About Us: False report about me on this site!

There is a false report about me on this site!!!

How Can I Obtain the Real Name of an Author Who Has Defamed Me?

Suppose you just finished reading the long section about "So, you want to sue Ripoff Report?", and you realize that the law protects this website and, in most cases, does not allow you to sue the website's operators for the materials published here by users of the site. What do you do now? Of course, as we have said before, this law does NOT protect the original author, and thus you are free to sue that person if you wish.

But there's only one problem -- let's say you have been the subject of Report #123456, and the author signed it "Jane Doe". You believe the content is false, and it's harming your business so you want to hire a lawyer and sue Jane Doe...but what if you don't know who Jane Doe is or where Jane Doe is? What then?

After thinking about it, maybe you are contemplating sending an email to Ripoff Report like the example below:

From: John Doe [mail to: John@doe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2008 2:45 PM
To: info@RipOffReport.com
Subject: Identity of Author

Hello, my name is John Doe. This is in regards to Report # 123456. The author, "Jane Doe" wrote lies about our company and us personally. I understand we cannot sue you guys since you are only a forum. We are going to pursue a lawsuit against Jane Doe, but can't until we know that person's real name. Will you guys confirm the identity of Jane Doe? Or are we going to have to have our lawyer or the courts subpoena Jane Doe?

Thank You,

John Doe

Since we receive emails like this pretty often, we wanted to let our readers know our position on this issue. Of course, as we always explain, Ripoff Report is not here to give you legal advice -- we are NOT lawyers. However, we have a simple policy when we receive emails like this which is this -- we do NOT release the name/identities of authors of Reports. Here's why.

First, the Terms of Service clearly say that our users will NOT use this site to post false, defamatory, inaccurate, etc., information. Of course, with nearly 300,000 original reports, and more than 1,000,000 rebuttals, we cannot and do not fact-check every word posted on this website before publication. That is why Congress enacted the laws which protect online forums like the Ripoff Report. With so many reports involved, we are not in a position to know which reports are accurate and which are not. Therefore, when someone emails us and claims that a report is untrue in some way, we have absolutely no way of knowing if that allegation is true or false.

Second, Section 7 of our TOS indicates that Ripoff Report will maintain the confidentiality of all users of the website to the maximum extent permitted by law. In short, we will not simply hand out the name of an author because someone asks us to.

Why not? Well, several reasons. First, our TOS says so. Second, the United States Supreme Court has said that citizens of this county have a constitutional right to speak anonymously:

In addition, it would violate the First Amendment Rights of the authors of the postings to disclose their names without a showing that their statements are false and defamatory. The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that the right to remain anonymous is protected by the First Amendment. “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, *64, 80 S.Ct. 536, **538 (U.S. 1960). “We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. (citations omitted). The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. Id., 362 U.S. 60, *65, 80 S.Ct. 536, **539 (U.S. 1960)

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. (citations omitted). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1524 (1995)

So what does that mean? It means just what it says: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." This means that the First Amendment gives people the right to speak freely and anonymously so that their expression of an unpopular idea won't allow others to retaliate against them. If that wasn't the case, and if people were not allowed to speak anonymously, people with different or unpopular opinions might feel pressured into remaining silent, and that would lead to the suppression of speech and ideas. Ripoff Report shares the United States Supreme Court’s view that this is no way for a "free" country to operate.

Third, as you may know, the Ripoff Report is based in Arizona, and Arizona has a special "media witness" law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, that protects anyone who is involved in "gathering, reporting, writing, editing, publishing, or broadcasting news to the public". This law applies to the Ripoff Report because our users (by consumers, for consumers) .. are involved in gathering, reporting, and broadcasting news to the public. You can find a complete copy of this law here: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/12/02214.htm

What this media witness law says is that anyone who tries to subpoena information from a "media witness" like Ripoff Report must comply with six specific requirements. Any failure to comply with these requirements renders the subpoena void.

In addition, Ripoff Report also requires anyone seeking the identity of an anonymous author to comply with what have been called the "Dendrite Guidelines". These standards are explained in a recent case from the New Jersey Supreme Court, and these rules are generally followed by most state courts around the county:

We offer the following guidelines to trial courts when faced with an application by a plaintiff for expedited discovery seeking an order compelling an ISP to honor a subpoena and disclose the identity of anonymous Internet posters who are sued for allegedly violating the rights of individuals, corporations or businesses. The trial court must consider and decide those applications by striking a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation through the assertion of recognizable claims based on the actionable conduct of the anonymous, fictitiously-named defendants.

We hold that when such an application is made, the trial court should first require the plaintiff to undertake efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena or application for an order of disclosure, and withhold action to afford the fictitiously-named defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to the application. These notification efforts should include posting a message of notification of the identity discovery request to the anonymous user on the ISP's pertinent message board.

The court shall also require the plaintiff to identify and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech.

The complaint and all information provided to the court should be carefully reviewed to determine whether plaintiff has set forth a prima facie cause of action against the fictitiously-named anonymous defendants. In addition to establishing that its action can withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to R. 4:6-2(f), the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action, on a prima facie basis, prior to a court ordering the disclosure of the identity of the unnamed defendant.

Finally, assuming the court concludes that the plaintiff has presented a prima facie cause of action, the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity to allow the plaintiff to properly proceed.

Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134, 141–42, 775 A.2d 756,760–61 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2001)

Although the Dendrite Guidelines are a little bit technical, what they mean is that if you want to obtain the name/identity of an anonymous author, because of the serious First Amendment concerns involved, you have to first be able to point to the exact statements at issue and then prove to the Court, among other things, that you have actually been defamed by the anonymous author. Only then will the First Amendment’s shield be lifted to allow you to obtain the anonymous author’s identity.

If this sounds complicated or unfair, consider the alternative. Imagine that you are a single employee of a big corporation, and your boss sexually harasses you or maybe you learn that the corporation is involved in defrauding its customers. You file an anonymous report warning others about this, and the big corporation wants to sue you, but it can’t unless it first is able to identify the author of the report. If your report is true, then the corporation won’t be able to show that it is false and thus your identity will remain protected. In this way, the law will ensure that the “little guy” is protected from groundless lawsuits by the “big, bad guys”.

So, if you are still convinced that you have been the subject of a false report on this site and you want to obtain the author’s real name/identity, you are welcome to request that information. Please note that Ripoff Report never condones the misuse of this site by anyone posting false or defamatory information. However, in order to guarantee the First Amendment rights of our users are maintained, all such requests must comply with both A.R.S. § 12-2214 and the Dendrite Guidelines.