Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger
joel_archer writes "The Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official. Judge Steele described the Internet as a 'unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,' and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. 'We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,' Steele wrote."
It pleases me to know that there are judges out there in tune with the Internet, who know what it is, what it represents, and recognize it for the "unique democratizing medium" that it is. These days seem rampant with politicians, judges, and CEOs all interpreting in favor of the bigger guys. The recent rulings against the RIAA and cases such as this one begin to restore my faith in the American judicial system. We've still got a way to go and the system will never be perfect, but at least there is a glimmer.
What is your penile percentile?
Article above In two messages from September of 2004, Proud Citizen discussed a member of the Smyrna Town Council, Patrick Cahill, referring to Cahill's "character flaws," "mental deterioration," and "failed leadership," and stated that "Gahill [sic] is...paranoid."
EFF Article
One article makes it sound like its teenagers calling each other fags, and the other points to actual political opinions.
Either way, this is how NOT to react. Don't these people know how to take anything lightly?
Slander is considered an abuse of free speech and will get you in trouble whether political or personal. The case wasn't whether the blogger had a right to free speech, but to anonymity. We aren't constitutionally guaranteed anonymity, as we're expected to take responsibility for what we say. This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.
I'm glad anonymity won, but I don't know if I'd feel the same way if some anonymous ass was slandering me on a popular website and people were believing it. It's a career killer for professional politicians, especially on the local level.
The judge was wrong
Judges, not judge. Judges of the State Supreme Court.
Okay, so you're saying that the Supreme Court of Delaware was wrong on a point of law with regard to the State of Delaware. Are you going to cite any precedents at all to support that or are you just claiming to out-expert them?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Wrong question. The Constitution enumerates the powers that the gov't has; it is not a list of restrictions. The correct question is, "where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to regulate speech?".
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
We aren't constitutionally guaranteed anonymity, as we're expected to take responsibility for what we say.
I have every right to publish a pamphlet or newspaper article and not put my real name to it, and distribute at will.
In fact, that's exactly what the authors of The Federalist Papers did. That is, in fact, why they are refered to as The Federalist Papers.
I may not have a Constitutional protection of anonimty, but I have every Constitutional right to publish anonymously.
You do not have a Constitutional right to the identity of an author, and hence the protection of anonymity comes about left handedly. This is by design, just as the Fourth Ammendment exists because it was recongnized that the governement would, sooner or later, pass illegal and offensive laws, but would be prevented the legal means of enforcing them.
The very reason the government has tried so hard, and so successfully, to nullify it.
Now they're moving on to nullifying the first.
KFG
But the nut of the matter is: Politicians have power. So, the powerless have a right to openly criticize them. The powerfull have the right to live and conduct themselves in such an honerable way that nobody would believe their critics. Otherwise, every time Jay Leno or David Letterman makes a wisecrack about the Chief, they'd be liable. But a person in power affects all of our lives, so we have to be able to discuss it openly amongst ourselves.
Why should the 'respectable' press have more rights than any other publisher? I may be totally wrong, but I suspect that the "press" whose freedom was enshrined in the first amendment bears little resemblance to the current media conglomerates who publish most of the newspaper, own TV stations etc. I would suggest that the modern day blog, and sites such as Slashdot are much closer to the 'press' at the time when the amendment was written than are the modern day newspapers and TV news stations.
You have to stop construing the First Amendment as granting you rights. That kind of thinking almost led to the rejection of the Bill of Rights in the first place. James Madison once said: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against."
That guard is the Ninth Amendment. The correct interpretation of the Constitution, then, is that you have boatloads of natural rights, and the Constitution protects them all; certain rights explicitly protected just have greater weight when rights conflict. When a court recognizes a right, they're not being "judicial activists" at all, they're keeping well within the intent of the Framers.
Right, because only cowards publish anonymously.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
The US Constitution doesn't list the RIGHTS people have.
The US Constitution limits the powers of government to circumscribe the rights inherent to its citizens.
We've been so deeply brainwashed by the "Hollywood" (i.e. shallow) presentation of the Constitution that every time a question like this comes up, we LOOK for the "Right" to be listed in the document, and if it's not there, we must not have it.
We have it UNLESS:
a) our state constitution specifically allow the government to have a say in it, and
b) that state provision doesn't exceed the powers allowed to the states according to the US Constitution.
-Styopa