AOL Loses Privacy Appeal

robkill writes "The Virgina Supreme Court ruled against AOL in its appeal, on First Amendment grounds, to throw out a subpeona by Nam Tai Electronics seeking the identity of an anonymous AOL user who posted 'false and defamatory' messages on a message board. Details can be found in the News.com article."

Comments

Obviously IANAL

[(trb001)]

The article doesn't mention exactly where, other than in a newsgroup, the subject was saying derrogatory things about Nam Tai, but when ARE you allowed to bash a company? Slashdot is, effectively, a newsgroup...we bash MS all the time here, along with tens of other companies. When does free speech cross that (hazy, at best) line into libel?

This sounds pretty preposterous to me...free speech ought to be free, if a company's product and good name can't stand up to people criticizing it, they probably shouldn't be in business. Having said that, I'm going to go back into my utopian cave now...

--trb

I am so confused.

[fava]

Am I supposed to like AOL now? I thought they are one of the bad guys, but now they are behaving like a good guy. Next thing you know Microsoft will do the right thing and my whole secure little world will be compleatly upside down.

I nead a drink.

Dunno if this is related

[Smidge204]

After looking around for more background info on this, I came across this year-old article about a similar case. To quote the article:

"
Using seven different aliases, Titzer posted 246 messages on Yahoo Internet message boards ... Nam Tai argued that at least three of Titzer's messages were false, defamatory and unlawful."

Even in that case, where (if?) the person was making a deliberate attempt to undermine the company using false information, I still see no reason why Yahoo, AOL, or any other middle-man company should be at all obligated to get involved. It reminds me of Napster - They only went after them so hard because it was the only target they had. I suppose some people just have to do something to justify themselves.

Now as much as I despise AOL, I hope they don't give in so easily. Privacy is an all-or-none type of issue. "We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass no matter how self-seeking." -FG Withington

=Smidge=

Re:Dunno if this is related

[dirk]

Even in that case, where (if?) the person was making a deliberate attempt to undermine the company using false information, I still see no reason why Yahoo, AOL, or any other middle-man company should be at all obligated to get involved.

Because they are the only people who have the information. If someone commits a crime and then hides in my house, I cannot say that they aren't there, just because I don't want to be involved. they are not asking AOL to get involved directly, but to reveal information about the people who may have committed libel. If someone has broken the law (or whatever subsection of the justice system libel falls under, probably torts), you are responsible to not hide information requested by the court about them.

Libel laws

[0x0d0a]

Nam Tai is within their legal rights to go after the person if (IANAL and this is not reading from a book, but it's somewhat close to the right requirements):

a) Factually incorrect information is knowingly or negliently posted by the person (public figures like politicians need to be shown to have knowingly done something, whereas your ordinary person or journalist only needs to be neglient).

b) That information causes material damages to the victim.

I do not think it is necessary for the person to intend to cause material damages to the victim.