SOURCE: The Suggestion Box, Inc.

November 29, 2007 08:30 ET

In What's Been Called a Landmark Decision, the Arizona Appelate Court Upheld the First Amendment Right of Individuals to Speak Anonymously on the Internet Wins Another Battle to Uphold Your First Amendment Rights and Defend Our Subscribers' Right to Anonymity

SCOTTSDALE, AZ--(Marketwire - November 29, 2007) - The Suggestion Box, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: SGTB) dba ("") has once again succeeded in its ongoing efforts to protect both anonymous speech and those who speak anonymously online.

The case arose from an anonymous message sent to the management team of Mobilisa, a Seattle provider of wireless and mobile communication systems, chiding the company's CEO for an e-mail to his mistress, a copy of which was forwarded along with the reproving message. Mobilisa sued the anonymous speaker, claiming that the underlying e-mail must have been obtained by hacking into Mobilisa's computer system. Mobilisa then subpoenaed The Suggestion Box, Inc., dba, an Arizona company that provided anonymous e-mailing services, to obtain the identity of the anonymous message sender. The company has refused to turn any information over identifying its subscribers, and a company spokesperson said they will continue to refuse to do so in the future.

In a landmark ruling in the case of Mobilisa v. Doe, the Arizona Court of Appeals in Phoenix upheld the First Amendment right of online anonymity when it has not been abused. The court held that would-be plaintiffs suing an anonymous Internet speaker must both present evidence to support their claim and show that their interest in identifying the speaker outweighs the speaker's interest in remaining anonymous.

Judge Ann Scott Timmer explained that an explicit balancing approach better accommodates the variety of claims that may be brought against anonymous defendants; the possibility that, in some cases, significant harm may be suffered by the anonymous poster who is identified; and the danger that identification will have a chilling effect on highly protected political speech. Because the trial judge did not reach the balancing stage, the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court to allow the trial judge to apply that part of the required test. The court of appeals did not indicate any view on the outcome of the balancing part of the test.

In another recent case in February 2006, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Arizona against Alberto Gonzalez in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States ("Government") challenging that portion of the Annoyance Statute that criminalized the act of sending electronic communications anonymously with an intent to annoy. Through its litigation efforts, has obtained a construction of 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(C) (the "Annoyance Statute") that protects a broad range of annoying speech sent anonymously online. The Government has filed a court document assuring that anonymous speech merely intended to be or found to be annoying will not fall within the scope of the Annoyance Statute. An AnonymousEmail spokesperson added: "We've defended our subscribers in several law suits as we believe they are protected under the First Amendments Freedom of Speech bill. If we cannot defend and protect the anonymity of our subscribers, then we shouldn't be allowed to advertise a web site for anonymous emails. We will therefore continue to defend our position of anonymity now and in the future."

ABOUT THE SUGGESTION BOX, INC. is operated by The Suggestion Box, Inc., and headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ. TheAnonymousEmail was created as a new vehicle of expression. In the spirit of the first amendment, it aspires to extend the freedom of speech to everyone, without forcing anyone to identify themselves.

Except for any historical information, the matters discussed in this press release contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Readers are cautioned that such statements are not guarantees of future performance and those actual results or developments may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information or otherwise.

Contact Information