Patrick Cahill was not a happy camper. The Smyrna, Delaware city councilman wanted to sue a blogger who had branded him “paranoid,” among other things. He went to the anonymous blogger’s ISP—Comcast—in an effort to learn his identity so he could sue. Comcast notified the blogger, who filed an emergency order to keep his identity hidden.

The case went to the state’s highest court—and there it ended. Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote:

Blogs and chat rooms tend to be vehicles for the expression of opinions; by their very nature, they are not a source of facts or data upon which a reasonable person would rely.

Then he let loose with the best advice I’ve heard from a judge dealing with the online world in a long time. Steele suggested that Cahill’s best remedy was to post a response on his own blog. In so doing, Steele said, Cahill could…

...easily correct any misstatements or falsehoods, respond to character attacks, and generally set the record straight. This unique feature of Internet communications allows a potential plaintiff ready access to mitigate the harm, if any, he has suffered to his reputation as a result of an anonymous defendant???s allegedly defamatory statements made on an internet blog or in a chat room.

ARMA International (it once stood for the Association of Records Managers and Administrators but now it’s just ARMA) has the whole delightful story.

Tip o’ the hat to Candy Luce.