The appeal is the first of its kind filed in a state Supreme Court, said Ann Beeson, Litigation Director of the New York City-based American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Technology and Liberty Program.
The appeal challenges an order issued in November 2000 by Allegheny County Judge Stanton Wettick. Wettick ruled that Superior Court Judge Jane Orie Melvin has the right to know the names of 13 critics who contributed to the America Online site in question before her defamation suit against them goes to trial.
Wettick ruled that Melvin's attorney would have to know the character and status of the people criticizing Melvin before trying to prove they did so falsely and maliciously, as Melvin contends.
The ACLU and other attorneys for the critics want the court to establish a rule that would make targets of anonymous criticism prove they suffered actual economic damage before they could unmask their accusers.
"The difficulty here is finding a way to separate the frivolous, I-wanna-find-out-who-you-are cases from the serious cases" where somebody has truly been defamed, said Pittsburgh attorney Ronald Barber, who represents the defendants.
Without such protections, "the time-honored right to criticize public officials anonymously will be chilled on the Internet," the ACLU, which also represents the critics, said in a statement Tuesday.
The creators of the Internet site "Grant Street '99" criticized Melvin for what they said was her attempt to persuade then-Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend to a vacant Allegheny County judge seat. State law prohibits judges from engaging in political activity once they are elected.
Melvin has said she didn't attempt to lobby Ridge and sued her critics for libel and defamation three years ago.
The case hasn't progressed far, however, because of the continuing dispute over whether Melvin has a right to know who authored the Internet site in question.
The chatty site, which contained anonymous commentary on Pittsburgh-area politics, is named for a main Pittsburgh street where county and city office buildings are located. A check of its Internet address Tuesday indicated that it is no longer operating.
The Superior Court, on which Melvin sits, last year quashed her critics' earlier appeal of Wettick's order, prompting them to ask the state Supreme Court for the right to appeal, which was granted in August.
Attorneys for AOL, however, filed a friend of the court brief on Tuesday asking the court to establish a standard that would prevent people from filing defamation suits merely to unmask their critics. AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham said the company wanted to make its views known to the court.
The Dulles, Va.-based Internet giant said it fielded 432 subpoenas last year from people wanting to know the identities of those who posted information on its network.
Filing defamation and other lawsuits against AOL members is "an illegitimate use of the courts to silence and retaliate against speakers," AOL attorneys said in the court filing.
Copyright 2002. Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
