Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “a district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery and that decisions governing discovery are highly fact- intensive”
• stating that the holding in Perry “was limited to private internal campaign communications concerning the formulation of campaign strategies and messages” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• giving a brief overview of types of protected speech and levels of scrutiny
• “[T]he nature of the speech should be a driving force in choosing a standard by which to balance the rights of anonymous speakers in discovery disputes.”
• “The requirement that all suits be brought against [the ocean carrier] is an enforcement mechanism rather than a reduction of the carrier’s obligations to the cargo owner below what COGSA guarantees.”
• “[O]nline speech stands on the same footing as other speech—there is ‘no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied’ to online speech.” (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).