Lawsuit Targets Anonymous Online Comments
An attorney filed a civil action in Milford District Court Thursday that claims Paul Mazzuchelli, a Milford School Committee member, had his reputation damaged by anonymous, online comments.
Whether readers should be allowed to post comments that could damage a public official's stature is at the heart of a civil suit a Milford official is bringing against anonymous online posters.
An attorney representing Paul Mazzuchelli, who is the Milford health agent and a Milford School Committee member, says online comments posted by anonymous writers on the Milford Daily News website damaged his client's reputation.
Mazzuchelli filed a defamation and slander lawsuit in Milford District Court Thursday that names "Jane Doe, John Doe," as defendants, according to lawyer Michael Kaplan, who is trying to obtain the identities of the posters from Gatehouse Media, publisher of the Milford Daily News.
A subpoena directed at Gatehouse Media Massachusetts, of Boston, seeks 16 types of records, including: all articles that refer to Mazzuchelli; all comments "posted or otherwise made by third persons" regarding him for the past three years; and all documents that would have the "names, addresses and email addresses of all third persons who have posted comments" on the website for the past three years about him, the School Committee and the Board of Public Health.
Kaplan said Thursday the issue is not anonymity, but content in the online posts that damages someone's reputation. He said the case has implications beyond Mazzuchelli, because all public officials are subjected to opinion online. In this case, he said, it's not expression of opinion, but something that crosses the line.
"They're making false and defamatory statements, either knowing they're false, or without regard to whether they're false," Kaplan said. "I am in favor of the First Amendment right. But the right to free speech does have certain limitations."
According to Kaplan, Mazzuchelli was the subject of damaging online comments on the newspaper's website. Some accused him of "taking bribes," others that he "was responsible" for the firing of Pat Cornelius, a former assistant football coach at Milford High School, Kaplan said.
"I don't care about anonymity," he said. "It's when you cross the line and knowingly are trying to defame or harm the reputation of someone."
As a School Committee member, Mazzuchelli played no role in the dismissal of Cornelius, Kaplan said. Some of the comments were removed; others were not, he said. In the lawsuit, Gatehouse Media is a witness, he said. "They have material information in their possession."
Richard Lodge, editor of the Milford Daily News, said Thursday he could not comment on the lawsuit. "I haven't seen any paperwork," he said.
Mazzuchelli could not be reached for comment Thursday. In statements made at the School Committee meeting last week, he said he was infuriated by online posts submitted by "cowards who blog, and that grows legs." He said he had people coming up to his house following the publication of news stories about the firing of Cornelius, when the School Committee had nothing to do with it.
Kaplan said Mazzuchelli filed the lawsuit, feeling he had no choice. As recently as Wednesday, he said, Mazzuchelli received a letter at his Town Hall offices, accusing him of being the reason why Cornelius was fired.
"People have to understand, freedom of speech is not carte blanche for saying whatever you want, whether it's true or not," Kaplan said.
In This article
-
-
-
Milford Daily News
159 S Main St, Milford, MA -
Milford District Court
161 West St, Milford, MA
Shawn Morin
2:49 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
"People have to understand, freedom of speech is not carte blanche for saying whatever you want, whether it's true or not,"
Well put.
UglyHat
3:03 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
I’m not a lawyer but I think Kaplan is wrong with that last statement. If the information is true it should be protected by freedom of speech. This lawsuit should be targeting those who posted untrue statements.
Either way, I’ll bet this suit will make some people nervous.
Shawn Morin
5:11 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
I'd check the website's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy... he'd have to prove that what was said caused him some sort of misfortune. You'd also have to count on the person who used the account actually providing real information when they registered. Then you'd also have to count on the person not being behind any type of proxy when they registered any accounts associated with their account on the website. Also, if any IPs were found in the server's logs, they'd then have to request the person's information from their ISP...
This could be interesting.
Shawn Morin
5:14 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
http://www.gatehousemedia.com/terms_of_use
and
http://www.gatehousemedia.com/privacy
Anonymous2021
3:52 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
This lawsuit is a joke and so are you Mr. Mazzuchelli. Good luck with your nameless, baseless litigation. You sound like a whining child. Are you going to try to sue me also?
Shawn Morin
7:57 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Did you really make an account just to try and antagonize the situation... ?
Pat Smith
4:02 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
I must have missed the comments on the MDN to which Mr. Mazzuchelli is referring, but I do think that in general this is an interesting issue. It is one thing to say that someone is a "whining child." But to accuse someone of taking bribes? That seems like another matter. I think anyone who criticizes him for this "baseless litigation" might feel differently if we were in the public eye. Who the heck would want to be a public official these days.
Mary MacDonald
4:06 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
UglyHat, the attorney is arguing that the comments which were damaging were not true.
Jim Rizoli
4:17 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
I'd be rich today if all the people who lied and slandered me were sued....LOL
In regard to free speech everyone is an open target so if you want to sue for hurt feelings than go right ahead.
Jim Rizoli
Jim@ccfiile.com
David Nolta
10:48 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Jim, you would only be rich if all the people who lied and slandered you were sued AND found guilty, AND if, they being found guilty, you were awarded damages, AND if you were not sued and found guilty and forced to pay comparable or greater damages in return or to others...
UglyHat
4:23 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Mary - I was referring to the last paragraph in the article...
"People have to understand, freedom of speech is not carte blanche for saying whatever you want, whether it's true or not," Kaplan said.
Specifically to the 'whether it's true or not' part.
UglyHat
4:25 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this quote.
Pat Smith
4:30 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
UglyHat, I took it as freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go around saying things that aren't true, but I can see how you would interpret it in another manner.
Mary MacDonald
4:39 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Yes, it's what Pat says below, it is a way of saying, you just can't go around shooting your mouth off, without regard to whether what you're saying is true or not...
Jim Rizoli
4:34 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
I know I'm not being brought into this because I'm not anonymous....
You shouldn't be ashamed to post your real name if you stand behind everything you say.
Jim Rizoli
Jim@ccfiile.com
Mary MacDonald
4:41 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
The issue isn't the anonymity of the comments, according to the attorney, it's the content of what they're saying...
MrMilford
4:40 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Tip for all begin every post from now on with "IMHO..." . Add the word "allegedly" over and over. Put your comments in "quotes" and site the name of some other anonymous poster, this way its anonymous poster "hear-say". Maybe then also put the entire post in "quotes" in addition to all of the other quotes.
Shawn Morin
5:12 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
You be trollin' MrMilford.
MrMilford
9:09 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
@SDM... Pot, this is Kettle !
MrMilford
4:50 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages. Read more here...explains it all very well:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
bzriley
6:03 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thank you for that Mr.Milford- the difference between PUBLISHING an artice with expressed intention of having the facts that the author puts forth consumed by- and a group of ppl who read and then react (often letting off steam) is enormous and I should think, obvious to someone who practices law, let alone someone who has (and HAS had for ages) a job in the public eye.
bzriley
5:56 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
So this lawyer contends that Americans can't shoot their mouths off?! Yea, good luck with that one- ppl commenting, as we do, here, or on ANY website is not in league with libelous behavior-, --is there malice aforethought? Did lawyer list what harm's been done to Mazzuchelli? Sounds like thin skinned (public!) official meets opportunistic lawyer with little regard, or perhaps understanding, of the rights of privacy and free speech -and personally, I wish THEY both had something "better to do"
Jim Rizoli
6:25 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Now on the other issue of anonymity....It doesn't exist.
Anyone on the net can be traced.....
Everyone posting here can be found through your IP addresses.
In my court case I ran the site so I had access to all the IP addresses.
The police did have to get warrants to get into the main servers info, Microsoft, Google etc...and they did..
Here is how my case ended....after three years of court time....
http://tinyurl.com/3j6dzbc
By the way I do my best not to slander and defame people.....just report the news.
Jim Rizoli
Jim@ccfiile.com
Shawn Morin
6:27 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Jim Rizoli,
"Anyone on the net can be traced..... "
https://www.torproject.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_protocol
Please read those articles.
Shawn Morin
6:28 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
this too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security
Jim Rizoli
6:31 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Shawn....Good stuff!.
The guy I tracked down didn't read that info...LOL
Jim@ccfiile.com
AJK
6:58 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Good for him.
Kris Brenna
8:02 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
So how come Jay Leno, Conan, Letterman are not sued daily over the comments they say about all the public figures (political or celebrity)??
MrMilford
9:02 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
I'd be surprised if he was allowed to get the information required in order to find the person behind the anonymous accounts as his lawsuit is a "civil" matter and not a "criminal" matter, so I (IMHO) don't think there is a way to force/demand or even subpena that information.
Jim Rizoli
10:45 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
This case will be a tough case to prove.
They will have to do a lot of digging to find out who said what.
Then you have to prove if the person who wrote the message was the one who really wrote it.
And even if all that could be proven....then he will have to prove what damages he has sustained because of it.
Did he lose his job, lost wages...etc...
Again like I said.... you can't collect for hurt feelings.
Jim@ccfiile.com
Jim Rizoli
1:54 am on Friday, November 11, 2011
David......You have a lot to lean about the courts and liars..
In some court cases Truth is no defense...because the topic on trial is so political or there is a lot of money hanging on the case.
On a more local level Truth doesn't matter. Judges and jury's have their own agendas and if your philosophies and views don't fit in to their generally biased views then you're toast. Out of my four court cases ALL the people outright lied to some degree. Now if I was the liar don't you think they would of nailed me later.
Lieing doesn't seem to be looked upon as bad today. Everybody seems to lie so it's not a big deal. It would be nice if people were taken to task for it.
I'm happy to say I've never been on the receiving end of the judicial system.
I treat people fair and am not vindictive. In all my cases an apology would of just stopped the cases from going to court, but they never came.
Just showing how brazen people can be, knowing they have a good chance of lieing their way out of it.
Sad world we're living in today that it has come done to this.
I have faith that "God will not tolerate Liars" and people who live by their lies will be dealt with in God's due time.
Jim@ccfiile.com
Theresa
10:44 am on Friday, November 11, 2011
@ Jim Rizoli I agree somewhat on your last post about "the courts and liars". On a national level, we are watching Operation Fast and Furious unfold and the Attorney General of The United States can't give a clear answer to any questions about it on his watch.
As for Paul Mazzuchelli filing a civil suit for slander and defamation by anonymous people, making anonymous comments. In my humble opinion, the suit seems to be against free speech, not for it. His lawyer sounds like he wants to restrict, fine, penalize these anonymous posters. Flush them out? How can what these people think or say make a difference to Paul personally? I see this going nowhere. I hope that the commenters are not reveled above board.
@uglyhat, I agree that statement is a whopper, "People have to understand, freedom of speech is not carte blanche for saying whatever you want, whether it's true or not," Kaplan said. Go tell that to the #OWS Marxists, Communists, Neo-Natzis and Socialists or the College students holding a "Pro Child Rape Rally" at Penn State in support for JoePa, who turned a blind eye towards pedophelia for 15 years.
I've known Paul through sports, He's always been a respectable good man. But we can't begin to put control on the censorship of anonymous comments, I'm afraid that there isn't anyone unbiased enough for the job, it will become corrupted and freedom of speech wont be free.
David Nolta
8:37 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Jim, I have a lot to learn about a lot of things. But the contingencies I listed remain true: if you would get rich from the courts for slander or libel suits, you would have to do more than SUE, as you claimed. You would have to WIN the suits, and BE AWARDED DAMAGES, and those damages which you are awarded would HAVE TO FAR EXCEED ANY DAMAGES AWARDED TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT SUE YOU FOR SLANDER OR LIBEL. Otherwise you would not get rich by this particular, circuitous route.
Now as to identifying what is the TRUTH in any scenario--rarely will it be as easy to pin down as you suggest...
David Nolta
8:58 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Attorney Generals do tend to be depressing individuals--remember Alberto Gonzalez? (And of course I think there are altogether too many guns in the world to begin with, so perhaps we agree on that, Theresa?) But back to the matter at hand--I agree with UglyHat. Yes, by all means, freedom of speech--but if and when it can be shown that your "speech" is false, and causes damage, why on earth should that sort of behavior be protected? If you accidentally destroy somebody's property, you are still responsible for paying the cost of repair. If you deliberately destroy someone's property, you are a criminal, and responsible for the cost of repair. Why shouldn't a reputation be considered a form of property? Has there been any suggestion that Mr. Mazzuchelli's cowardly detractors were merely "spoofing" him, for laughs? NO. There should be some incentive in this country not to sling mud at people without being able to back it up. But if these anonymous malcontents had anything to back up their claims, why would they remain anonymous? If I were Mazuchelli, I'd let it go, but I don't think for a minute he's WRONG not to.
UglyHat
10:52 am on Friday, November 11, 2011
I’m not sure he expects to win this suit; it may not be his goal to win. If he is able to get the names of the people behind some of the comments, he can cause them stress, discomfort and at least some financial hardship (they may need to hire an attorney). That may be good enough for him.
Jim Rizoli
7:20 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
How the courts should work......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hPJ-c8gGk4
Jim@ccfiile.com
Shawn Morin
7:48 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
"This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. "
MrMilford
7:50 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Is that Jim's point? (LOL).
Jim Rizoli
12:23 am on Saturday, November 12, 2011
The link seems to work for me...try it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hPJ-c8gGk4
Jim@ccfiile.com
Shawn Morin
5:12 am on Saturday, November 12, 2011
"Justice For all.....sometimes"
This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.