The Delaware Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that if an elected official who claims that he has been defamed by an anonymous blogger cannot use a lawsuit to reveal the identity of that writer unless there is substantial evidence to prove the claim of defamation, reports the New York Times. That standard "will more appropriately protect against the chilling effect on anonymous First Amendment Internet speech that can arise when plaintiffs bring trivial defamation lawsuits primarily to harass or unmask their critics," the court said.

Patrick Cahill, a councilman in Smyrna, Delaware filed the defamation lawsuit against a John Doe blogger who wrote Cahill was divisive and had "an obvious mental deterioration" and that he "is as paranoid as everyone in the town thinks he is," according to court records.

The court wrote, "The Internet provides a means of communication where a person wronged by statements of an anonymous poster can respond instantly, can respond to the alleged defamatory statements on the same site or blog, and thus, can, almost contemporaneously, respond to the same audience that initially read the allegedly defamatory statements."