In a ruling that could have broader implications for online privacy and free speech, a federal magistrate judge in Denver has ruled that anonymity for Internet commenters goes only so far.

Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland late last month ordered a Berthoud Internet- service provider to disclose the names of as-yet-unnamed Internet users to upscale fashion retailer Façonnable. The company claims the users posted false statements about it on Wikipedia.

Boland’s ruling provides Façonnable with an initial — though potentially short-lived — victory in its defamation lawsuit against the users.

“Absent the ability to identify the alleged malefactors,” Boland wrote, “Façonnable is left with no ability to vindicate its rights, and legal process is rendered meaningless.”

Boland’s ruling is on hold while U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello examines the issue. Attorneys for the Internet provider, Skybeam Inc., pleaded for Arguello to review the ruling, arguing that Boland ignored important free-speech concerns. It is unclear when Arguello might issue a ruling.

Paul Levy — an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who is representing Skybeam — said Façonnable has failed to prove it suffered legitimate harm from the Wikipedia posts, which the company removed. If a company is allowed to unmask anonymous commenters just because they wrote something the company doesn’t like, Levy said, free speech on the Internet would be decimated.

“Unless there’s real evidence of wrongdoing, there’s no grounds to take away a person’s right to speak anonymously,” Levy said.

Because the case touches on a still-emerging area of law — the intersection of technology and speech — it has drawn the attention of national organizations such as Levy’s.

“We’re seeing these popping up all over the country,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

“This is where almost all of the action is in libel and subpoenas,” she said.

Dalglish said courts usually attempt to balance free- speech rights against the rights of people to fight back when they’ve been defamed — something known as a “Dendrite” test, after the case that established federal precedent on the issue.

Dalglish said courts applying a Dendrite test have generally sided with anonymous commenters.

Boland, though, said the commenters in the Façonnable case waived their privacy by signing a standard user agreement with Skybeam that specified that Skybeam might reveal their identities if asked.

“There is no reason for a court … to take greater care than has been taken by the anonymous poster to protect his anonymity,” Boland wrote.

Levy contends Boland ignored an important component of the Dendrite test requiring Façonnable to present evidence it was wronged by the postings.

And he says Façonnable has also not sufficiently proved the statements that the commenters made — they alleged Façonnable is a supporter of the terrorist group Hezbollah — are false.

The company is owned by the Lebanon-based M1 Group, which was co-founded by a Lebanese politician who has had political support from Hezbollah but who has described himself as a centrist.

“Shouldn’t people have the right to talk about those concerns?” Levy asked.

An attorney for Façonnable did not return a phone call. In court filings, the company has strenuously denied any Hez bollah connection and argued that the Wikipedia postings damaged the company’s reputation.

The company has also argued that the free-speech concerns in the case are overblown.

“The First Amendment,” the company wrote in one of its filings, “does not protect false speech.”

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com