For Immediate Release:    Contact:  Nick Lindesay (530) 579-6078

March 14, 2001

Court Grants John Doe
The Process That Is Due

An Oregon federal magistrate rules that an anonymous “John Doe” internet message board poster does have the right to appear voluntarily to defend his reputation and to file counterclaims, while a California federal court dismisses a “SLAPP” suit and brings sanctions against the plaintiff

PORTLAND, ORE.—The voluntary appearance of an internet message board poster has been upheld by a federal district court, which confirmed an earlier ruling by a federal district magistrate, who had granted leave to the “John Doe” defendant to defend and make counterclaims in an internet defamation lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged $18 million in damages against the poster.

Mr. Nick Lindesay, a director of The Foundation, believes that the case is unusual, in that when the poster revealed his true identity to the court and to the plaintiff, and voluntarily filed an answer, the plaintiff immediately filed motions to strike the defendant’s pleadings and to block him from further participation in the lawsuit.  The plaintiff also claimed that John Doe had no right to defend, because a summons had not been served on him, and because the anonymous poster had not been identified by his true name in the lawsuit or in the case caption.

But the Doe defendant argued that the plaintiff had, in fact, identified the individual as “a John Doe defendant” and specifically identified the individual’s posts as the allegedly defamatory comments which had been published on the www.johndoes.org web site. The court agreed,  pointing out that the voluntary appearance of the defendant was proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and established case law which permit a voluntary appearance even though a defendant is not identified in a complaint by his proper name.  The court also allowed the defendant to file counterclaims, including a claim of abuse of process, against the plaintiff and others in the case.

“Obviously, we are pleased with the court’s ruling,” stated Mr. Lindesay, “as it recognizes the right of a fictitiously named defendant to appear and defend in federal court.  We have already seen a number of these voluntary appearances permitted in the various state courts.”

“It also sends a clear message to “would-be” plaintiffs in these cases, most of whom are small-cap publicly traded corporations and their respective management, that they had better be prepared to face the consequences of bringing frivolous litigation against shareholders and otherwise harmless anonymous internet publishers who are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.”

Mr. Lindesay concluded by stating “In 1998, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act which exempts internet service providers such as Yahoo!, AOL, Raging Bull, JohnDoes.org, and other anonymous message board providers from liability from public content published by users or subscribers. This legislation is very sensible, and has been upheld by the federal courts in every case.”

According to research conducted by The Foundation, thousands of “John Doe” defendants have been sued by small companies in over 200 cases during the past five years, with only a handful of the defendants actually ever being served.  The Foundation is not aware of one single such case ever going to trial, or where the plaintiff has ever won a verdict or judgment; most of these lawsuits are simply dismissed by the plaintiffs after they have used the process to intimidate, identify, and “unmask” the posters.  In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Mr. French stated that “most John Does don’t even know that they have been sued, because they are never served [or notified] regarding the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the plaintiff corporations typically have unbridled discovery powers to pry into the most intimate sources of information on the defendants, because the John Doe defendants are never served with a summons, and are therefore not given the opportunity to defend or to oppose discovery.”

In an unrelated lawsuit filed in California, a federal judge recently dismissed a “cybersmear” suit against anonymous posters on Raging Bull, under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) statute, a ruling under which Global Telemedia International, Inc. (GLTI) will be required to pay a cash amount to the defendants in the form of “enhanced fees and costs” to cover the costs of their defense.

The GLTI case is also important because the court recognized that public opinions expressed on public message boards about publicly held companies like GLTI are protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore the plaintiff (GLTI) could not demonstrate to the court a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its claims. As a result, the case was dismissed in its early stages, and excluded any discovery being taken by GLTI on the anonymous defendants.

The John Does Anonymous Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting free speech in the public interest, and to provide support to individuals who are being sued for freely expressing their opinions on the internet.  The Foundation maintains a web site at http://johndoes.org .  Organizations and individuals wishing to contribute to The Foundation to support its projects, or to contribute to the costs of its legal defense in the litigation described in this news release, should  send  email to jdaf@johndoes.org .