BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A newspaper on Monday decided to comply with a court order and turn over documents establishing the identity of an anonymous reader who posted a disparaging online comment about a Republican political leader in northern Idaho.
But don’t expect a big reveal: The blogger outed herself Monday.
As part of a libel lawsuit Kootenai County Republican Central Committee Chairwoman Tina Jacobson filed in April, she subpoenaed the identities of three people who made comments about her under assumed names on a Spokesman-Review blog.
Under the name “almostinnocentbystander,” one of the commenters had questioned in February whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be “stuffed inside Tina’s blouse.”
The newspaper refused to turn over information about the commenters and argued that people should be allowed to post anonymous comments on its blogs without fear of being identified and then sued. Jacobson said the posts hurt her reputation, and she asked a judge order the newspaper to provide identifying information about the commenters.
District Judge John Luster ruled earlier this month that the First Amendment doesn’t protect defamatory speech and he ordered the newspaper to provide information establishing the identity of “almostinnocentbystander.”
But Luster also ruled the paper didn’t have to provide similar information for the other two readers, who wrote under the names “Phaedrus” and “outofstatetater,” because they did not make defamatory comments.
The Spokesman-Review is based in Spokane, Wash., and also circulates widely in nearby northern Idaho. That’s where Linda Cook revealed herself as “almostinnocentbystander” in a posting on another newspaper’s website Monday.
Cook has previously submitted editorials to the Coeur d’Alene Press, identifying herself as a Rathdrum resident who worked on former Republican U.S. House hopeful Vaughn Ward’s campaign. She didn’t immediately return a phone call Monday.
The Spokesman-Review’s decision not to appeal Luster’s ruling was based on attorney advice, said editor Gary Graham.
“The decision not to appeal didn’t really have anything to do with whether the commenter planned to go public,” he said in an email. “Our attorneys advised us that we were extremely unlikely to succeed with an appeal.”
