Anonymous Posting Not Protected

jconley writes: "Excite News is carrying this story that indicates that anonymous posting on the Internet is not protected, and subpeonas can be issued to ISPs to expose the poster. Just one of a lot of cases, but still scary." Courts aren't very good at seeing any value in anonymity.

Comments

One thing I know:

[underwhelm]

Defamation has two absolute defenses. Both of them can be determined without knowing the identity of the anonymous posters.

The judge absolutely should have respected the anonymity of the individuals until the two absolute defenses were exhausted.

If the statements were TRUE or if the statements were not statements of fact, but of opinion, no defamation took place. The speakers should remain anonymous until they are absultely needed to stand behind their actions. The judge does not need the defendents' identities to judge the authenticity of these defenses as long as they are proffering them (through the ACLU). They are questions of fact that judges determine every hour of every day, and the identities of the accused have no bearing on the outcome.

This talk about getting people on the internet to "think about what they say" is code for silencing whistleblowers and people that speak about corporations and their leaders in unflattering, but nondefamatory and fully legal ways.

same shit from AP wire

[po_boy]

http://da ily news.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001016/tc/internet_defamatio n_1.html

pretty scary, eh?