Varrenti v. Gannett Co.
33 Misc. 3d 405
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Brockport police officials seeking to enjoin and to compel disclosure of anonymous online posters on Gannett's Democrat & Chronicle site.
- Gannett publishes the newspaper and hosts online comments in response to two January 2011 articles about Brockport police matters.
- Anonymous commenters named Taxcut, brockportonian, BkptStar, and TaxpayerBWare allegedly defamed plaintiffs in comments.
- Injunctive relief to stop posting was deemed moot because the comments were no longer viewable; focus shifted to identifying the anonymous posters.
- Defendants and plaintiffs did not file subpoenas or CPLR 3102(c) preaction disclosure; only requests for equitable relief were pursued.
- Court assesses whether the defamation action requires unmasking and whether the statements constitute protected opinion rather than actionable facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs state a prima facie defamation claim. | Varrenti et al. allege false statements harmed reputation. | Comments are opinions or not actionable as defamation. | Plaintiffs fail to state defamation; comments are protected opinions. |
| Whether anonymous online comments are entitled to First Amendment protection in this context. | Anonymous online statements could defame and require disclosure. | Context and forum suggest protected opinion, not facts. | Comments are protected opinions given context and forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1999) (anonymous speech protected but defamation requires factual basis)
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (Internet speech protected)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1964) (defamation standard for public officials requires actual malice)
- Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1995) (context and overall meaning determine fact vs. opinion)
- Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235 (N.Y. 1991) (context matters in distinguishing fact from opinion)
- Mann v. Abel, 10 N.Y.3d 271 (N.Y. 2008) (expressions of opinion privileged; tone and context govern)
- Dendrite Intl., Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (tests for identifying anonymous online speakers)
- Epifani v. Johnson, 65 A.D.3d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (pleading standards for defamation; specificity required)