OK SO OFFICIALLY THIS DOES NOT REALLY PERTAIN TO THE AMERICAN DREAM - ONLY IN THE BLOGGING SENSE. BUT FOR THOSE THAT THINK THEY CAN SAY OR DO ANYTHING ON A BLOG AND REMAIN ANONYMOUS, I SUGGEST READIANG THE ARTICLE BELOW, WRITTEN BY ASHLEY SMITH IN TODAY'S NASHUA TELEGRAPH:
***********************************************************************************
He’s a man with several pseudonyms. Some, like Silence Dogood, are meant to send a message. Others, like Dennis Rodman, are purely to conceal his identity.

But there is one in particular that has placed him smack in the middle of a First Amendment case before the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and that is Brian Battersby.

It is a case that has potentially big implications for the future of journalism in New Hampshire. It could decide if media Web sites can protect the identities of anonymous commenters. It could also determine who constitutes the media in an Internet age filled with bloggers and citizen journalists.

The case has prompted national organizations like Citizen Media Law Project and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to intervene out of concern for the sanctity of free speech.

The man behind the Brian Battersby pseudonym sat down with The Telegraph to explain what he makes of being at the center of a state Supreme Court case that has garnered national media attention. He never imagined a legal battle over his identity would ensue when he posted an anonymous comment online criticizing a New Hampshire mortgage company, said Battersby, who agreed to speak to The Telegraph on the condition that his real name not be used.

“When I posted that blog, I felt that I was doing it anonymously,” he said.

The Web site Battersby posted his comment to is a mortgage-industry watchdog called Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter, which posts news from other sources about the housing finance crisis. In the fall of 2008, the site posted a story about a New Hampshire company, The Mortgage Specialists Inc., that was being investigated by banking officials for a number of alleged violations, including forging signatures, destroying documents and unfair or deceptive business practices. The company was later fined by the banking department in connection with the charges.

Along with the story, Implode-O-Meter staff posted a confidential financial document MSI had prepared for the New Hampshire Banking Department, which was provided to them by an unnamed source. Some time later, “Brianbattersby” posted a comment on the site accusing MSI President Michael Gill of fraud.

MSI asked the site’s publisher, Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, to take down the document and comment, which it did. But the publisher refused to identify Battersby. It also refused to promise that it wouldn’t repost the chart in the future.

MSI eventually sued, and won. A Rockingham County Superior Court judge ordered the publisher to reveal Battersby’s identity to the company and not to post confidential documents in the future. The Web site appealed that decision to the state’s Supreme Court, and arguments in the case took place in November. A decision has yet to come down.

Aside from wanting to keep his real name a secret, Battersby said he is concerned about the larger implications if the court decides that his identity should be revealed.

“At this point, it goes beyond concern for myself,” he said. “It’s not right for anybody’s identity to be released under this type of situation. I think it’s important that no matter who you are that you be able to voice concerns or make people aware of wrongdoing without repercussion.”

Battersby said he was surprised to learn that the superior court judge had ordered the release of his identity but was encouraged that organizations like Harvard Law School stepped in to defend him. A Harvard Law clinical fellow co-authored a legal brief encouraging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Implode-Explode.

Neither side is denying that this is a First Amendment case, but they disagree on whether it will have any significant impact on the right of the media to protect its sources.

Lawyer Jeremy Eggleton, of Orr & Reno in Concord, who represents Implode-Explode, has said the case has potential broad, negative implications for the New Hampshire media.

“It wouldn’t just undermine, it would completely undo the protections of the press in this state,” Eggleton told The Telegraph in November, after arguing his case before the Supreme Court.

Eggleton contends the Implode-O-Meter Web site was pursuing journalism when it published the story and information about MSI and that the site should be protected under the state’s qualified reporter’s privilege, which protects confidential sources used by traditional media.

Alex Walker, president of the Manchester-based firm Divine Millimet, who is representing MSI, sees things differently. He argues that Implode-Explode is not a protected member of the media because it does not do original reporting. Even if it were, sometimes a court will order a traditional media outlet to reveal its source when it’s proven to be essential to a case and there’s no other way to get the information, Walker said in November.

“Anytime anyone invokes the First Amendment, they talk about the broader implications, but what we’re asking the court to do is something that courts in New Hampshire have been doing for many, many years,” Walker said. “We’re not asking the court to plow any new ground.”

Also at issue in the case is whether the Implode-O-Meter Web comment was libelous, meaning harmful and untrue. No entity can win a libel case based on harmful statements that are true.

Battersby maintains that all of the statements he made were true. He posted the comments simply because he felt the public had a right to know about the fraud allegations, he said.

There are a few things that Battersby is not willing to discuss. He declined to offer details about when and how he heard that Implode-Explode was being sued over his comment. He did not reveal how he knew the loan chart existed or whether he is personally acquainted with Gill, MSI’s president. Not surprisingly, considering that the case centers on his identity, Battersby doesn’t want to reveal anything that will identify him.

Still, the question remains: Who is Brian Battersby?

Battersby has used other pseudonyms. He has posted comments on the Implode-Explode Web site using the name Silence Dogood. In an e-mail to The Telegraph, the name attached to the e-mail account was Dennis Rodman.

The real Brian Battersby is an amateur astronomer who lives in Canada. His name appeared in several news stories in February 2008 after he witnessed the Pentagon’s shootdown of a spy satellite during a night he had planned to spend watching a lunar eclipse. The fake Brian Battersby saw those news stories and equated the idea of spotting a rogue satellite bound for earth to his own revelation of the allegations against Mortgage Specialists, he said.

The real Brian Battersby did not respond to an e-mail sent Thursday seeking comment for this story. It’s unclear if he knows that his name is at the center of a New Hampshire Supreme Court case.

As for the case’s resolution, the man who uses the pseudonym Battersby says he is not confident about winning the case, given that a superior court judge ruled against him once.

It’s unclear when the Supreme Court will issue a decision. The court has several options, including upholding the lower court’s decision or reversing it and extending the protections designed for traditional media to a different breed of Internet journalists.