With a number of national news and public watchdog groups interested in the results, a precedent-setting court case involving The Times and its Web site was argued Wednesday in the Third District Appellate Courthouse in Ottawa.

The case stems from last year when Donald and Janet Maxon took court action to force The Times to identify the person who, under the screen name "FabFive from Ottawa," twice posted comments last year at the end of stories at the newspaper's Web site, comments the Maxons claim suggested they bribed members of the Ottawa Plan Commission.

The Maxons — who wanted to add rooms onto their house to accommodate a bed and breakfast — were urging the Commission to change the city ordinance regarding bed and breakfast establishments. Several neighbors opposed their wish and the Maxons eventually gave up their plan after determining they were blocked by city ordinance.

The Maxons wanted the identifying information to file a libel lawsuit against the commenter. Times Publisher John Newby said he would not supply the information unless there was a court order. On Oct. 2, Circuit Judge Eugene Daugherity dismissed the Maxons' action and they filed an appeal.

At the Appellate Courthouse Wednesday, the issue boiled down to setting the balance between the right to free speech and the right to be free from defamation.

The attorney for The Times, Katherine Licup of Chicago, argued Daugherity's lower court dismissal of the case last year should be upheld. At that time, Daugherity described the comments as a "screed," "conjecture" and a "surmise" that no reasonable person would believe to be factual.

However, Daugherity acknowledged he was navigating new legal ground and it would be worthwhile for the Third District Appellate Court to examine the case, saying, "I welcome another set of eyes to look at this."

Licup argued anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment and there should be good reason to force exposure of such a speaker — and in the Maxon case there is no good reason.

The Maxons' Ottawa attorney, George Hupp Jr., argued the First Amendment does not give license to make irresponsible speech and anonymous speech causes irresponsibility. The comments, he contended, were defamatory and he wants the Appellate Court to send the case back to Circuit Court, where The Times should be ordered to identify the commenter.

The following organizations filed friend-of-the-court papers urging the Appellate Court to protect anonymous online speakers: Hearst Corporation, Gannett, Harvard Law School's Citizens Media Law Project, the Tribune Company, Illinois Press Association, Online News Association, Online Publishers Association, Public Citizen and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The organizations are arguing online speakers must be protected or the public's access to news and information will be "irreparably harmed." Further, anonymous speech enables people to speak without fear of "retaliation or embarrassment," making it more likely for "marginal voices to contribute."

Ottawa attorney Michael Reagan is providing assistance to the organizations' attorneys.

The appellate justices who heard the case are Mary McDade, Daniel L. Schmidt and William Holdridge. During the hearing, Schmidt joked about judges being criticized by online commenters, drawing laughs from the audience. It is unknown when the justices will announce their decision.