<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, April 07, 2016

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02211202nhv.pdf
Miller v Junior Achievement. (Ind. Ct.App. 2012) Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc. (In re Indiana Newspapers, Inc.), 963 N.E.2d 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (“Miller I”)

I just found an indiana case from 2012 about anonymous speech, with paul alan levy as an amicus.
will update with notes once i've read it.

 In order to analyze this issue of first impression in our state, we consider Indiana’s Shield Law,... the First  Amendment, which has a celebrated history of vigorously protecting anonymous speech, and the Indiana Constitution, which more jealously protects freedom of speech guarantees than the United States Constitution. 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was also an amicus. I'm an EFF supporter from way back, first went to one of their conferences in 1992.
To go a bit further back, the Junior Achievement company I was in made candles.
A. Federal Constitution Anonymous speech has played an important role in the history of this country. “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy or of dissent.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 356 (1995). This First Amendment protection has been extended to material on the internet as well. Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 25 844, 870 (1997) (“[O]ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the internet].”)
I plan to cite this in a brief I'm writing for a case in Nebraska.

We recognize that the Indiana Constitution “‘more jealously protects freedom of speech guarantees than does the United States Constitution.’” Mishler v. MAC Sys., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 92, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Lach v. Lake Cnty., 621 N.E.2d 357, 362 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied). The newsroom is a place where free speech has been particularly protected. In In re WTHR-TV, our Supreme Court stated “[w]here a media organization is subpoenaed, the Trial Rules require sensitivity to any possible impediments to press freedom.
court adopts modified dendrite-cahill test for discovery of anonymous internet commenters.

a couple of personal notes: miller, the former junior achievement exec who was the plaintiff, i think is the guy who dropped out of the district 100 race in 2010, so i was unopposed in the gop primary.
s k reid, the trial judge who was overruled, is the guy who denied a preliminary injunction in taylor v taylor, my long-running case about anonymous speech in indiana.


Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?