|
''Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada'' (In re Anonymous Online Speakers), 611 F.3d 653 (2010), is a decision by the Ninth Circuit lowering the standard a plaintiff must meet to compel identification of anonymous posters on the Internet.〔''Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts'' Volume 7, Issue 2 Fall 2011: (Ninth Circuit Unmasks Anonymous Internet Users And Lowers The Bar For Disclosure Of Online Speakers ).〕 Quixtar, Inc. sued its competitor Signature Management TEAM, LLC for tortious interference with existing contracts. Quixtar claimed that TEAM created an Internet smear campaign involving anonymous postings of content that discredited Quixstar and its business practices. The district court ordered TEAM to identify three of the five anonymous authors who posted content about Quixtar. The Anonymous Online Speakers petitioned to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court’s order. Quixtar cross petitioned to the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus which, if granted, would force TEAM to identify the remaining speakers. Since neither Quixtar nor TEAM demonstrated "an entitlement to the extraordinary relief" that would be granted by the writ, both parties were denied their requested petitions. The Ninth Circuit recognized that First Amendment protection applied to online speech. The Ninth Circuit decided that the nature of the speech should determine the standard used to protect online speakers and their speech. Historically, courts have awarded greater protection for political speech than commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit classified the Internet postings and video content as commercial speech because they went to “the heart of Quixtar’s commercial practices and its business operations.”〔 The district court, in this case, used the ''Cahill'' standard which required that parties "submit sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for each essential element of the defamation claim." 〔''Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada'', 611 F.3d 653 () (quoting ''Doe v. Cahill'', 884 A.2d 451 at 463 (2005))〕 The Ninth Circuit, rejected the application based on the stringency of the test as applied to commercial speech, thereby denying the Anonymous Online Speakers their petition. ''Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada'' presented an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit regarding First Amendment claims of anonymous online speakers involving commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit instructed lower courts not to apply heightened standard, such as ''Cahill'', to commercial speech during discovery disputes. == Background == As stated in the court's decision, "Quixtar () a multilevel marketing business that distribut() cosmetics and nutrition supplements through Independent Business Owners (“IBOs”)." 〔 Quixtar sued its competitor, Signature Management TEAM, for tortious interference with existing contracts in the U.S. District Court of Nevada Reno. Quixtar accused TEAM for organizing a “smear campaign” on the Internet to induce Quixtar IBOs to terminate their contracts at Quixtar and to join its competitor affiliated with TEAM. During discovery, Quixtar requested TEAM to identify authors of the anonymous statements made in one video and four blogs. Examples of these statements are “Quixtar has regularly, but secretly, acknowledged that its products are overpriced and not sellable”; “Quixtar refused to pay bonuses to IBOs in good standard” and Quixtar “terminated IBOs without due process.” 〔 Quixtar alleged that these statements would support its claims for tortious interference with existing contracts because they are made by TEAM employees or agents. TEAM refused to disclose the identities on First Amendment grounds. After reviewing the specific statements from each source, the district court ordered TEAM to identify three of the five anonymous speakers. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|