Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.
Case in the New Hampshire Supreme Court / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. is a New Hampshire Supreme Court case in which Mortgage Specialists, a mortgage lender, sought to obtain the identity of an anonymous source who provided Implode-Explode Heavy Industries (Implode), a website monitoring risky lenders, with a confidential document detailing Mortgage Specialists' loan practices.[1] Mortgage Specialists also sought to prohibit the republication of the document and learn the identity of an anonymous individual who allegedly defamed Mortgage Specialists on Implode's website.[1] Mortgage Specialists disputed Implode's status as a news organization, claiming that it should not be afforded the rights of a news organization under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution.[1]
The Mortgage Specialists v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries | |
---|---|
Argued November 4, 2009 Decided May 6, 2010 | |
Full case name | The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. |
Citation(s) | 999 A.2d 184; 160 N.H. 227; 38 Media L. Rep. 1641; 2010 N.H. LEXIS 41 (N.H. 2010) |
Case history | |
Prior history | Motion for injunction to reveal personal identifiers granted by Rockingham County Superior Court 08-E-0572 (N.H. Super. 2008). Motion for stay of order granted on appeal. |
Subsequent history | Judgment reversed motion to dismiss granted on reconsideration |
Holding | |
A website operator is a “reporter” and has newsgathering privileges. It need not disclose the source of its information unless the trial court is given detailed information by the plaintiff that would justify such action. The plaintiff would have to show that the published information by the web visitor likely was defamatory; in that case, revelation of the identity of the web visitor may be proper. The trial court may not issue an injunction against republication of the material—that would be an impermissible prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. Protections for traditional print media extend to online publishers whereby preventing a website from posting a leaked document is an unlawful prior restraint on speech. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | John Broderick |
Associate Justices | Linda Dalianis Carol Ann Conboy James Duggan Gary Hicks |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Conboy, joined by Broderick, Dalianis |
Concurrence | Duggan, joined by Hicks |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I N.H. Const. Pt. I, Art. 22. |
The resulting court decision found that Internet news outlets should be treated like print media and receive the same legal privileges granted to traditional journalists.[1] Similarly, the court found that the publication of the confidential documents could not be restrained and that the identity of the anonymous poster was protected so long as Mortgage Specialists could not prove harm.[1] This case set a precedent for protecting the legal rights of online media and reiterates the high legal hurdle required to restrict the free flow of information.