Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Sedersten v. Taylor, 2009 WL 4802567 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2009) (full-text).
Factual Background Edit
Plaintiff Sedersten brought a suit for police brutality allegedly suffered at the hands of Defendant Taylor, a Springfield, Missouri Police Officer. To support his case, plaintiff sought the identity of an anonymous blogger who plaintiff believed may have information about defendant's propensity for violence.
Trial Court Proceedings Edit
The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel the identity of the blogger after weighing plaintiff's reasons for obtaining the information against the poster's constitutional right to anonymous political speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "an author's decision to remain anonymous . . . is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." This right to anonymity is not without exception as courts have shown a willingness to unmask anonymous online speakers in the context of copyright infringement and defamation cases. When determining whether to disclose the identity of an anonymous defendant a plaintiff generally must establish that it would be able to defeat a motion for summary judgment. When the anonymous speaker is a non-party, however, the plaintiff bears a heightened burden and must establish a need for the disclosure that outweighs the speaker’s First Amendment rights.
In the instant case there are additional First Amendment hurdles for the plaintiff because the speech in question is political speech, which requires the application of strict scrutiny. The plaintiff brought the motion to disclose the poster’s identity based on an argument that the poster's statements implied knowledge of the defendant's tendency for violence. Even if the court accepted the plaintiff's argument and the poster did have such knowledge, the identity of the poster would add very little, if anything, to the argument and therefore the court refused to expose the poster's identity.