Landmark 'internet privacy' case. Should the blogger's name be released, or no?

I agree, Academic. Though, how will the blogger face the full wrath of the law, if his or her identity is concealed?

Hello Gewcew,

Your logic is linear, and clear in support of situational, limited surrender our civil liberties. Though, there is a rather large camp who declare that those civil liberties were intended as, and must remain inviolable.

Both arguments are easily defensable. The inviolable crowd would say that because those rights are 'Divinely granted' that they always trump the laws of man.

What's especially 'sticky' about this situation is that there is no clear left/right division. Civil Libertarians and Constructionists can be found among the far left, the far right, and everywhere in between. Which of course means that these kinds of challenges will have to be dealt with on an individual case basis. It will be very interesting to see how this unravels, eh?

Hello Red,

Yes, your position is clear, thanks!

I agree that it is best to be neither submissive nor confrontational with police. They are, after all, just people. And, none can argue that people come in both good and bad varieties. So, you're point is 'spot on', if we all follow the law, then there should be no need for confrontation.

As for the blogger: it remains to be seen whether this person is following the law, or not. If I had to hazard a guess, I would suppose that the blogger is either a current, or former cop. Though, it's impossible to tell if the blogger is a whistle-blower, or a blow-hard with an axe to grind.

Though, if the courts rule in favor of the P.D., and release the blogger's I.D., then the media will most certainly run away with another story about our rights being 'whittled away'.

Hello Destiny,

Such a reasonable, reasoned answer!

The problem with your excellent response is that it relies on principle of personal responsibility. Which is sorely lacking in today's world.

If one wanted to, they could make or break any institution that self-investigates allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing, before external investigations are sought. If anonymity is respected then the same individual could instigate 100 investigations per year, on fabricated incident claims. The flip side of the coin, AND the catch-22 is that if anonymity is not honored then some people, with sincere allegations, will withold reporting to avoid possible intimidation.

If the crime of filing a false report was actually followed up on, and had real teeth, then this dilemma would likely be much less problematic.

I am perplexed by what seems an obvious question: if the blogger is reporting genuine impropriety, then why has he or she not simply submitted the evidence to the FBI or the Justice Department?

Hello Taskr,

Can I take from your answer that you support protecting the identity of the blogger until such time as an investigation warrants the need to subpoena the blogger?

If so, then may I present a bit of a 'devil's advocate' argument? Doesn't that place the burden of proof on the defendant(s) rather than the accuser? In other words, the accuser has no burden to prove any allegations -- perhaps ever. Our Fourth Amendment protects our right "... to remain secure in our person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". Since there is a very real burden from being investigated, then doesn't the punitive measure of an anonymously instigated investigation violate our Fourth Amendment rights?

Our sixth amendment protects our right to "... a speedy and public trial ... impartial jury ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him..." So, if anonymity if protected how can the accused confront their accuser who is a witness against him or her? In taking that one step farther, if the blogger's identity was made available, at the outset -- then the defendent might be able to prove that the blogger is not objective, or may be acting punitively based on some kind of an 'axe to grind'. So then, doesn't the anonymous accuser wield a great deal of power against the accused? This isn't as relevant in this particular case, because the taxpayer is paying for much of the investigation vis a vis Internal Affairs, the D.A. etc... However, when a private citizen is falsely accused they bear a great burden, financial, and otherwise, to defend themselves against any accusation -- false or not.

You propose several solid arguements ladyluna, well done. Because this case involves police, the rules are a bit different than they would be with a citizen, but not too much different. First, the anonymous information provides reasonable suspicion which is necessary to conduct a search or begin an investigation. The plaintiff, or accuser in this case is the city of Memphis or the state of Tennessee depending on jurisdiction.

The right to face one's accuser begins with facing them and the evidence they've gathered. When and if criminal charges are pressed the defendants may ask for the identity of this blogger. If the prosecution has gathered evidence independant of the blogger and has no intention of using the bloggers statements, they can argue that the blogger is not relevant to the case and it's up to the judge to make a decision on that. Typically though, the blogger can and will be brought into the light.

Although the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, the defendants are still required to mount their own defense. That means they must subpoena their own witnesses, and challenge the veracity of statements collected by the police, especially any that are anonymous.

In the end though, they will be defending themselves against the evidence, not just one bitter blogger. Police officers have more assistance than the average citizen providing his own defense. The police typically have unions that work hard to protect their rights and provide legal assistance.

Hello Taskr,

Let me commend you for having your 'thinking cap' squarely on your head!!!

You have very cogently described how the system can work to both achieve justice and protect the anonymity of the blogger, right up to a point where he or she may need to provide testimony.

Now, I have just one final question for you: Does the outlined scenario change IF any segment of the public loses confidence in the Memphis P.D. resulting from the blogger's criticisms? Specifically, if a Memphis citizen sees the bloggers statements deriding the M.P.D. and makes a conscious decision to not contact the 'bum cops', where that decision results in injury or fatality -- does the blogger bear any culpability? If so, full or partial?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but I'll guess at what you mean.

We have John Doe (27 years old) who has seen these comments and believes them, true or not. A burglar is lurking outside his home and he chooses not to call the bum cops. Instead he confronts the burglars and gets injured badly. You would want to know if the blogger is in some way culpable for his injuries.

I would say no. Since the person I described is an adult he should understand that the best choice is to call the police. One blogger can not be held responsible for his lack of judgment. That said, he could still attempt to sue the blogger and with our legal system it's still possible that some jury could award him damages. That is a civil matter so findings are not always consistent. Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific case where something similar has happened and in these situations precedent is important.

Hello Taskr,

Thank you for indulging me.

You understood the question perfectly!

I asked because I am quite certain that this kind of a hypothetical will be an argument used by the Memphis P.D. in order to justify gaining access to the blogger's identity. And, Heaven forbade that blogger happens to be a current cop!

While I agree that precedent is always a consideration, I suspect that this case is being touted as "groundbreaking" because of the lack of precedent. This, of course, means that: He who presents the best argument wins. There's certainly a lot riding on the outcome of this case, so I am hoping that much thought goes into the ramifications before any decisions are reached.



I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but I'll guess at what you mean.

We have John Doe (27 years old) who has seen these comments and believes them, true or not. A burglar is lurking outside his home and he chooses not to call the bum cops. Instead he confronts the burglars and gets injured badly. You would want to know if the blogger is in some way culpable for his injuries.

I would say no. Since the person I described is an adult he should understand that the best choice is to call the police. One blogger can not be held responsible for his lack of judgment. That said, he could still attempt to sue the blogger and with our legal system it's still possible that some jury could award him damages. That is a civil matter so findings are not always consistent. Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific case where something similar has happened and in these situations precedent is important.

I apologize for not having deleted your copy/pasted response before I submitted my reply to you. I typically copy the entire response so that I am able to address all of it's relevant points. Uh, I ususally make a point of deleting it before I submit a response though. Doh!!! Sorry, I hope my oversight doesn't create any confusion!

That's ok. I've had the exact same thing happen to me many times because mylot only shows the original post when commenting so I end up doing the copy and paste for the same reasons.

Hello Latrivia,

Thank you for providing the definition of libel. It's always helpful to make sure that people in a discussion are talking apples & apples.

In this case, it may be that the more relevant definition may be for the word "defamatory". It seems to me that the definition of "libel" has been met, though the determination of defamatory may not have been met -- yet. And, this speaks to any perceived or real intent to harm. We are given a glimpse of the possible defamatory nature of the blogger's words: "... as a ram to ruin the Constitution...". Here the words do seem to intend to disgrace or damage the officer's or adminstrator's judgement and fulfillment of the duties of the police to uphold the law -- which all-inclusively stem from the Constitution.

So, it would seem that the merits of this case will depend on the explanation given for "harshly critical" and "Godwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States."

However, I'm hoping to explore this from a bigger picture. Namely, does anonymity place an unconstitional burden on the accused? If so, is that a reason to mandate against anonymity?