Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.
963 N.E.2d 534
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Anonymous online comments on IndyStar.com prompted Miller to seek the commenter’s identity from The Indianapolis Star, a non-party under Miller's defamation claim.
- Indiana's Shield Law (IC 34-46-4-2) protects sources procured by a newsperson in the course of employment, but the statute's scope is limited to information obtained through editorial/reportorial functions.
- The Star asserted Shield Law, First Amendment anonymous-speech protections, and Indiana Constitutional protections as reasons not to disclose the commenter’s identity.
- The trial court granted Miller's motion to compel discovery of the commenter’s identity without a hearing.
- The Star appealed, arguing Shield Law and constitutional protections bar disclosure; Miller cross-appealed on the remedy and scope.
- On appeal, the court adopted a modified Dendrite framework under both the federal and Indiana constitutions, holding the identity may not be disclosed absent prima facie evidence of non-dependent defamation elements and remanded for application of the modified test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Shield Law applies to an anonymous online commenter | Miller argues the commenter is a source under the Shield Law. | The Star contends the commenter is not a protected source because the comment occurred after publication and was not used in newsgathering. | Shield Law does not apply; commenter not a source. |
| What test governs disclosure of anonymous online speakers under the First Amendment | Miller seeks identity to prove actual malice. | Disclosing identity should be protected to avoid chilling anonymous speech. | Adopt modified Dendrite (summary-judgment + balancing) requiring prima facie proof of non-identity-dependent elements. |
| Whether the Indiana Constitution requires a different approach to anonymous-speech disclosure | Indiana Constitution provides stronger protection for speech. | Constitutional protections permit disclosure under the modified Dendrite approach. | Apply modified Dendrite to Indiana Constitution; same result as federal standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dendrite Int'l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (four-part test for unmasking anonymous online speakers)
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (modified Dendrite with good-faith/summary-judgment approach)
- Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (adopted modified Dendrite balancing and summary-judgment approach)
- In re Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1972) (reporters' privilege not guaranteed; state remedies exist)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997) (First Amendment protection for internet speech)