• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, November 18, 2011

In a sweeping opinion, an appellate court in Illinois has ruled that a Web user who taunted a politician's 16-year-old son can remain anonymous.

"Our citizens now have outlets for anonymous free speech that were quite simply unimaginable only a decade ago," the court wrote. "Encouraging those easily offended by online commentary to sue to find the name of their 'tormenters' would surely lead to unnecessary litigation and would also have a chilling effect on the many citizens who choose to post anonymously on the countless comment boards for newspapers, magazines, Web sites and other information portals."

The ruling, issued on Thursday, reversed a trial judge's decision to unmask the commenter.

The case grew out of comments on the message board of the Daily Herald, a suburban newspaper in Illinois. The posts dealt with an upcoming election for Buffalo Grove Village trustee. Lisa Stone was among the candidates and her 16-year-old son, Jed, authored posts supporting her.

Jed did so under the pseudonym "Uncle W." But a second user, "Hipcheck 16," figured out Jed's identity and began criticizing him as an "ill-informed punk," according to the court's opinion.

Jed responded by asking Hipcheck to reveal his identity. "With all your resources, I'm sure you could navigate your way over to the Stone confines. Then I'll be glad to have this conversation with you," he wrote.

Hipcheck replied with the following taunt: "Thanks for the invitation to visit you, but I'll have to decline. Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"

Stone then sued for defamation, arguing that Hipcheck's comment suggests that Jed solicits men for sex. Such a statement could be libelous under Illinois law.

A trial judge agreed with Stone and ordered Hipcheck unmasked.

But Hipcheck appealed and the appellate court sided with him. "No reasonable person would find the challenged statement presented a fact regarding Jed, let alone a factual assertion that Jed, a minor, solicits men for sex over the Internet," the court wrote.

"While the law is clear that there is no right to defame another citizen, we cannot condone the inevitable fishing expeditions that would ensue were the trial court's order to be upheld," the court wrote. "Putting publishers and website hosts in the position of being a 'cyber-nanny' is a noxious concept that offends our country's long history of protecting anonymous speech."

Hipcheck's lawyers included the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has represented other anonymous Web users who have fought unmasking orders.