By Ricky Dana, Candidate for U.S. House – Missouri’s 4th District
This is a clear and unequivocal warning: I will not tolerate slander, libel, or any other defamatory statements—whether made openly or under the guise of anonymity. Defamation is unlawful. If it continues, I will act immediately to protect my name and campaign.
Understand this: anonymous posting is not a shield. Websites and platforms typically log the Internet Protocol (IP) address used to publish content. With a valid court order or subpoena, those logs can be obtained from the platform and, where appropriate, subscriber information can be obtained from the internet service provider. Courts around the country use recognized legal standards to decide when an anonymous poster may be “unmasked,” including the Dendrite and Doe v. Cahill tests, which require evidence that a legitimate defamation claim exists before disclosure is ordered.
First Amendment rights are fundamental, but they do not protect false statements of fact that harm another person’s reputation. If you publish defamatory claims about me or my campaign—anonymously or otherwise—you can be identified and held accountable in court.
Let this serve as a blanket cease‑and‑desist: stop all defamatory statements now. If the conduct continues, I will immediately file suit, seek monetary damages, costs, and any other relief allowed by law. Where conduct crosses into unlawful threats, stalking, or harassment, I will also file reports with the proper authorities. Under Missouri law, defamation claims are civil actions and must be brought within the statute of limitations.
Choose your words carefully. The next ones could be read aloud in a courtroom.
Sources:
Missouri statute of limitations for libel and slander (RSMo §516.140)
Missouri pleading/defenses in libel and slander (RSMo §509.210)
Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) — summary‑judgment standard to unmask anonymous speakers
Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3 — multi‑factor test for unmasking anonymous speakers
47 U.S.C. §551 — ISP/cable subscriber privacy; disclosure pursuant to court order
EFF (2024) — courts must apply robust tests before unmasking anonymous online speakers