Internet users do not lose this right $$at the log$-$in screen.$$ Thus,

the defendants had a constitutional right to speak$$or post$$

anonymously over the Internet. But their right must be balanced

against Hadeed$$s right to protect its reputation. The First Amendment protects a user$$s opinion about a business if the user was a

customer of the business and the post was based on personal experience. If the user never patronized the business, however, the post is a

false statement of fact. $$And there is no constitutional value in false

statements of fact.$$

Here, Hadeed was unable to match the anonymous defendants$$

reviews with the actual customers in its database. Hadeed asked Yelp to

identify the defendants, but the site refused. Thus, a subpoena became

necessary. $$Without the identity of the $...$ defendants, Hadeed cannot

move forward with its defamation lawsuit. There is no other option.$$

CRITICAL THINKING$$Ethical Consideration Why would someone post a negative review of a business that he or she had never patronized? Discuss the ethics of this practice.