaking, though they’re nothing like the UK’s. And I think too many people are starting to see harsh, public criticism as persecution or substantial attack. But you don’t get to lie or make harmful claims without evidence.
Comment by Threepwood Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:24 am
===And the Illinois Supreme Court thankfully upheld that viewpoint today.===
Here, here. The first amendment comes with the responsibility of taking ownership for what you say.
I hate those comment sections too. They’re a coward’s paradise.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:24 am
I’m all for free speech, but I’m also all for having to live with the consequences of that speech. A good decision IMO.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:24 am
Just to clarify (since I read the whole opinion and am still not clear) this ruling only covers whether or not the commenter should be able to hide behind the anonymity and avoid being identified for a defamation suit, not the actual merits of that defamation suit, right?
Comment by Doofman Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:26 am
How fast would comment sections be cleaned up/moderated if the newspapers saw declining hits on those pages, resulting in decreased add revenue?
Comment by Spidad60 Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:31 am
So does Madigan have a case against Rauner? “Corrupt” without any factual evidence sounds like defamation to me.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:32 am
Agree, Rich. Thanks for patrolling your blog. Everyone should be held accountable for the lies they benefit from at the expense of others. Now, if we could just apply the decision of the court in this matter to lies told in the political arena.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:34 am
Free speech should not be a license to slander with impunity. Public officials should have a right to sue for defamation with a reasonable prospect to win when the comments are false and vicious.
Comment by nona Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:34 am
Let’s be clear on what the decision was. It was NOT a ruling on the merits of the case. It simply said that the complaint was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to know the name of the pseudonymous commenter.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:43 am
Merits of any potential defamation suit aside, I just cannot imagine feeling the need to bring a suit here. At least for the ostensible purpose of restoring one’s name and image (did he truly feel that his reputation would be tarnished by this?). Perhaps it was “wow this fuboy is a little sh*thead - I should make his life hell for awhile.” That I can kind of understand. Though still clogging the courts either way imo.
Comment by Shoe Searer Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:49 am
=== Let’s be clear on what the decision was. It simply said… plaintiff is entitled to know the name of the pseudonymous commenter. ===
Fuboy was fighting pretty hard to remain anonymous, as opposed to standing up and taking responsibility for his comments.
Comment by nona Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:50 am
Rich,
I agree with you. There is a big difference between being upset and making nasty comments that are not destroying somebody or making up lies that can destroy someone.
I can say that I do not like the Governor and make fun of him. However, it would be wrong, making false witness, for me to accuse him of things that are not true. This apples to any politician or person.
You hit it on the head with the word satire.
We can state opinions that are clear opinions but we should not try to destroy another with lies and deception.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:51 am
A Jack:
Politicians have some pretty broad legal protections to to lie. I wish I was kidding. Though I admit I don’t know all the details, the legal opinions may have been more about campaign ads…? But surely we all remember “Not intended to be a factual statement.”
JoanP:
I got that. I’m comfortable with releasing the identity to the court in this context. And indeed that’s mostly my point here: Internet anonymity is not some magic charm against being potentially liable for defamation.
Comment by Threepwood Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:52 am
I also hate anonymous comments and the willingness of newspapers to allow truly racist comments. For years, any story about a black suspect would lead to several racist comments on the Sun Times page.
Ultimately, the quality of the comments reflects on the author of the piece. If racist or deeply offensive comments are allowed, it means that the author is OK with it.
Last note on this - I also question many using nicknames to post. There are times for it (i.e. a state employee posting something about state policy) but overall I wonder if it causes some lack of civility. A few years ago, I switched to a barely concealed name here (anybody who knows me outside this forum can pair it up without any real effort) and for me, it has been a positive. If I post something rude here I know my friends recognize. Not that it was ever an issue before, but for me at least it is a healthy reminder of the tone of what to post.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:53 am
Another example of the Illinois Supreme Court getting it right.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:54 am
A thought experiment: would the court’s ruling have been any different if we replaced “Bill Hadley” with “Denny Hastert” and “Fuboy” with “Individual A”? Should it have been? In other words, should anonymity protections be any different if the person in question is making an actual accusation as opposed to pure political bomb throwing?
Comment by Doofman Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:05 am
=== In other words, should anonymity protections be any different if the person in question is making an actual accusation as opposed to pure political bomb throwing? ===
Truth is the best protection against libel suits.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:06 am
Doofman, in an online comments section? Absolutely. It is one thing to write a letter like to police asking for assistance.
However, if you choose to make it in a public forum, you risk the consequences.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:08 am
Okay, I get it. You can publicly defame someone, but not anonymously defame someone. I guess that makes sense because you have the right to face your accuser.
Although it seems to me that Hadley was spending a lot of time pursuing a commentator that no one would have taken seriously. If I were to sue every commenter that said state employees were lazy or overpaid, I would be spending all my time in court.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:19 am
Relevant:
http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/3/10/Good_Luck_I_m_Behind_7_Proxies.jpg
Comment by NotRichMiller Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:22 am
“You can publicly defame someone, but not anonymously defame someone.” Well, that was part of the case. fuboy claimed that Hadley’s case was invalid because Hadley was seeking the identify of fuboy, who doesn’t exist. The court disagreed saying that “fuboy” isn’t anonymous, just an alias.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:30 am
==If I were to sue every commenter that said state employees were lazy or overpaid, I would be spending all my time in court.==
I believe one of the elements of defamation is that the statement is false.
/snark
Comment by Shoe Searer Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:32 am
“Lazy” and “overpaid” are opinions. As a general rule, opinions are not defamatory. Defamation requires a statement of fact.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:35 am
So does this mean that teachers can sue Arizona Bob?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:39 am
Comments sections are the home of internet tough guys. On the other hand, if you want to see the ugliest basest reaction to domething, you dont have to go far.
I appreciate the quality of comments and the guidelines like nowhere else
Comment by The Way I See It Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:41 am
Another local case of note - and one that is a good litmus test of the recent Facebook “threat” ruling by SCOTUS - is the Nokomis man who was arrested for meth possession and possible manufacturing. He decided to air his “grievances” on Facebook and essentially threatened the local sheriff and judge assigned to his case. Then, his friends & family thought it would be smart to do the same thing (minus the threats). I wonder how the local circuit court will handle that.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:59 am
=So does this mean that teachers can sue Arizona Bob?=
I think you have a compelling thought there!
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:09 pm
Springfield’s SJ-R once had an anonyomous comment blog but it was policed to censor the FUBoys. It was then very popular and heavily used. But I think that budget considerations eliminated the blog police and the site was subsequently converted to a Facebook style blog. It’s not used very much these days.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:12 pm
I’m so happy to hear this. My favorite newspaper comments are at the NYT. A well educated readership who write thoughtfully. The Chicago Tribune ended up with a lot of fake Facebook commenters. At DNAinfo, I actually saw a commenter who must have had police or internet connections who called out a particular commenter because he didn’t live in the ‘hood or in the city for that matter. There are a handful of commenters here who I look forward to reading.
Comment by Emily Booth Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:30 pm
The problem is that there are many that take the opinion that state workers are lazy and overpaid as fact. So I think as a class state workers have been defamed and it’s the same as if a particular race or ethnicity were defamed. But that’s my opinion.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:49 pm
People who place themselves in the public eye get less protection than anonymous “Everymans.” I would be surprised if Fuboy were to lose a libel suit if Hadley brings one.
OTOH, Hadley does have a right to know who Fuboy is, so he can sue if he wants to. What Fuboy wrote was way over the top.
Comment by Harry Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 1:00 pm
A Jack, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between “fact” and “opinion.”
“Overpaid” could never be a “fact.” It is always a conclusion.
You may not like that opinion, but you have no cause of action for defamation.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 1:02 pm
Good! I’ve a 1st amendment right to say what every I want. I’ve also got a 1st amendment responsibility to face repercussions of what I say. IL Supremes got it right!
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 4:30 pm
I don’t know. It seems like the definition of “libel per se” might cover a public employee bringing suit over being called overpaid. Not that it matters to me since I consider such suits as trivial. But if someone ever brings one, I will be rooting for them.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 4:57 pm
careful Rich. don’t encourage us to use the “M” word. I have the list posted on my computer in fear of you wielding your banning power!
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 4:59 pm
A Jack, you really need to figure out “fact” v. “opinion.”
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 5:05 pm
@AA
I don’t demean teachers, AA, just unions and the bureaucracies that make much of public education a failing institution!
and to JSMILL…Yo Mama!
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 5:19 pm
One other interesting spin on this is who has the burden of proof for establishing that what a poster said was false and not subject to opinion or interpretation.
Proving a case against a statement like “$120K per 174 work day teachers, with no requirements for optimal student outcomes, are overpaid” would make for some interesting argument!
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 5:23 pm
On the other hand if Hadley were elected a Mayor, and Fuboy called his comments parody, What? It’s ‘Protected’? Like Peoria’s Mayor Ardis, much discussed, maligned here, as Mayor, you have the City use it’s position to ID the Twitter posters, THEN have your Police Force go in an bust em up?
Fuzzy lines, for sure. Made more so, as a Public Figure/Politician you are the target of much abuse. Check the Lincoln Library for examples, hateful, disgraceful, and more, of ‘Ol Abe, from 150 years ago.
Back to Peoria/Ardis, in case anyone has forgotten, here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/how-your-inbox-looks-after-becoming-internet-enemy-1/
And Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-hsVlPtFao&sns=em
And then this also: An old Editor taught me years ago, if you are not willing to put YOUR NAME on it, it’s not worth reading - he routinely threw away “Letters to the Editor” (unsigned ones) without reading them.
Many sites, DON’T WANT A NAME… including here. “And please take a half second to come up with a nickname.”
So be it. Summarized by what?
“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds” ?
Oh, Oh, … here it comes … duck & cover
Comment by Conusone Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 7:37 pm
Gooner you seem awfully anxious to convince me what the far right has been saying for years now is just their opinion. Indeed maybe you should be trying to convince them of that since they have been repeating it as fact.
But the real test if you remember from law class is whether harm, generally considered financial harm, was done through what was said. That is the most difficult part of a libel / slander suit to prove.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:45 pm
A Jack -
It does not matter if some bonehead Republican accepts as fact that “state workers - via mass unionization - greatly inhibit the efficiency and productivity of state government, and in doing so, harm themselves and those most dependent on the state”.
No matter how true this is, no matter how many rational people understand it and work to remedy it, it’s still an opinion and NOT actionable under tort law.
Hope that helps.
Comment by Shoe Searer Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:39 pm
No A Jack, “harm” is not the test.
There needs to be a statement of fact and not of opinion.
Opinion is not actionable.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jun 19, 15 @ 10:14 am
Rich,
I was required to give the IL Attorney General my blog names form this post during a deposition in a whistleblower case. The offensive part about the AG pushing for disclosure was that they were defending law breakers in the case. Just so you know, people on this blog are exposed when the IL AG has an objective.
Comment by Qui Tam Friday, Jun 19, 15 @ 12:13 pm
I don’t believe this is a statement of fact. I’m not a lawyer, and I think the Internet is a jungle that needs to be given more precise rules, but in general it is a place of “hyperbole, exaggeration, and rhetoric” just like the judge states. What the judge doesn’t do is explain why this particular statement is NOT hyperbole. It’s a bad person trying to get attention, trying to make some kind of crude joke. I’d assume a young male without a fully developed brain whose now the subject of a witch hunt. It wasn’t intended as a factual assertion. If I read that for the first time, I - a fairly reasonable person - would not be inclined to take it seriously. I take very little seriously on the Internet comment sections. Because, again, like the judge says, the Internet is filled with hyperbole. It’s pretty much a lot of satire and black humor.
If these types of cases keep going against free speech, thousands upon thousands of comments will have to be litigated. Not because people are “bad”, but because they are mostly saying things without thinking in an attempt for attention. In other words, crude humor and hyperbole.
Comment by Guy Tuesday, Jun 23, 15 @ 2:23 am