As is always the case, the First Amendment does not give universal and blanket permission. There is are multiple tensions. The appeals court in Dendrite v. Doe guidelines for this matter are:
> (1) the plaintiff must make good faith efforts to notify the poster and give the poster a reasonable opportunity to respond; (2) the plaintiff must specifically identify the poster's allegedly actionable statements; (3) the complaint must set forth a prima facie cause of action; (4) the plaintiff must support each element of the claim with sufficient evidence; and (5) "the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity."
In case of defamation, there's already a pretty high barrier for prima facie cause of action, and relatively broad protection for anonymous speech.
There's also little special about online communications. Anonymous speech, and the difficulties in balancing the different factors, have existed since before the founding of the country, when anonymous pamphlets like 'Common Sense' were used to press the call for independence.
Regarding "the site [must] take responsibility for the statements it publishes", this is wrong. Otherwise HN must be responsible for everything posted here, and we would have no HN. The relevant law is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which grants pretty broad immunity to service providers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio... .
So: 1) it's well-established that anonymous commenters cannot say whatever with impunity, 2) defamation in this case is little different than the many previous cases on the topic, 3) no one seriously believes you can create a site and declare it above the law (assuming no jurisdiction problems), 4) existing case law is on the side of PubPeer, and 5) CDA gives PubPeer the ability to host anonymous comments without automatically being the target of a defamation suit.
> (1) the plaintiff must make good faith efforts to notify the poster and give the poster a reasonable opportunity to respond; (2) the plaintiff must specifically identify the poster's allegedly actionable statements; (3) the complaint must set forth a prima facie cause of action; (4) the plaintiff must support each element of the claim with sufficient evidence; and (5) "the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity."
In case of defamation, there's already a pretty high barrier for prima facie cause of action, and relatively broad protection for anonymous speech.
There's also little special about online communications. Anonymous speech, and the difficulties in balancing the different factors, have existed since before the founding of the country, when anonymous pamphlets like 'Common Sense' were used to press the call for independence.
Regarding "the site [must] take responsibility for the statements it publishes", this is wrong. Otherwise HN must be responsible for everything posted here, and we would have no HN. The relevant law is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which grants pretty broad immunity to service providers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio... .
So: 1) it's well-established that anonymous commenters cannot say whatever with impunity, 2) defamation in this case is little different than the many previous cases on the topic, 3) no one seriously believes you can create a site and declare it above the law (assuming no jurisdiction problems), 4) existing case law is on the side of PubPeer, and 5) CDA gives PubPeer the ability to host anonymous comments without automatically being the target of a defamation suit.