Joan Melvin
- {fr1} The Web page stated: Despite being prohibited from engaging in political activity, a couple of Judges have been keeping themselves pretty busy recently with politics. Judge Joan Orie Melvin has been lobbying the Ridge administration on behalf of a local attorney seeking the appointment by Governor Ridge to fill the vacancy on the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas created by the mandatory retirement earlier this month of Judge Robert Dauer, now a Senior Judge. Dauer has also been actively pushing for this attorney's appointment. The last GS99 heard, this attorney is on the Governor's short-list of candidates. Let's hope that the Gov does the right thing and appoints somebody better qualified. Shame on Orie-Melvin and Dauer-this is exactly the kind of misconduct by our elected officials that the residents of Allegheny County will not stand for anymore .. and a good reason why Judges should be held accountable for their actions and remembered at the polls at retention time. This comment appeared, along with other discussions of local politics, on a privately maintained Internet Web Page identified only as "Grant Street'99," on facilities provided by America Online to its subscribers.Google Scholar
- {fr2} There were only a handful of these cases in January of 1999. Today there are hundreds making their way through the courts, and often, into the news. In its amicus brief to the Superior Court in the present case, America Online ("AOL") stated that it received about 475 subpoenas seeking identity in the year 2000. See AOL Brief at 2; see generally Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 Duke L. J. 101 (Feb. 2000); Phyllis Plitch, Defense Is Sought in Proliferating Suits Against Anonymous Online Posters, Wall St. J. (Feb. 22, 2000), p. B9C; Mike France, Free Speech on the Net? Not Quite, Business Week (February 28, 2000), p. 93; Greg Miller, 'John Doe' Suits Threaten Internet Users' Anonymity, Los Angeles Times (June 14, 2000), p. A1; see also Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 342 N. J. Super. 134, 151, 775 A. 2d 756, 767 (2001); Doe v. 2TheMart.Com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1091 n. 2 (W. D. Wash. 2001).Google Scholar
- {fr3} Ross Kerber, Ruling a Partial Win for Online Anonymity, Boston Globe (Nov. 17, 2000), p. D2; Judge's Online Critics Lose Their Anonymity, The National Law Journal (Nov. 27, 2000), p. A7; Jeffrey Ghannam, Libel Online: Suit Raises Issue of Protection for Anonymous Web Comments, ABA Journal (March 2001), p. 28; Brian Krebbs, AOL Joins Fight To Protect Anonymity Online, Newsbytes (March 7, 2001).Google Scholar
- {fr4} In addition, the Fifth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the right of a party plaintiff to proceed anonymously raises an appropriate "collateral" issue for immediate appeal. Doe v. Stegall, 653 F. 2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981); Southern Methodist University Ass'n v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F. 2d 707 (5rh Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
- {fr5} Doe does not appeal the denial of summary judgment, which sought judgment on the merits. If this Court reverses the denial of Doe's Motion for a Protective Order, and rules that Melvin cannot obtain identity until she proves economic harm, Doe will then seek reconsideration in the trial court of his summary judgment motion.Google Scholar
- {fr6} A review of the history, the structure, and some of the triumphs of the Internet is contained in the Reproduced Record submitted to Superior Court, at R53a-R74a (affidavit of Sara Kiesler, Carnegie-Mellon University Professor of Human-Computer Interaction).Google Scholar
- {fr7} "The 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. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment." Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 342 N. J. Super. 134, 151, 775 A. 2d 756, 767 (2001) (quoting Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.Com, 185 F. R. D. 573, 578 (N. D. Cal. 1999).Google Scholar
- {fr8} E. g., R. 59a-61a; 85a-92a (Affidavit of Sara Kiesler, Ph.D., Professor of Human Computer Interaction, Carnegie-Mellon University) ("This is especially common when an individual or group is advocating changes in the criminal law (such as legalization of marijuana or abolition of the death penalty), or is critical of policies, local conditions or officials, or fears social censure (for example, in discussions of homosexuality). The Internet gives individuals the ability to say unpopular things without fear of reprisal from those in power.")Google Scholar
- {fr9} See Greg Miller, "John Doe" Suits Threaten Internet Users' Anonymity, L. A. Times, June 14, 1999, at A1 ("{T}he growing volume of these suits--and the subsequent dropping of them in some cases after identities have been disclosed--makes some experts fear that the legal process is being abused by organizations seeking only to 'out' online foes.").Google Scholar
- {fr10} At least ten state and lower federal courts have applied exacting scrutiny to protect various forms of anonymous political speech. See, e. g., State v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001); Washington Initiatives Now v. Ripple, 213 F. 3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000); Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Erie, 99 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W. D. Pa. 2000); State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P. 2d 597 (Alaska 1999); Yes for Life PAC v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Me. 1999) and Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999); American KKK v. City of Goshen, 50 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N. D. Ind. 1999); Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W. D. Ark. 1998); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S. D. Ind. 1997); West Virginians for Life v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036 (S. D. W. Va. 1996); and Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 906 F. Supp. 1071 (W. D. Va. 1995).Google Scholar
- {fr11} In addition, several jurisdictions have already abolished presumed damages in all defamation, thereby requiring plaintiffs to prove they have suffered actual injury, although such injury does not necessarily require actual pecuniary loss. Jenkins v. Revolution Helicopter Corp., 925 S. W. 2d 542, 544-45 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996); Ryan v. Herald Assoc., Inc., 152 Vt. 275, 283 (1989); Mareck v. John Hopkins University, 60 Md. App. 217, 223 (1984); Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 101 F. 3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Petition: Joan Melvin v. John Doe, et al
Recommendations
Explainable multi-task convolutional neural network framework for electronic petition tag recommendation
AbstractElectronic petition (e-petition) is an electronic government (e-government) service that allows citizens to file petitions to governments via the internet. The complexity of the e-petition filing process and the unexplainable e-...
Highlights- Construct a multi-task CNN framework for e-petition tag recommendation.
- Use LRP ...
Appreciation to Referees
On behalf of the Editorial Board, I would like to thank the following people, who acted as Referees during the past year. Editor-in-Chief Adomavicius, Gediminas, New York University Fletcher, Roger, University of Dundee, Scotland Aggarwal, Charu C., ...
Comments