The blog was particularly popular with police officers and in his suit the police lieutenant claims to have been defamed by anonymous commenters from within the Police Department.
When the legislature enacted a shield law in 2006 to protect news organizations from unreasonable demands for confidential information such as the identities of sources, Twitter was just days old, social media was evolving and few could define a blog.
On Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court revisited the law after nearly two decades of explosive internet growth that has left some media organizations and other traditional sources of information in decline and replaced them with a diverse array of alternatives.
The question before the justices was whether the law — as it was written — protects only traditional news organizations or applies as well to the new array of internet sites that operate under wildly different rules and distribution models.
If there was a consensus in the arguments before the court it was that the shield law is hopelessly outdated.
“How does a blog fit in with the definition of news media in the statute?” Justice Andrew McDonald, who helped write the shield law as co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee before being appointed to the court, asked at one point.
“If the statute was written before there were blogs, then we are stuck with it,” McDonald said.
The law was written to protect “news media,” which it defines as “Any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book publisher, news agency, wire service, radio or television station or network, cable or satellite or other transmission system or carrier, or channel or programming service for such station, network, system or carrier, or audio or audiovisual production company that disseminates information to the public, whether by print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, electronic or any other means or medium.”
Questions about such laws and who they protect are growing in importance as public discourse moves increasingly to the internet and lawmakers take up questions about privacy rights and who is responsible for content.
State Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat and current co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, said this week he is aware of concerns that the move to online news has dated the shield law and his committee may revisit it.
The case before the court is a 2019 suit by Hartford Police Lt. Vincent Benvenuto against a then-popular and aggressive blog called We the People — Hartford. Blog operator Kevin Brookman’s site was dishing up scoops about misbehavior at City Hall and the police and public works departments. It allowed readers to post anonymous commentary on articles it featured.
The blog was particularly popular with police officers and in his suit Benvenuto claims to have been defamed by anonymous commenters from within the police department. Benvenuto demanded that Brookman provide him with internet protocol data that would allow him to identify the commenters and pursue defamation suits against them.
Brookman responded that his blog was a news organization under the definition provided in the shield law and entitled to its protection from what he called unreasonable demands to produce protected records. Brookman has argued that enforcement of the shield law in his case will protect what he calls the first amendment rights of commenters on his site to remain anonymous.
The shield law does not provide news organizations with blanket immunity from records demands by those contemplating defamation suits. But, as enterprises operating under first amendment protections, it makes it more difficult than it would otherwise be for those suing to obtain records.
Brookman’s lawyer, Mario Cerame, argued that the case is about press freedom and freedom of expression. He said the right to comment anonymously in order to avoid retribution is essential to free discourse and, as result, is protected by the first amendment.
He said Benvenuto is on a “fishing expedition” and is trying to “ransack” Brookman’s internet records for material to punish rank and file officers who complained about him. Cerame argues further that information that could identify the anonymous commenters should not be disclosed because their remarks do not amount to defamation.
Gregory Jones, representing Benvenuto, argued on a more practical level about the definition of news media spelled out in the law. Since no one knew exactly what blogs were in 2006, the authors of the shield law could not have intended that they be protected as a news organization.
“Again, I think you have to go back to the definition,” Jones said.
The Supreme Court agreed to take the case after Brookman in 2021 lost his effort to use the Shield law to block disclosure of identifying information pertaining to anonymous commentary. The Superior Court judge then hearing the case said the blog was not covered by the definition of new media in the law.
Brookman asserted that neither he nor Google, which hosts his blog, has the information demanded by Benvenuto. The court ordered him to turn over a computer and his mobile telephone to a forensic computer expert who could search the devices for data that might identify the commenters.
