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?
I hear ya'. The public in this country has taken a rash beating in the passed (past? Could a Slashdot grammar Nazi clarify?) years that we get all excited when things are decided in favor of the law. How ridiculous things have become. But never fear... Little things like this mean democracy and freedom still breathe!
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?
And then, a million bloggers rose in triumphant jubilation, only to sit back down panting heavily.
Actually, in today's society, it is a fairly uncommon thing for a (supposed) non geek to apply common sense in an internet/computer related case...
--- "To ignore race and sex is racist and sexist!" -- Jesse Jackson
This really shouldn't be news. The whole thing against the blogger is stupid. It's like saying you'd sue someone who was spouting crap in speaker's corner - if that were the case what would be the point in speaker's corner?????
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.
... isn't a carte blanche for slander and libel.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
40,000 visitors to be exact.
Damn, just his name alone makes him someone I wouldn't want to fuck with. I wonder if he has his own TV show.
NEXT, ON JUDGE STEELE...
I can't find anything in the first amendment which addresses a right to speak anonymously.
Although I do agree with the court ruling.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
I'm surprised the judge asserted the blogger had the right to post anonymously.
But that aside: if you've got something to say have the guts to put your name to it. If you're not then perhaps you shouldn't be saying it? How do we know this blogger isn't simply lying? Or is an estranged mistress with a grudge? Or is a political opponent?
If the blogger is concerned about reprisals or being sued for defamation then I can't see how that's a defence. If they should be allowed to say whatever it is then the law should protect them and defamation suits shouldn't be possible. That's where they should receive the courts protection. If they're restricted in what they can say (defamation for example) then they should have to take the consequences of their actions and not be allowed to hide behind their anonymity.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Passed is either the past tense or past participle of the verb pass, and basically means to move past something (i.e. time passes, one car passed another, Those days have passed into history, etc).
So, for dustinbarbour the following would have been correct: The public in this country has taken a such a rash beating in the past years that we get all excited when things are decided in favor of the law.
(I added the "such a" to make it more grammatically correct with the "that we..." though there are other ways of phrasing this).
Hope this helps. Now, Mods, do your job and mod me down with all of your hatred (for being off-topic).
Disclaimer: this post has not been check for its own grammar mistakes. Real grammar Nazis, do your worst!
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
has taken a rash beating in the passed (past? Could a Slashdot grammar Nazi clarify?)
The correct usage is 'past'. 'Past' is the noun, adjective, and adverb form. 'Passed' is used only as a verb. This may help. Or it may not. It's really something that just has to be memorized.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
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
Can you really call it "common" sense anymore?
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
That's about what I'd expect from a cock-sucking asswipe such as yourself. When did you stop beating your wife? PS - I'm glad your crack habit doesn't keep you from molesting young boys.
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.
so when can we start applying that to the millions of rip of ads out there claiming all kinds of shit.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Do you mean that the blogger is annoying, or that the court favours annoying him?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I have to ask what is the real damage that is caused by the blogs? After RTFA it appears to me that the postings in question are part of a newspaper website article discussion. I wouldn't exactly call that a blog, unless slashdot is also a blog. I don't know of any material damage that could ever be caused by slashdot posters, and even less so of anonymous posters on a newspaper website. I would say that the Bush administration has a better case for slander almost any time a Democrat Representative or Senator appears on Meet the Press and criticizes ability. Bush has more of a slander case against Green Day for the American Idiot album.
I think this is just another sad case of someone thinking the internet is a threat to their "business" and think they can sue ISP's into doing the legwork of their case for them a la RIAA and P2Pers. If the judges are indeed wrong and the US Supreme Court agrees with you then every poster here needs to worry about what they say in the hallowed halls of slashdot.org.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
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.
What needs to happen is for society at large to get a sort of karma-system for anonymous libel - so that AC's get less credence than those who put their name to their words. Taking away anonymity has all kinds of bad consquences, while ignoring anonymous libel just requires a thinking populace. I guess anonymity is doomed in the USA...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
> ...will get you in trouble whether political or personal.
It makes a big difference, whether it is political or personal.
From the Electronic Privacy Information Center Archive (see http://www.epic.org/free_speech/default.html#anony mity for more info)
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."
Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.
Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.
While no right to anonymous speech is spelled out in the Constitution or its Amendments, I would imagine that the founding fathers thought that anonymity was trivially implied by "[not] abridging the freedom of speech", since a law requiring "eunymity" of unpopular political speech effectively bans that speech. (Think Communist speech in the McCarthy era. Regardless of where one stands on the idea itself, Communist speech is protected by the First Amendment.)
The Founders themselves made heavy use of the anonymous pen name Publius when writing The Federalist Papers -- essentially an ad campaign for our current Constitution -- so it's easy to see where they stood on the subject when they wrote the Constitution.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
The Supreme Court has held that non-defamatory anonymous speech is constitutionally protected (see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission). In the article, the court ruled that the statements made by the bloggers were clearly opinions, which can't ever be defamatory.
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
If a reporter in a newspaper quotes an anonymous source and thereby commits libel, the newspaper can be sued. It seems to me the ISP is on a hiding to nothing here. If journalistic standards are applied, the owner of the website is surely a publisher not a carrier, and can be sued. If the website is the equivalent of a freely available notice board, then anybody pasting a libel on it should not expect to avoid being identified.
The initial posts seem to support the position of "Proud Citizen", but he appears to be a socially dysfunctional individual with a nasty mind. I do not see why he deserves any anonymity at all. If only so the Cahills can assert THEIR first amendment rights and say in public what they think of them.
The point is that in the US freedom of speech is protected and anonymity is not needed, whereas in China (why on Earth do we have anything to do with that scumbag government?) freedom of speech is banned and so everything should be done to protect the anonymity of legitimate critics of government.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Don't be silly, that wouldn't maximize shareholder value.
Corporations have the same rights as people, but you can't expect them to have the same responsabilities.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Sounds like a good way to simplify your legislation though : if it isn't clearly allowed in the constitution, then it's illegal. ;)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Defamation and slander are not terms that are applicable to opinions.
What is needed is a much better system than that. People will eventually become aware that blindly trusting anything anonymous is just plain stupid. This is a question of educating the population, and that usually takes a few generations. Patience will pay, I believe.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
Slander is considered an abuse of free speech It's not free speech then is it, free speech is being able to say what you want to say, whenever and where-ever, that includes slander as well, cause it's free speech remember?!, oh yeah forgot, no such thing as free speech in the states, it's just a phrase..
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low
Yeah, because he said popular website and this is Slashdot.
Wouldn't this be a great area to use a login / moderation system, (meta-moderated) based on a kind of trust factor and correctness of what's said?
Someone who tells the truth consistently carries more influence, but if they start spewing false slanderous things and others know it, then their believability and influence drops like a rock. Couldn't people then say what they want whenever they want anonymously (person behind login protected); liable/slander troubles relegated to the past?
For all of you Slashdotters who have have historically ( I assume no links are needed between gentlemen here on this subject? ) assaulted the AC's posts merely because they were posted as AC let this article be a reminder that AC posting is a constitutional right that has been upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court. This is of course not to admonish you for justifiable assault on poor comments and err *cough* flamebait.
How does this extend to "blatantly lying about the guy then hiding behind anonymity to get away with it". If it was the truth or a genuine opinion being told, then sure, he has every right to remain discuss it all he wants, and I believe stay anonymous, but I don't really see how that should extend to making stuff up about people. I mean, in what way does the ability to make and spread lies help anyone?
Otherwise, every time Jay Leno or David Letterman makes a wisecrack about the Chief, they'd be liable.
Umm... not really, that's a joke, and plainly not an assertion of an actual fact, so it can't really be defamatory. Banning falsehoods doesn't have to affect people joking or whistleblowing. (though by the look of things, this precise case here was one where the statements were found to be opinions, not facts, and so were legitimate, but it doesn't change the basic principle that an actual defamer should be liable)
Actually anonymity did not exactly win. The case has been remanded back to the lower court. The argument before the DE Supreme Court was that the individuals in question did not establish a prima facia case and that the judge over the case used a very relaxed standard that did not provide proper first ammendment protection. Based from what I heard this site was saying, I would not be too surprised in the end if the bloggers get unmasked. Of course, in order for that to happen the people behind this will have to continue the case, but I cannot see why they wouldn't if they have gone this far.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Heh. Miller. Good Call.
I'm f#$king magic!
over the last several thousand years, people have yet to be aware that blindly trusting anything anonymous is just plain stupid. people believe all sorts of stupid things, and will continue to do so; i should hardly expect otherwise and i think youre setting yourself up for disappointment by doing so yourself.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
If the "ordinary joe" has an important piece of information that would discredit a public person, (s)he should go to the respectable Press who will investigate and publish if they and their lawyers think it justified. That's what they are for and why they have special rights. (And why it is wrong that Murdoch should be allowed to control so much of world media, but that's another issue.)
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I suspect the "common" in "common sense" refers to its nonacademic, nonintellectual nature rather than its widespread existence. How often it actually appears is a function of the "sense" part, which, unfortunately, is all too rare these days.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
The comments he used are so vague, no lawyer would ever take this to court, because they would surely lose against any halfway-competant defence. Everyone has character flaws. Everyone over 30 could easily be shown to have some measure of "mental deterioration", all they would have to do is ask them some trivial fact about last year that they would not remember. As for "failed leadership", that is also open to interpertation.
In order to make a case for slander, the comments have top be false. There is absolutely no way you could prove or disprove that with these comments.
"Le sens commun n'est pas si commun." so said Voltaire
jh
But this is a different kind of anonymity. This blogger wasn't anonymous like an AC, he was anonymous like Pieroxy. He had published his blog consistently under one name at one address (ok, so I am assuming this), and his track record of writings was available for review, just like a non-AC /. user. The only reason that we consider him anonymous, is because we don't have his meat-space name, and couldn't find him in the big blue room.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
You know there is a difference between "lawful" and "right", "unlawful" and "wrong" don't you? The judgeS were wrong.
The judges either applied the law correctly or else they did not. It is possible that the law could do with being amended but that does not mean that a judge correctly applying the law as it stands is "wrong". That's just gibberish.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
A politician.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Was it "1984" where everything that wasn't illegal was mandatory? Or is that just a general way of describing the standard fascist police state? The fact is that you can leaflet cars on a parking lot without fear of reprisal and all this decision does is extend that ability to a medium where there is a technical method for destroying that anonimity. What they are basically saying is, "You can't spy on people because they didn't give away their identity." This is certainly a privacy issue, one of those rights not specifically allocated in the Bill of Rights but referred to in the clause that says that the Bill of Rights does not exclude any other rights commonly possessed by free people.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Since when was this a popular website?
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
There is, however, a difference between publishing a political opinion or philosophical paper and publishing a libelous one. The second deserves no such protection as it is an active attack against a fellow citizen.
Yeah, I missed the bus on that one too, but it sure seemed to play the central role here. The logic seems to be that if one fears reprisal of a libel suit, that it will have the famous "chilling effect" on speech? Isn't that the...point of libel laws? That people will actually think about what they're about to write before they write it?
How do you breath with all that sand up your nose?
The current crop of political bozos in Washington got there by using a whole arsenal of the tools you have just described, down to a telephone campaign in West Virginia that said that the main primary opposition candidate had a black baby out of wedlock, when in fact he had adopted a Bangladeshi child. Why were these folks not indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned? What's good for the politicians isn't good for the people? You are a sad case, Sir.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Wow! Can I have you represent me next time I need to go to court?
"I'm sorry Your Honor, but you're just plain wrong, because I think you're wrong."
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
No, it's the difference between law and morality. It is wrong to hang homosexuals, but in Iran it's legal.
This is an example, it is only an example and not meant to construe equality between it and the current discussion.
And its shifting the goal posts as well. Even if the law is morally wrong, it does not necessarily follow that a judge upholding that law is morally wrong in doing so. One could, quite sensibly, argue that in most cases it is morally wrong for judges not to uphold laws that they think are immoral as judges are charged with upholding the law, not with judging morals.
and be that as it may, it isn't the judge's job to assert his/her moral authority and legislate from the bench. Their job is to interpet the law as is.
And the supreme court here, interpreted it as a protector of anonymity.
if the law is judged to be morally abhorent by the public in large, then congress is the institution we should be declaring as being in the right or the wrong, and as such should force them to change the law. Not the bench.
This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.
Still the case. All this judgement said is that the libel/slander must be proved first, before the anonymity is lifted.
This protects anonymity by saying you can't get the courts, isps etc. to expose an author simply by suing them. To get the exposure you first have to prove the merits of your case.
Victims of slander don't lose by this, only people who want to use meritless accusations of slander to expose anonymous authors. If you have a case, no problem, if you don't, but just want to expose the writer so you can take other action (like dismissing an employee), then too bad - this court isn't going to help you.
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.
The court didn't say a person can't be held responsible for slander, it said that someone must first prove they have been slandered before releasing an anonymous poster's identity. Forcing ISP's to reveal the identities of people has a chilling effect on free speech; so it is appropriate that the government (whose actions are bound by the first amendment) not act in a manner that limits speech; which a chilling effect certainly would do.
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.
People have the opportunity to respond to blogger comment's; so it's appropriate the courts said you can't stop someone from saying something you don't like unless you can first prove it was slanderous.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Actually, it's the reverse, thanks to the 10th ammendment. If it is not expressly forbidden, it is legal at the federal level.
No. They apply to statements that are not true. Opinions are neither true nor false because they are not statements of fact. That's why they are called opinions. Slander, libel, and defamation apply to statements that are harmful to the persons reputation and factually wrong.
For instance, I could say "I think Elliot Frielle is a cheat and a liar" and that's personal opinion. If I state, "Elliot Frielle regularly cheats on his income tax and perjured himself in court last year by stating that his mistress was with him on the night she was accused of mass murder," I'd be libeling (or is that slandering?) him by stating it as fact. (I note now that I know no Elliot Frielle and a Google search yields no one by that name. Any resemblance to people living or dead is entirely coincidental)
It gets a bit murkier when you're making unsubstantiated general claims. Maybe I'm just mad at Elliot and I say, "Elliot Frielle is a bounder and a cad!" in a righteous snit over something or another. Am I actually stating that he's a bounder and a cad, that he has objectionable social behavior and disregards others' feelings? Or am I just using words to express my anger? Is this just my opinion on his character or am I stating that this has actually applied to incidents in his life?
In the end, hopefully common sense rules out in most of these cases. While words said in anger should be taken with a grain of salt, I hope that a person couldn't get away with slander and libel by just prefixing every statement with, "It's just my opinion that."
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
The bill of rights (which is part of the constitution) is clearly a list of restrictions. They all say " the right to . . . shall not be infringed" or "congress shall make no law restricting . . ." or something similar restricting the power of the government.
.). The ability of congress to make a law regulating something does not need to be specifically enumerated in the constitution.
Also, under the elastic clause the congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary to carry out the powers and purposes of the constitution, so the congress may have the ability of regulate speech, so long as it promotes the purpose of the constitution, and does not violate the first amendment (I don't think that's really possible, but if it were. .
Does that translate "The common sense itself is not common?" Just checking...
If it does, then Voltaire has given yet another quotable to add to the list.
We need to keep the USA in charge of the internet! If it was UN Controlled, the fight would have been a commitee in the UN deciding who has the right to say what... etc.. and I dare say, I DO NOT trust them to rule in the favor of US laws.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Almost. I think 'si' in that context means 'so', and you can safely drop the leading 'The'. I would be a little less word-for-word and translate it as
"Common sense isn't so common."
jh
How do you get that from "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"? It seems to me that the obvious reading is that all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution fall to the lower levels of government.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Yelling fire in a theater when there isn't one, isn't free speech and never has been.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
I would contrast this with the duty of a juror. At least where I live, in most cases a juror has no choice but to serve and to make a decision. Under those circumstances, I claim that a juror must judge the law as well as the facts. I would not vote to convict someone for violating an unjust law. (That is a whole 'nuther topic.)
(*) Yes I know some people do not think that there is any such thing as an objective right and wrong. Ptuuii on them. ;-)
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Man, you better live in Delaware, or CmdrTaco will sue you for libel.
In Soviet Russia, asses suck this joke.
To make you waste some more mod points, let me point out today that in the Guardian today is an article by Helen Steel and Dave Morris (The McLibel Two.) They stood up, on the record, for their beliefs. McDonalds had the most pyrrhic victory imaginable, and European courts decided that the trial was unfair because of the failure of the UK government to enable Steel and Morris to be adequately represented. The UK has much poorer protection of freedom of speech than the US, but the EU seems to have some judges with a clue or two.
Steel and Morris are heroes of dissent. And Proud Citizen has nothing to be proud of.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
FTFA: "We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," FT First Amedment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I'm failing to see where the 1st Amedment garuntees anyone the right of anonymous speech? These people are perfectly free to speak, but they should have no expectation of anonyminity. And heaven forbid they are held accountable for things they say. What this finding says is that you must now prove the defendants guilt before you can even find out who it is. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The difference is that watching Jay Leno or the Daily Show, you know that it is a parody. Also, content is important. If you post on a political or informational web site that you disagree with Bush's handling of the War in Iraq for reasons A, B, and C, that's fine. If you post "I had anal butt sex with Bush and Laura took pictures" then you should be held accountable for your accusations. Your post has no merit, unless you DID have sexual relations with the President, in which case you would have your chance in court to show your innocense. Let's be realistic here, we're not talking about people who posted responsible though provoking points of view. We are talking about flamers and trolls who attacked this guy's family and sexuality for no reason other to inflame and misinform others. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
where in the Constitution does it give us the right to speak annonymously? It doesn't and it shouldn't. The only way you can speak annonymously is to speak through others. You should have no expectation that the other person will not be compelled to reveal your identity.
"The fact is that you can leaflet cars on a parking lot without fear of reprisal and all this decision does is extend that ability to a medium where there is a technical method for destroying that anonimity." But you should have a fear of reprisal while leafletting cars. If I see someone leaflet my car, I can approach them and discuse the issue with them. I can see someone post an inflamitory post on the internet, and it's easy enough to approach them (given the ISP's assistance) but now the Government is saying that the ISP can not assist me until I have already proved that the person in question is guilty of something. Anonyminity is not a right, it's a privledge. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
That should be obvious from the fact that all this happened under the jurisdiction of the state of Delaware - it's not even a federal issue.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
Is this situation of protecting anonymity counter to law? The goverenment of the US will physically protect your rights, such as privacy, but there is an extent to which they can protect your right to privacy. I can see it now:
"Yes officer, I was making methanphetamine, but I was doing it in the privacy of my home. You should protect my right to privacy!!"
Where should the line be drawn?
The Federalist Papers were published under a pseudonym.
When US law looks for examples of political speech to reason about, those are some of the strongest examples available.
In practical terms, without the option of speaking anonymously, some people in hostile communities wouldn't be able to speak freely.
Ay, but I'm thinking pragmatically. All you say is true. Now, are we going to set up a court to scrutinize every single word said about every public figure? Yes, you and I can judge and distinguish between falsehood and truth. But, rather than having a secret police hounding every newspaper, I'll put up with a few National Enquirers.
Can you see what you missed?
The public in this country has taken a rash beating in the passed (past? Could a Slashdot grammar Nazi clarify?) years
it should be "Grammar Nazi"
The concept of taxing labor wages I would imagine, would be about the biggest economic sin to the Founding Fathers.
Well no; since the first income tax was enacted in 1787(9?) and it was challenged and went to the Supreme Court, the court ruled (4 of the members of which were on the constitutional committee so its assumed they knew what it meant) that individual income falls under the excise tax, which the constitution allows the govt to levy.
When you work, you are trading your labor in exchange for money/goods/whatever; you are engaging in trade, and so your income is susceptible to excise/tarrif whatever you want to call it.
If businesses have no right to profit, then niether do individuals - youre creating a difference that isnt there. When you sell your labor in exchange for money, you are conducting business. If you have a right to work for more than room and board (thus making a profit), well so does everyone else.
That's funny!
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
Technically it is Libel, not slander. iirc both are intentional torts with truth being an absolute defense. The difference (again iirc) is that under slander you have to show actual damage while under libel damage is per se (because libel is spread farther and faster). Also, public figures, such as politicians, get less protection (NY Times v. Sullivan (?)). Anyway you know know about as much about libel and slander as the average 1L.
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
While I dont completely agree with the line of reasoning of the GP, I do think he has a point in that in the abstract this does touch on the EU and UN wanting control of the root servers.
Americans are used to being free to do something unless there is a law prohibiting it, while the vast majority in the rest of the world are used to being free to do something once a law has been passed allowing it.
Our constitution is a document which defines the limitations of the authority of govt without enumerating rights, while the UN Declaration on Human Rights and most other constitutions pretty much just enumerate rights and dont really address the limitations of govt authority.
Its like the difference between setting your firewall to allow all, then constantly updating the list of IPs you wont allow vs. setting it to deny all and selectively adding to a list of trusted IPs (the firewall in this case being an individual, the IPs being limitations on individual rights).
So yes, in the abstract, its issues like this that are ~exactly~ the reason why the thought of turning control over to the UN and/or EU is stomach turning.
There is a priciple in law that has been upheld by the supreme court that says that a jury can refuse to convict on the basis that the law is unconstitutional. I'm not sure about "morally wrong" when there is not a constitutional question, but the case that it goes back to was from the colonial period where a person was being tried for distributing seditious pamphlets (against the king) and the jury refused to convict because they thought the law was morally wrong.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Does that case come with UV reactive 120mm fans and an evil looking side window ?
A 1kw PSU would be nice too (as long as its black).
TIA
geek
But that's not what it says! It says that power not expressly granted to the federal level devolves to the state level or the people; thus if it is not expressly granted, it is illegal at the federal level.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Well, that's why the person seeking to find the anonymous person's details should be (and it would appear is) required to show that there is a falsehood in the first place, to the satisfaction of a judge. This means that only cases of at least some merit will get through at all. From there, the defendant can give evidence in their defence. Of course, the other thing would be to add "loser pays" costs to the system, so that you can't silence critics simply through suing with no prospect of victory.
Is this real or some cruel joke? Its rare to hear a ruling on rights that makes sence these days. Tuis is one of those occasions..
Give that judge a twinkee!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Justice Marshall, I must have missed the day at law school where they taught us we had the right under the Constitution to do anything not expressly prohibbited. This so called freedom to speak annonymously is a logical fallacy; the question is whether an intermediary can choose not to disclose one's identity. Generally speaking, they cannot, but the Courts can compell it. Nothing in the Constitution protects you from that.
... will be fired any moment now. Doesn't he know free speech helps terrorists!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The Constitution enumerates 17 powers that are always to be controlled by congress. However, you're forgetting the 18th Clause:
This is why the government has even been able to exist for 200+ years, not for any other reason. Specific guidelines become outdated, and therefore new guidelines must be established. Also, you're forgetting the restrictions in Section 9, which includes the Writ of Habeas Corpus (You are unable to be held without trial for an unreasonable amount of time), Ex Post Facto (Punishing a person for something they did before a law against it was established), and a few other various clauses.
In this case you are correct, however. Regulating free speech to this degree (Although I agree that there has to be some control: Screaming "FIRE!" in a crowed movie theater should be punished) does nothing but restrict the people that the Constitution is meant to protect.
You do realize that the precedent in US case law is that the bar for "slander" is much higher for politicians than for regular people? It's almost impossible to slander a politician, and its intentionally that way.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I hate when I hear people say, "I don't see that in the constitution so it must not be a right"
Whe the Bill of Rights was being debated, many thought it was a bad idea to list rights as no list they could think of would ever be a comprehensive list of a persons inherent and unalienable rights. Unfortunately to get the Constitution ratified it was necessary to include a Bill of Rights, so the Founding Fathers came up with the 9th Amendment, a way to say that these Amendments were in now way the complet list of your protected rights.
Today it seems most people have forgotten this.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
you are not obligated to prove your innocence. Instead, Bush would be required to prove your guilt.
Since libel is a civil matter, he would have to convince at least 3/4 of a jury that "a proponderance of evidence" exists.
There are many, many, many valid defenses against a libel suit (including both parody and truth), but if the plaintiff can't prove his case, you needn't say a thing in your own defense.
It is illegal for the federal government to regulate it.
It is legal for an individual to engage in the activity, as far as the federal government is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the GP was referring to the second option.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I don't even disagree with the court's decision here, but their reasoning -- appealing to the 1st Ammendment -- seems wrong.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I disagree that there has to be some control on speech.
I speak the word "fire" in a crowed movie theaters all of the time and nothing bad happens. I'm not screaming, I'm whispering to my friend, so there is no panic. Why should I be punished?
Learn the difference between speech and action. Speech should not be regulated. Action should be regulated.
I wish our congress critters would learn that too.
vb