Slashdot Mirror
Masked Email Activist Can Stay Anonymous
Mitchell writes "The NewStandard is
reporting that a Texas judge ruled in favor of an anonymous political activist who used a Yahoo! email account to notify the press and to potential voters about the wasteful spending practices of Texas politician Jimmy Cokinos. Cokinos lost relection, and tried to nail "recall_carl01" with a defamation lawsuit, but a judge threw out the bid since the emailed critiques weren't defamatory."
Proof that all is not lost.
Stephen Colbert on race: "While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad."
Hopefully the government will recognize a right to anonyminity.
"brxref
You mean that speaking the truth is OK?
This has definitely been a freaky day.
This is how its supposed to work (aka "dog bites man"). How is it news?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This case isn't really that interesting, since it was rejected before an issue of privacy became involved. Someone sued for defamation; the judge said no defamation had taken place; end of case. It would be a lot more interesting if the judge had considered the case worthy of being heard, and had to decide whether the unmasking of an anonymous emailer was appropriate. Is there any precident for this?
apterous.org
And yet another reason why Texas deserves to be blessed.
Pretty soon, some judge will rule that voting is private too, and you know what that leads to: freedom! Who knows when this madness will end?
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
It appeared that Cokinos was under the impression that Yahoo! had recall_carl01's real identity. I'd bet any money that the person behind recall_carl01 used fake sign-up information to get the account.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"Which one, your honor, there's 2 grillion of them."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I am amazed at common sense rulings in Texas and constantly ashamed of rulings from California's Federal 9th Circuit Court?
I found something interesting on this topic.
It is the ONLY branch we can remotely count on, a small glimmer of hope swimming in a sea of darkness.
"You have a right to privacy online as long as you aren't doing anything illegal"?
That's... reassuring... I guess?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander and so forth. My only question is how they served process on a Yahoo ID. You can't sue someone that you can't bring into court, and it's difficult to remain anonymous when you do get brought into court. This case is interesting to me purely for its procedural side. Substantively, it's boring and I have no idea how it made the front page over more interesting cases such as the lawsuit against Sony's legal affairs director for illegally enslaving his housekeeper.
It's been a while since I took civics class, but can a politician really claim defemation? I thought libel and slander suits only applied to non-famous people. If you go in the limelight, then you give up a lot of those rights(but then you are filthy rich, so who cares).
For example:
Saying Daryll Q. Handtro of 123 South Berry Street, Polandville, AL loves hot monkey sex, then I could be sued for libel(provided he does not in fact, partake in said monkey sex of course). But if I said that Micheal Jordan and Uma Thurman are secretly funeeling their money to build a lab that will clone Cowboy Neal, I cannot be sued.
Monstar L
And in other news Spanish AND Italian are the same language!!!!! ... more from Mr X shortly....
That's not actually the case in law. In practice, there is a lot more leeway as far as satire, of famous people. However, if you are Oprah, and say you're not going to eat Uncle Tex's cattle because they are diseased, when they are in fact not diseased, then she'd have been successfully sued for slander. If Uncle Tex had said Oprah is a pedophile and that's why she doesn't eat veal, well I'd think she'd successfully sue back.
The Rules of Law, no one [not even Oprah, or Bush] are above the law.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Send all your spam to recall_carl01@yahoo.com
Why? Beacuse he's anonymous coward of course!
Have you metaroderated recently?
Depending on the jurisdiction, it often appears that the BS threshold is so high as to make defemation of public figures outright legal. The reason is that courts feel that the right to openly discuss those in power outweighs the powerfuls' right to slap folks talking stink about them. Movie, tv, and recording stars are for the most part collateral victims.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Is this another one of those "activist judges" that are trying to take over the country? Or is it a much-needed affirmation of our civil liberties?
This reminds me of Peter Zenger's famous lawsuit, in which he was sued by a government official for printing an unfavorable article about him. However, since the unfavorable things were completely true, Zenger won.
Zenger's case established Freedom of the Press. Nowadays it's freedom of the e-mail.
Esoteric reference.
Would recall_carl01's anonymity still be protected lies were told?
/ 02INTE.html
This reminds me of a story involving the website Tucker Max and first ammendment rights:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~kayhan/misc/missvermont
While Tucker Max's story did not involve sercret identities, it did bring up the issue of defamation and the right to free speech. The basic story is Tucker posted graphic details about his relationship with a girl and the girl sued requesting those stories be removed from his website. The court ruled in favor of Tucker saying the stories, while in poor taste, are valid forms of free speech because the stories are not false.
Freedom of speech and that of being annonymous goes as long as you are not offensive in any way and the material of your talk is backed by evidence. Since, he/she (?!) matched all these criteria: way to go!
Oprah did a story about mad cow disease and then stated she wasn't going to eat beef anymore out of concern for it. Where's the slander?
The US beef industry was just pissed off at the bad publicity they were getting.
...the Texan cattlemen didn't win. Oprah did. (Personally, I'd have preferred it if a Texan cow had been diagnosed during the case. Sure, I'd feel bad for the cow, but it would have served those arrogant money-grubbers right.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That bastard got me recalled from office.
-Carl01
Apparently he doesn't know that no one can see you on the Internet. He doesn't have to wear a mask while e-mailing.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Even if the posts were defamatory?
Is it illegal to defame politicians?
The freedom to say nasty things about politicians (and the government) is one of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy.
Any encroachment of the freedom to criticize a politician without any fear of retribution or lawsuit, especially while they are in office seems to be an invitation to totalitarianism.
While it is probably true there is no legitimate reason to simply say bad things which are not true, there are so many instances where it is impossible to prove the government (or a politician) has done something wrong, or is of poor character (or whatever else the insult or defamatory remark is) and the fear of a defamation lawsuit may curtail legitimate criticism.
Legitimate criticism of government is such a vital part of democratic society that I would say it is worth the risk of having a few politicians feelings or reputations hurt by false accusations.
quite frankly... at election time practically everything politicians say if only by innuendo about their opponents is defamatory, and damaging to each others reputation.
There is no real difference between flat out defaming someone directly and defaming by innuendo. Politicians have to expect it. It is part of the job.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
....and lots more that have not. And anything non-visible (age/job/DOB) is completely bullshit on all. Guess which ones get used for every kind of sign-ups, forums etc.? I use my named accounts for communicating with people that already know my name, friends, family, "official" communication with serious companies etc. etc.
Just because you never have, nor never will recieve an email from one of my properly named accounts doesn't mean they don't exist.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The current government of the USA has a blatant disregard for law, both national and international. And half of the voting US citizens thinks that's OK because `morality' and `faith' are more important than this old gimmick called `law' and `rights'. Gimme a break.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Higher power bless Texas!
Finally not just portrayed as dumb hicks, and in a time when Civil Liberties are bieng crushed everywhere, hopefully this doesn't violate the Patriot Act and make our good anonymous emailer a "CYBER TERRORIST".
See not just bad things *cough BUSH cough* come out of Texas.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!