Swartz v. Doe

http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/swartz_v_doe_tennessee_ruling.html

This article is actually an evaluation of the case of Swartz v. Doe, taking it apart and evaluating how the judge got to his conclusion, so it is particularly helpful for me, a poor interactive media student trying to work her way through various case laws. The case was between Donald and Terry Swartz, who are business owners that make their living through purchasing real estate and converting them into drug rehabilitation centers. The defendent, who wished to remain anonymous and went by the name "John Doe" in the court records, hosted a blog (on blogspot, nevertheless), which made negative claim about the Swartz's business dealings and personal lives, claiming them to be arsons, and a bunch of other negative things. The Swartz's ordered google to reveal who this anonymous blogger was, but he refused to give up his identity.

There are two things at play here, defamation and privacy. John Doe caused defamation that could hurt the Swartz's business, but on the other hand, he might be entitled to remain anonymous because of his right to privacy. In the end, the judge decided that the proper way of going about things would have been to notify John Doe that his identity was wanted because of his post, give him reasonable time to respond, and if he wanted to deny it to give them a reason. Since google contacted him and gave him several months to respond, the judge ruled that his privacy rights had not been violated.