Mark Melin of Value Walk writes about the recent court ruling dismissing a case against the financial news site Seeking Alpha that sought the name of an anonymous writer.
Melin writes, “Justice Cynthia Kern, in dismissing the case and handing Seeking Alpha a victory, said ‘the alleged defamatory statements identified in the petition constitute protected opinion and are not actionable as a matter of law.’ Not only does the author have a right to express an opinion, which the ruling said was clear, but the article in questioned linked to source material to help readers decide for themselves.
“‘It is paramount in an open and free society that we protect the anonymity of those whose ‘publication is prompted by the desire to question, challenge and criticize the practices of those in power without incurring adverse consequences,’’ Kern wrote in her opinion.
“‘The court has maintained a very high bar for future plaintiffs, who will have to be able to present a clear case of defamation to support such petitions,’ Eli Hoffmann, Seeking Alpha’s editor and chief wrote. ‘The ruling also affirms that Seeking Alpha articles and comments are seen by the courts as ‘protected opinion’ and not verifiable fact. And, significantly, the court throws its support behind Seeking Alpha contributors and their anonymity as a manifestation of free speech and the ability to openly question and criticize the practices of those in power.’
“Colin Lokey, director of contributor success at Seeking Alpha, said the issue defined not only Seeking Alpha’s commitment to its contributors anonymity but also the rights of a free press. The court ruling is a win for aggressive journalism, not just Seeking Alpha.”
Read more here.
