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
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.
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
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.
> ...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
The courts aint going to protect you from getting "wacked" by a crooked public official.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
I've often wondered, but never actually bothered to look up: what IS the deal with Speakers' Corner? For those who don't know, it's a place in one of London's parks where people with axes to grind traditionally get up on their soapboxes to harangue the passers-by. I seem to remember hearing that there was some old mediaeval law protecting absolutely their right to do so - this from way back when free speech was something of a rarity - but I'm not certain of this.
Basically, is it still slander if you say it at Speakers' Corner? I know that what is said inside Parliament is immune to these laws, and I'm wondering if the same applies here.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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."
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.
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
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
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."
There's also the "no man is an island" factor. Say enough unpopular things and you'll soon find yourself unpopular; while in high school all that got you was a wedgie, in the real world it will keep you from earning a living. Speaking your mind may be your right, but take into account that companies don't like to hire/do business with people who are controversial, no matter what particular politics or topics are involved; it's bad for business. Plus most employers have the attitude that they own your opinions 24/7 because they pay you a salary; say disparaging things about the people who sign your checks (regardless of whether they're based in provable fact or are only opinion and represented as such) and you'll soon stop collecting them. IMHO not fair, or right, but that's how it is.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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.
Right, because only cowards publish anonymously.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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.
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.
As a resident Londoner ou are correct. Speakers Corner is located in Hyde Park in London and various lunatics congregate there on Sundays to generally spout dribble and have argument with random onlookers. Its not terribly serious, and can actually be quite fun if you enjoy arguing with trolls and idiots(and if your a slashdotter Im thinking you probably do :) )
All well and good unless you're a Jew in Nazi Germany. The ability to speak anonymously can be usefull.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
But that aside: if you've got something to say have the guts to put your name to it.
So your name is really CountBass? Did your parents have sense of humor?
A few influential people may disagree with your assertion.
"The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. "
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/