u235

Blogging has, once again, made the news... this time in Delaware. Here's the dope:

DOVER, Del. (AP) -- In a decision hailed by free-speech advocates, the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official.
...
[Chief Justice]Steele described the Internet as a ''unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,'' and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.

As individuals, groups, governments struggle with trying to define the bounds of what the Internet is, we are seeing more an more news on the legal impact of "ready to consume" data. Print is covered. Television is covered. But the Internet is still a wild-west frontier. China hates it, closing sites that might provide anti-certified feelings or meeting points. Third world nations are using it as a means to provide goods and services directly to first-world nations. The US, well - we're the model of democracy yes? We're still apparently weighing the results as we go along.

On the one hand businesses have successfully taken issue with named employees who discuss work-time events. But this story deals with anonymity... and of course freedom of speech. What makes this particular case blatant is the fact that it's not private industry taking aim at protecting their image, in this instance the person bringing the suit is an elected official. Indeed, the higher courts have been quick to draw the parallels between first amendment rights and the freedom to express your political opinion in public forums.

Huzzah, bloggers. We remain safe for a little while longer, at least on the political front.