Doe v. Shurtleff
2010 WL 4888036
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- John Doe, a Utah resident and registered sex offender, challenged Utah’s internet identifier registration requirement.
- Utah law required disclosure of online identifiers and associated websites, with later amendments removing password disclosure and limiting use by officials.
- The district court initially invalidated the statute as violating First and Fourth Amendments; it was subsequently amended by the legislature.
- The district court vacated its injunction after amendments, ruling the statute no longer significantly chilled speech, and that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Ex Post Facto Clause.
- This appeal challenges the district court’s rulings on First Amendment anonymous speech, Fourth Amendment privacy, and Ex Post Facto implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment: is the statute content-neutral and constitutional | Doe argues the law chills anonymous speech | Doe treats it as content-based; statute is neutral | Statute is content-neutral; intermediate scrutiny applied; upheld |
| Fourth Amendment: does identifying online identifiers violate privacy | Doe has reasonable expectation of privacy in internet identifiers | Identifiers are voluntarily transmitted to third parties; no privacy expectation | No reasonable expectation of privacy; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Ex Post Facto: does the disclosure scheme amount to punitive punishment | Disclosure creates civil penalties turned punitive | Scheme civil in nature; not punitive | Civil remedy; no Ex Post Facto violation |
| Overbreadth/chilling effect: do narrowings preserve speech | Disclosures to public could chill anonymous speech | GRAMA privacy safeguards and narrowing construction mitigate chill | Disclosures sufficiently restricted; narrowly construed to avoid chilling |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognition of right to anonymous speech)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (internet speech protected; no special treatment)
- American Constitutional Law Found., Inc. v. Meyer, 120 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997) (content-neutral vs. content-based regulation; scrutiny)
- Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (content-neutral regulation; intermediate scrutiny)
- Golan v. Holder, 609 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2010) (incidental effects do not render a regulation content-based)
- ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) (narrowly tailored restrictions; not least-restrictive)
- Peterson v. Nat’l Telecommunications & Information Admin., 478 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2007) (speech is chilled when anonymity is precondition to expression)
- Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (requirements affecting anonymity; not invalidating overall scheme)
- Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000) (civil vs criminal nature of Utah’s notification scheme)
- Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (no reasonable Fourth Amendment expectation in information provided to third parties)
- D.L.S. v. Utah, 374 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2004) (precedent on First Amendment anonymity considerations)