As the internet age has grown, the idea of putting our thoughts into writings and sharing them in an open forum has been intriguing. The main thing that has enabled this is the ability to be anonymous. In the context of anonymity, many inhibitions and fears are put side because those reading your writings do not know the “personal” you.

There remains in the ever-evolving area of internet law the defining and melding of standard legal concepts and how they apply with regard to internet writing. One key area is that of Defamation. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th ed., defines defamation as:

An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another’s reputation or good name. Holding up of a person to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community; may be criminal as well as civil. Includes both libel and slander. Defamation is that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him. Statement which exposes person to contempt, hatred, ridicule or obloquy. McGowen v. Prentice, La.App., 341 So.2d 55, 57 (La. 3d Cir. Ct. App. 1976) rehearing denied Jan. 26, 1977. The unprivileged publication of false statements which naturally and proximately result in injury to another. Wolfson v. Kirk, Fla.App., 273 So.2d 774, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). A maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person’s reputation or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or profession. Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 441 Pa. 432, 273 A.2d 899, 904 (Pa. 1971).

It is very easy, in the anonymity of cyberspace, to cross that line and defame an individual. Thus, we see litigation in the District of Columbia where Larry Sinclair is suing three bloggers (referred to on certain sites as the “3 poor bloggers whose lives have been destroyed by this lawsuit) because they posted comments, not just once, but numerous times on numerous sites, and those comments contained knowingly false information about Mr. Sinclair.

The “poor 3″ are hiding behind their anonymity in the attempt to avoid legal service, and thus keep the lawsuit from being tried in the Courts on its merits. To this extent, others have gone on viscious attacks to aid the 3 bloggers. So who are these bloggers.

TubeSockTedD is a Democrat from New York. When the lawsuit was filed by Larry Sinclair, he sent meassges to Mr. Sinclair that were basically showing that he was on the verge of hysterics. Then again, who wouldn’t be, given the $1 million dollar price tag. Though trying to have his legal counsel, Ray Beckermann, keep his name hidden.

MzMolly is presumably a woman from Minnesota whose name is Denise Lee. Paul Levy of Public Citizens Litigation Group is representing her ONLY to the extent of keeping her name anonymous. The question then becomes “Why?” when her name has already been ascertained through her ongoing blogging on numerous sites for numerous causes. Ironically, many of her comment posts have been “deleted” and scrubbed from the internet. Confirmation of who mzmolly is can be found in comments on Bigheaddc and other blog sites where thsoe protecting the “poor 3″ have confirmed the name.

OWNINGLIARS has no legal counsel at the moment, but is perhaps the easiest to take out of anonymity. By doing a Google search on OWNINGLIARS, his online profile comes up and shows that OWNINGLIARS is a 34-year old male residing in the Baltimore, MD area, whose name is Mark Pendleton ( http://digg.com/users/OWNINGLIARS ).

With 2 of the 3 “Poor 3″ bloggers names actually known, one should wonder why, if they are so sure that they did not defame Larry Sinclair, do they not want to get this case moving forward so that they can be heard, and exonerated. Further, in following the saga of Larry Sinclair as he attempts to bring forth the truths about Sen. Barack Obama’s drug usage that has gone on beyond his college years, one can see that Mr. Sinclair has been subjected to verbal and written abuses that would further fall within the legal definition of defamation.

My prediction: the blogger lawsuit will soon begin a new phase, where names will come forward, and the issues will be meritoriously heard.