In this age of nameless, faceless pontification, many have been targets of the world’s basement-dwelling spreaders of gossip and hate.

At least, people tend to think of them as basement-dwellers, so dark and filthy are their anonymous words. But who knows, really, where and who they really are? Few ever find out.

Brian Burke’s mission to unmask 18 anonymous commentators who he alleges defamed him underscores a point many are learning the hard way as cyber-libel cases become increasingly common: What is written online, even anonymously, can come back to bite the authors.

“This will be a very public reminder to people that you can get sued for what you publish on the Internet,” said Ryder Gilliland, a Toronto libel lawyer.

Burke, former general manager of the Maple Leafs, launched a civil suit Friday against “poonerman,” “sir psycho sexy,” “KaBoomin8” and 15 other anonymous bloggers and online commentators who allegedly “spread lies over the Internet” after he was fired earlier this year.

A notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court alleges the unknown defendants defamed Burke by falsely suggesting he had an extramarital affair with Sportsnet anchor Hazel Mae and that he fathered her child.

It seeks an injunction against the defendants from publishing further “defamatory statements” as well as damages, interest and costs. The claim has not been proven in court and no statement of defence has been filed.

Burke’s move made the rumour far more public than it was before the lawsuit, but allowed him to categorically deny it.

The drawbacks of engaging in a public legal battle deter many from taking action against cyber defamers, lawyers say.

“Oftentimes when someone who’s a victim of defamation comes to see me I have to tell them the best advice is probably not to do anything at all because the impending lawsuit is going to receive more publicity and attract more attention to the original defamatory comments than just leaving them alone,” said Michael Smith, a Toronto lawyer who practises defamation law.

That didn’t deter Burke, who said in a statement Friday that he felt it was “time to stop people who post comments on the Internet from thinking they can fabricate wild stories with impunity.”

Burke’s next step is to apply for court orders compelling web hosts or Internet service providers to hand over information that would help identify the defendants, which is something that judges in Canada are generally willing to do, depending on the strength of the case.

“Mechanisms to unmask are well-established,” said Roger McConchie, a Vancouver-based defamation lawyer.

But it is likely to be an arduous process.

David Potts, a Toronto lawyer and cyber-libel expert, says engaging in an online defamation suit is like guerrilla warfare.

“You don’t know your enemies. It can be spread over different jurisdictions. You can play what’s called digital Whac-A-Mole with them — in other words you knock ‘em down from one website and then they move to another,” Potts says.

“You have to be concerned that every action you take does not evoke a much worse counter reaction.”

A statement issued by Mae’s lawyer Saturday said she is still considering her legal options.

“Hazel Mae fully supports the lawsuit brought forth by Mr. Burke and feels strongly that people should be held accountable for writing and spreading malicious lies over the Internet,” the statement said.

At least one of the 18 named in Burke’s lawsuit responded late Friday, anonymously, to the allegations.

“Brian Burke is suing me,” read an update from the Twitter user @THEzbrad. “I think he’s just angry that ‘his’ Toronto team finally made the playoffs. Sorry Burkey.”

“THEzbrad” is one of the defendants named in the civil claim.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

In a blog post connected to the Twitter account, a writer described the lawsuit as “ridiculous” and said it targeted comments from “a post that was written on this blog.” The alleged defamatory post has been removed, but an archived Google page shows that the author characterized the Burke-Mae story as “speculation” and “rumours.”

“Burke obviously did not appreciate these few comments,” the blogger wrote, “but the fact that he is going to attempt to sue online commentators is pretty hilarious.”