Anna Nicole Smith, Free Speech and The Real Chilling Effect

Those of us who have been following the investigations and subsequent lawsuits surrounding the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Wayne Smith have at one time or another been threatened with exposure to lawsuits, physical violence and other sundry unmentionable acts. At times, I have felt embarrassed, humiliated, angered, outraged, amused and frustrated. But lately the dominant emotion has been disbelief. Disbelief, that human beings can behave in a manner that I never imagined before joining the list of interested citizens reading and voicing my opinion on the subject.

Many have expressed their frustration over the perception that their fundamental right to free speech has been threatened and at times thwarted by persons involved in this whole mess of a media and legal circus. Most of these rants have no basis in fact or law and the problem is easily remedied by simply clicking on the “red x” in the corner and retiring with a good book. But not all the concerns expressed can be so casually dismissed. As tawdry and at times silly as some of this is, there are profound legal and moral issues involved.

( Need not be registered to comment but see rules below. Thank you.)

As soon as Mr. Lin Wood signed on as Howard K. Stern’s attorney, he issued a statement that many [at that time] believed was meant to intimidate the media and bloggers into silence. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Web sites such as RoseSpeaks and The Bald Truth started researching anyone who publicly uttered damaging information about Howard K. Stern. No one was off limits. Not even Mr. Ford Shelly’s child. These web sites then published that information no matter how irrelevant or immaterial the “uncovered” information was. As long as it was damaging to the person, it was fair game. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Back in September of 2007, about 20 to 30 regular posters on TMZ were banned en mass at the same time for no discernable reason. “Butterfly” posted a comment that she was asked to compile a list of names of those posters who were “anti-stern”. She said that she subsequently did so and, “poof” they were gone. That’s a “chilling effect”.

I know that Kerry and I were warned by Rose Turner after she misidentified us, that we were now “fair game” as limited public officials. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Both Mr. Harris and Ms. Turner published false information that the Magistrate presiding over the Bahamas inquest into the death of Daniel Smith had asked the public to identify themselves and that bloggers who did not do so might be arrested and sent to jail. The only motivation that I can even begin to imagine was that they did not want anyone to attend a public hearing into the death of an American citizen in a foreign country. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Mr. J. Nazarian, the private investigator for Mr. Howard K. Stern began to openly post comments on numerous websites read and visited by bloggers interested in the story. Suffice to say that his posts were not warm, fuzzy vignettes about life as a P.I. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Someone stole the contents of garbage cans from in front of the home of Wilma Vicedomine who is involved in Mrs. Arthur’s legal defense. Mr. Harris bragged that pictures of the garbage might soon be available via his website and Mr. Nazarian wrote about the contents in a post. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Professionals used their state licenses to obtain personal information and then posted that information on public message boards and internet sites. That’s a “chilling effect.”

But the one that bothers me the most is the constant refrain from Rose Turner, Art Harris, J. Nazarian and members of her site that “we have your IP information and we know who you are. That is not just a “chilling effect”. That’s an, I’m going to scared the hell out of you effect.

Kerry and I wanted to write an article titled “Share & Compare” exploring the possibility that information was exchanged between site owners and then turned over to legal representatives of Mr. Stern. We reached out to many of you and asked that you share your personal story with us. The response was overwhelming and frankly a bit frightening.

I was deeply troubled by the universal belief that an orchestrated attempt had been made to stifle free speech and to scare citizens into silence. Because so many of you took the situation so seriously, I decided to do no less. It was obvious that a short article was not going to suffice. So instead Kerry and I began to research, ask questions and prepare a detailed analysis of the issues involved.

I reached out to QV and asked if she would be willing to provide a forum to discuss what did and did not happen. What the legal ramifications are. Why it is important. And whether or not there is any available redress for those who feel victimized by this whole mess.

Hopefully we will all learn what the legal limits are. The moral limits are the responsibility of the individual.

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1]

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees four freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. With these words The Founding Fathers sought to establish a government under which its citizens could speak and write freely without fear of reprisal. The dictionary defines “speech” as “the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words”[2]

The French Historian and writer, Voltaire famously articulated the philosophy behind the principle of free speech in the 1700’s with these words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire understood that if someone can be censored today for expressing an unpopular idea, then tomorrow you or I could suffer the same fate.

As early as 1644, John Milton spoke of the supreme significance of free speech in society when he said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”[3]

In 1689 the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights from the Monarchs William and Mary. One of the rights that they fought to obtain was the “freedom of speech in Parliament.” Under our Constitution that freedom was taken further and granted to all citizens.

George Washington himself addressed the issue of Free Speech stating,

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we maybe led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The fact that “freedom of speech” is contained in the first amendment to the Constitution is no accident. President Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this principle in his inaugural address in 1801 stressing that censorship should never be used as a means to change pubic opinion. Instead he argued that Reason is the only legitimate tool.

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

In “The First Freedom,” Nat Hentoff quotes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson:

“I am really mortified that the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry, too. Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold and what we may buy? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched?”

In an address to the Congress during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reiterated the importance of free speech. He spoke of his desire that the four freedoms articulated in the First Amendment to the Constitution be expanded and embraced throughout the world.

“We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.”

More recently Salman Rushdie fourth novel, “The Satanic Verses, published in 1988 led to violent protest in several Muslim countries and a fatwa issued against him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the Supreme Leader of Iran. This religious edict called for Mr. Rushdie’s death and as a consequence he was forced to live in hiding for nearly a decade.[4] In spite of this, Mr. Rushdie is unwavering in his defense of Free Speech saying,

“Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.”

The Foundation of Free Speech in the Fight for American Independence

In order to understand how important the framers of the constitution and the courts viewed the right of anonymous speech one must look to the historical media prevalent at the time. Before the advent of electronic communications ideas and opinions were expressed through speeches, books and pamphleteering. .

Historically, a pamphlet is a small unbound booklet or leaflet comprised of a few pages loosely stitched together. They were brief and written in such a style that they were easily understood by the masses. They were sold very cheaply and used to disseminate information and as a means for the expression of opinions on the important issues of the day. Pamphlets usually had large printings and wide circulation. They could be read aloud, discussed and passed from one person to another. “Pamphlets became a significant means of mass communication and an essential vehicle for carrying on political debates in colonial America.”[5]

George Orwell a prolific pamphleteer wrote,

“The pamphlet is a one-man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, abusive, and seditious; or, on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and “high-brow” than is ever possible in a newspaper or in most kinds of periodicals…”[6]

Pamphleteering enjoyed its greatest success and popularity during the 17th and 18th centuries. Pamphlets were widely used as a means of political dissent and debate during the English Civil War and the American and French Revolutions. They were also a common tool employed to spread the ideas of the Enlightenment. During this time period writers such as Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, and Jonathan Swift produced numerous pamphlets. The French Revolution was fiercely debated among intellectuals in England; Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France 1790, a vehement denunciation of the revolt, was answered by Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man 1791-92, addressed to working people, which became the most widely read work of its time.[7]

“From pamphlets may be learned the genius of the age, the debates of the learned, the bevues of government, and mistakes of the courtiers. . . . they carry a reputation of wit and learning to allthat make them their companions.”[8]

It was in this form — as pamphlets — that much of the most important writings and ideas were disseminated during the American Revolution. The use of the pamphlet allowed one to do things that were not possible in any other form. They were used by many to express a heated personification of the larger conflicts and issues of the times. This would then result in a contentious serious of individual exchanges through pamphlets — arguments, replies, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. These characteristically proceeded with increasing shrillness until it ended in bitter personal vituperation. First and foremost, the American pamphleteers, were amateurs and it is this amateurism, this lack of practiced technique that explains much of the crudeness of the Revolutionary pamphlets.[9]

In 1776, American writer and human rights advocate Thomas Paine published a radical pamphlet called, ‘Common Sense’. This pamphlet is the most coherent statement to date of American independence views and historical scholars believe that its writing and dissemination changed the course of history in the United States.[10]

A very important feature of pamphleteering was that the author could remain anonymous if they chose to do so. Even if the writer(s) of the pamphlet claimed authorship of the document they could escape retaliation by the Crown and its representatives because of the ‘on the run’ nature of publishing that the pamphleteer employed. The role of anonymous pamphleteers in the building of our nation has been recognized by the highest court in the land.

“Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.”[11]

Free Speech = Anonymous Speech

While most of us are aware from basic American Civic classes that the Constitution contains an amendment guaranteeing the right to free speech, when talking to many of you it was apparent that the right to “anonymous speech” was not fully understood by everyone. The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. In fact, “…all of the Federalist Papers were signed by Publius, a pseudonym representing the trio of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay .”[12] Anonymity of speech is important because without it a person(s) would hesitate to say certain things or expose unpopular ideas for fear of retribution.

The courts have consistently upheld the concept that free speech and anonymous speech are bound together and protected under the constitution. Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.

1919

The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” [13]

1974

Don’t underestimate the common man. People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They cansee it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so,it is for them to decide what is `responsible’, what is valuable, and what is truth.[14]

1978

“Inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”[15]

1995

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. [16]

1999

“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” [17]

Limits on Free Speech

United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.[18] The courts have ruled that both state and federal governments have the right to enact statues that limit certain narrowly defined types of speech but these limits are very specific and the courts have generally been reluctant to impede the free exercise of speech.

Unlike many other democracies the government in the United States of America is expressly forbidden from restricting speech. Court rulings that involve limitations on the free exchange of ideas and thoughts have broadly followed the philosophy that reason and free speech should prevail over fear and censorship.

“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”[19]

Our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.[20]

Though government cannot regulate the content of speech it has an obligation to its citizens to provide remedy for parties that sustained injury as a result of such thing as defamation and hate speech. Through time the judicial system has developed a body of law to specifically address these issues. That is why suits such as defamation and libel are civil torts and not criminal. Laws regarding defamation only apply to specific individuals who have been victimized by the acts of others. The Courts have struggled to find a balance between the constitutional right to speak freely and anonymously with the right to secure legal redress through civil litigation.

Simply put if someone says something that isn’t true about another person and as a result of that false statement the person is “injured”, then that person has the right to seek legal redress through the court system. The courts will rule on liability and award money to address the damages incurred. In the context of what has been happening in this saga, it is of utmost importance to remember that a process has been established through the courts to address these issues precisely because of the value that the courts and society place on freedom of speech. Those that seek a way to circumvent the process do a great injustice to the very foundation of our constitution and the courts.

Free Speech on the Internet Where the internet is concerned case law is new, but the courts have held that the right to speak freely includes the liberty of anonymous speech on the Internet. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, was the first major Supreme Court ruling regarding the regulation of materials distributed via Internet. The Court voted to strike down anti-obscenity provisions of the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment..[21] In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court decided,

“Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

The court further stated that a speaker on the Internet is the modern-day equivalent of a pamphleteer.

Through the use of [online] chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.[22]

Other courts have also recognized and affirmed that the right to speak anonymously without retribution and censor extends to speech on the Internet. In ACLU v. Johnson the court extended the right to anonymous free speech to the Internet.[23] In a 2000 case the court stated that,

“To fail to recognize that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously should be extended to communications on the Internet would require this Court to ignore either United States Supreme Court precedent or the realities of speech in the twenty-first century” [24]

Although the case was later reversed on other grounds the court found in America Online, Inc, v Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. that, “Inherent in First Amendment protections is the right to speak anonymously in diverse contexts,” including on the Internet.” [25] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 2001 Va. LEXIS 38 (Va. S. Ct., Mar. 2, 2001)

The Constitution Also Protects Our Freedom of Association on the Internet. The ability to bring people together who share a common interest and to provide a means for them to communicate with each other is one of the most valuable tools that the Internet has provided to modern society. Message boards and chat rooms create a community or association of people and forum in which they can come together regardless of geographical locations the exchange and debates ideas in their common area of interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized the synergy of freedom of speech and assembly.

“[T]he practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process. The 18th-century Committees of Correspondence and the pamphleteers were early examples of this phenomena and the Federalist Papers were perhaps the most significant and lasting example.[26]

The court ruled that the release of a membership list violated the constitutional right to freedom of association.[27] In Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee the held unconstitutional a subpoena intended for us in discovery of alleged co-conspirators by compelling the release from the NAACP of its member’s identities. [28] The U.S. Supreme Court in Gibson affirmed the importance of protecting citizens from having their private associations disclosed through the use of a subpoena in a civil case.

It is particularly important that the exercise of the power of compulsory process be carefully circumscribed when [it] tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas of freedom of speech. . . freedom of . association, and freedom of communication of ideas.How does this apply to the current litigation and threats of litigation

We’ve already shown that the American tradition of protecting and honoring anonymous speech can be traced back to the Founding Fathers of our country through the use of pamphleteering and that the courts have ruled that the internet in analogous to that.

Many people chose to communicate their ideas and opinions on line using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). “[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously,”[29] yet in the internet we rely on Web sites or ISPs to protect our anonymity so when should our ISPs be turned over to a defendant or his attorney during the discovery process in civil litigation? Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union has stated that, “unless online anonymity is protected, whistleblowers who want to criticize their employers, parents who want to criticize the principal of their children’s school – and many others – may be afraid to speak out. That would be a loss for our country.”[30]

In terms of civil suits that would involve the “unmasking” of anonymous posters on the internet the courts have determined that strict procedural safeguards must be imposed “as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet.”[31]

Following this procedure a litigant must first apply to the court for a subpoena seeking the identity of the individual whose statements are the subject of the suit. This safeguard was put in place because the courts found that, “Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns”.[32]

Accordingly, “the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.”[33] Otherwise, “[i]f Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.” [34]

By Kerry and Einy

---

[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[2] “Speech.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition 2000.

Dictionary.com. 19 April 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speech

[3] Areopagitica: a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England

[4] Salman Rushdie, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

[5] US History Encyclopedia: Pamphleteering http://www.answers.com/topic/pamphlet

[6] George Orwell, (“Introduction”, in George Orwell and Reginald Reynolds, eds., British Pamphleteers):

[7] [Pamphlet From the Hutchinson Encyclopedia of World History. © Research Machines plc [2006] All

Rights Reserved, Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines.]

[8] [Myles Davis, Icon Libellorum (1715), as quoted in H.L. Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations

on historical principles from Ancient and Modern Sources 883 (Knopf ed. 1991) (1942).]

[9] Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”. published in 1967,

[10] [Robert C. Berring, Deconstructing the Law Library: The Wisdom of Meredith Willson,

89 Minn. L. Rev. 1381, 1405 (2005)].

[11] And as the Supreme Court stated in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960):

[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity

[13] (Abrams v. United States, [250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)]).

[14] New York v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 966-967, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978, 996 (1974)

[15] First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)

[16] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995)

[17] Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

[18] Freedom of speech, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

[19] Justice Louis Brandeis opined in Whitney v. California in 1927,

[20] Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-31 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

[21] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[22] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[23] ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999)

[24] re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, Inc., 52 Va. Cir. 26, 34 (Va. Cir. 2000)

[25] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 2001 Va. LEXIS 38 (Va. S. Ct., Mar. 2, 2001)

[26] Citizens Aginst Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 294 (1981):

[27] NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 466 (1958)

[28] Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539, 558 (1963)

[29] http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[30] http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/20020711_eff_pr.html

[31] Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001).

[32] Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

[33] Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

[34] 2theMart.com, at 1093 http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity

****Anyone can comment. Need not be registered. But if anyone attacks another poster, the authors or the site owner, your comment will be removed without warning.

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged as: ACLU, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bloggers for Howard K. Stern, Bloggers for Virgie Arthur, Daniel Wayne Smith, Einy, Free Speech on the Internet, freedom of speech, George Orwell a prolific pamphleteer, Howard K Stern, John Nazarian, Kerry, Kerry and Einy, Limits on Free Speech, Lin Wood, Nelda Rose Turner, QV, Rose Turner, Rosespeaks, The Bald Truth, The Chilling Effect, The United States Constitution, Virgie Arthur, WV