Obeying Court Order, AOL Reveals Subscriber’s Name

In an unusual case involving free speech and employee rights on the Internet, the Orange County Register obtained from America Online the name of an employee of the newspaper who operated a Web site that was critical of the Santa Ana publication.

The Internet site, run by an AOL subscriber who goes by the name Slave4OCR, has since been shut down. It housed a collection of rumors, gossip and complaints by fellow workers at the newspaper. Register employees submitted information--which ranged from allegations of dead rats in its Grand Avenue building to an ongoing list of “idiot of the month”--to the site anonymously.

Hundreds of such sites have popped up on the World Wide Web in recent years, but 1st Amendment advocates fear that the Register case could have a chilling effect on online free speech.

Legal experts were stunned by the trademark-infringement lawsuit filed July 2 by the Register, noting the irony that a news outlet that gathers information--especially one known for its strong libertarian views--could set a precedent that effectively limits 1st Amendment rights on the Internet.

“I have never heard of a case like this,” said Mike Godwin, author of “Cyber Rights” and a lawyer for civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It’s a sad, sad day when a newspaper, with a building filled with reporters, sues someone on the opposite side of the country in order to get information about one of its own employees.”

Irvine-based Freedom Communications Inc., the Register’s owner, filed suit against two “John Doe” defendants in U.S. District Court in Virginia. The same day, Freedom served AOL with a subpoena seeking the identity of Slave4OCR.

The suit alleges that the two defendants “blatantly infringed” the paper’s trademark by calling the site the “Orange County unRegistered Press.” The suit also accused the unnamed pair of sending e-mail to 120 Register employees announcing the site and encouraging people to submit information.

The defendants’ actions “significantly interfered with employees’ communication and efficiency and created a disharmonious atmosphere,” according to the lawsuit.

AOL, which said it notified its subscriber of the legal action, released the person’s name to Freedom on Tuesday.

Later that day, the Web site was shut down. In its place was a notice stating that the site would no longer be published, to protect the author from “potential liabilities.” The site also said, “The Orange County Register is ‘potentially’ the best publication in America.”

Slave4OCR did not respond to an e-mail request for comment, and AOL would not release the real name of Slave4OCR.

Washington attorney Nelson David Cary, who filed the suit on behalf of Freedom and the Register, could not be reached for comment. Corporate attorneys for Freedom in Irvine declined to comment on the suit.

The site was launched in May, according to the suit, and featured tidbits rife with name-calling, misspellings and sophomoric humor.

“Certainly there’s a legal issue if, in fact, someone does try to create a false impression that a site is being endorsed by the company,” said Robert Corn-Revere, a 1st Amendment lawyer. “Parody is permitted under intellectual property” law and libel law.

Hundreds of sites have cropped up on the Web that encourage disgruntled employees to kvetch--from the “My Boss Sucks!” page to Disgruntled, the business magazine that hands out an annual award to the person who embodies or inspires disgruntled employees everywhere.

Technology and entertainment companies--including Microsoft, MTV, AOL and Disney--are particularly popular targets for such global grousing. Officials at AOL say there must be a clear violation of their intellectual property before they will take legal action to either identify the publisher of such sites or to close them down.

“If it’s just someone expressing their views, we tend to leave them alone,” said AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose. “It’s not worth the effort, and such expressions are at the heart of the Internet. But if it’s a blatant trademark infringement, such as someone copying a logo, then we’ll take action.”

The lawsuit filed by Freedom does not accuse the two defendants of reprinting the paper’s flag, stories or editorial artwork. Instead, the suit claims that the public would be deceived into thinking that the Slave4OCR site was endorsed by the Register.

“If you’re a corporation, finding out that someone is trashing you online is going to make you unhappy. But at the same time, people cherish the idea that the Internet is a place where you can let your hair down and say what you want,” said Wendy Grossman, author of “Net.wars,” which looks at the conflicts between cyberspace and real life. “That’s why it is so important for people to remain anonymous online.”

Discretion is key to the success of the News MAIT (an acronym for My Aim Is True) Writers’ Cooperative site, which dishes the inside dirt on hundreds of newspapers. The 2-year-old site, founded by Florida-based reporter Maurice Tamman, offers readers tidbits on everything from pay scales to which newsrooms allegedly frown on overtime.

Tamman removes the names from each tip and posts them every Saturday. He admits that several media outlets have asked him to remove information from the site--but he has always refused.

“This is all about people’s opinions. Ideally, the [site] helps people making decisions about job opportunities based on what the employees are saying, not the company line,” Tamman said. “I have to keep everything anonymous, because people are so afraid of retribution.”

Freedom’s legal filing was an unexpected tactic, say critics. Internet service providers have long adopted the stance that, like the phone company, they are not liable for the content that flows across their wires.

AOL’s terms of service policy provided Freedom with a loophole. The online service will release a member’s personal information to comply with a valid legal process, such as a search warrant, subpoena or court order. Once notified, AOL contacts the targeted member and alerts him of the legal action.

The subscriber has roughly 10 days to respond, according to AOL’s Primrose. If AOL doesn’t hear from the subscriber or from the courts--as was the case with Slave4OCR--it will release the information.

AOL faced criticism over its policies regarding personal privacy earlier this year. In January, it admitted it wrongly released the identity of a sailor who described himself online as gay.

The Navy investigated Master Chief Petty Officer Timothy R. McVeigh, who later filed suit against the military to prevent his discharge, and AOL for releasing his name. The complaints were later settled; both sides agreed not to reveal the amount of money paid to McVeigh by AOL.

As a result of the case, the online service announced new policies intended to guarantee the privacy of its users. The policies will require that all of the company’s nearly 5,000 customer service representatives be provided with special training to ensure that they do not give out private information about users without the user’s consent or without a court order, Primrose said.