Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Right to Post Anonymously Protected

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the chalk-one-up-for-the-good-guys dept.

JudTaylor writes " ZDNet has an article decribing a decision by a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge allowing Yahoo to protect the privacy of posters to message boards. Lee Tien, an white hat attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, stated "This is a great victory for anonymous speech. I believe Judge Cabrinha's ruling will signal to other companies that judges will not permit corporate executives to abuse the courts in ferreting out their critics." Critics of Pre-Paid Legal Services had posted messages disparaging the company on Yahoo boards. Representatives of the company had no immediate comment." I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.

2 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bashing the U.S. by david.johns · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Yup, have to agree with the person who WASN'T modded up in response to this: GMAFB.

    Our country, economically, socially, and politically, is N times more a threat to the future of free software than any other country in the world. We're the ones holding the handbasket, and taking everyone along for the ride.

    That's what's so frustrating about being a Free Software advocate: it's easy to tell people what Free Software is, how to use it, and why it's good. It's hard to get them to understand why every day it gets a little harder to make equivalent free software.

    While this inability to understand is not strictly related to national borders, the laws, society, and economy which shove anything 'free' or 'Free' onto the back burner ARE.

    Good grief.

  2. Re:Freedom of Speech by mach-5 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    This is not meant to be a flame or a troll...

    If an anonymous post threatens terrorism (potential harm to a large body of people) then it's not protected.
    "Potential harm," like financial potential harm? That reminds me of the DeCSS case where 2600 is claiming that the code is "speech". Well, I hate to say this, but by posting the code it is potentially harming the MPAA, correct? That should entitle the MPAA to protection against that speech since they are being harmed financially.

    I don't necessarily agree with that point, but I thought it would make a good example.