soapbox

A case in smyrna delaware raises issues of discovery of an anonymous internet poster who criticized a city councilman and his wife.
Articles one and two.
"Proud Citizen" is represented by David Finger, who was my local counsel in Anonymous v Delaware. Paul Levy of Public Citizen has submitted an amicus brief. He might also be is representing the ACLU and EFF.
I am somewhat puzzled. I haven't seen the briefs and am relying solely on the media reports.
Levy, in cases like 2themart Dendrite, has done a good job of establishing the standards that must be met before a court orders disclosure of anonymous internet speech.
But here, it seems as though those standards are met. Calling someone a whore and saying they've slept with half the town goes beyond democratic input, and at least raises serious issues of libel. Again, this sort of thing is fact-based, and I haven't seen the text of the messages in question.
Update: Defendant's brief is here. http://www.cyberslapp.org/litigation/briefs/CahillvDoeAppBriefasfiled.pdf
The statements by John Doe #1 are not defamatory after all. Wonder what John Does 2-5 said.
Smyrna is a very small town, a few houses on stilts in a salt marsh, and a state prison. The area has grown up quite a bit since I left, so there might be more to it now. I remember getting a ride through there from a guy who was a muskrat trapper, and my childhood friend Steve White did time there after he took a knife to his abusive guardians the night of the junior prom.
I'll do a bit of websurfing to see if there's more on the story.
There is a hint, but just a hint, that Proud Citizen may be Smyrna's mayor.
The state supreme court will hear argument later this month.
Update: yes, it looks like John Doe #1 is the Honorable Mayor.
EFF news release.
update: here's the amicus brief.

Well I'm still having trouble sorting this out. The briefs were persuasive. I haven't seen plaintiffs' brief. Here's what Al Mascitti's article says:
Cahill believes the uglier messages from three other anonymous authors were not independent of the first, because they were posted within minutes. The follow-up messages accused his wife, Julie, of "[sleeping with] half the town," claimed she was a "bottom of the barrel [expletives deleted] whore" and called her a "fat piece of [expletive deleted]." Other statements can't even be paraphrased in a family newspaper.
These statements have the distinctive style of Hizzoner. Discovery of John Doe #1 would be relevant to Ms. Cahill's claims she has been libeled. John Doe #1's brief seems misleading as to the facts, by omitting these other statements.

I agree with the court below that good faith is the standard for discovery of anonymous political speech. I do not think the court below used the right test for good faith. Dendrite, Melvin, and so forth strike the right balance, and the Delaware Supreme Court should adopt that standard. Applying that standard, the Court might find the communications discoverable, false, defamatory, and malicious.

Thanks to Paul, I've now seen the complaint. In my opinion, the text of the messages from Does 2-5 may be defamatory, oozes malice, and may constitute an invasion of privacy, the second count. It's harsh stuff, probably all from the same source, and should be discoverable, again under an appropriately high standard.
The complaint seeks joint and several liability, so some discovery is warranted as to whether the posters are the same person or are in collusion somehow.