Internet Defamation Suit Tests Online Anonymity

The Xoxo Reader writes "Reuters reports that two women at Yale Law School have filed suit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress against an administrator and 28 anonymous posters on AutoAdmit (a.k.a. Xoxohth), a popular law student discussion site. Experts are watching to see if the suit will unmask the posters, who are identified in the complaint only by their pseudonyms. Since AutoAdmit's administrators have previously said that they do not retain IP logs of posters, identifying the defendants may test the limits of the legal system and anonymity on the Internet. So far, one method tried was to post the summons on the message board itself and ask the defendants to step forward. The controversy leading to this lawsuit was previously discussed on Slashdot."

Comments

From TFA:

[Sunburnt]

The site's founder, Jarret Cohen, the insurance agent, said the site merely provides a forum for free speech. "I want it to be a place where people can express themselves freely, just as if they were to go to a town square and say whatever brilliant or foolish thoughts they have," Cohen said.

Except that isn't what you've created, you naive jackass. There is no anonymity in the town square: people speaking their "brilliant or foolish" (or slanderous and defamatory) thoughts are identifiable, and the repercussions for their actions can range from social disapproval to legal sanction. Blanket anonymity creates the exact fucking opposite environment from that of the town square. What Mr. Cohen has created rather resembles a public toilet. This is the same problem with news articles that rely entirely on anonymous sources to divulge personal details about the subject: how is the content any more credible than the random scrawlings of an interstate rest area?

Anonymity is one thing if there is the possibility of unjust sanction for free speech, as in the case of whistleblowing. But if major law firms are, apparently, making decisions about others' character based on a bunch of anonymous cowards on online forums, it just goes to show that no amount of expensive education can cure idiocy.

Of course, Congress is mostly a bunch of lawyers, and it's fun to imagine leading politicians being brought up on specious charges. Perhaps I'll have a change of heart if the president gets impeached, and the impeachment cites "A reputable source named Sunburnt on an anonymous Internet forum, who repeatedly asserts that the President secretly collaborates with the North Korean government."

Re:From TFA:

[morgan_greywolf]

Except that isn't what you've created, you naive jackass. There is no anonymity in the town square: people speaking their "brilliant or foolish" (or slanderous and defamatory) thoughts are identifiable, and the repercussions for their actions can range from social disapproval to legal sanction.

You are 100% correct. When are people going to learn that typing stuff and putting it out on the public Internet is the electronic equivalent of shouting things to the world? There is no anonymity; everything can be traced back to somebody given the time and resources. If you say something in writing and allow it to be published to the world in order to damage someone's reputation, that's libel. Pure and simple. Hiding behind a pseudonym doesn't make it legal or right. If you can't stand by what you say, then don't say it, least of all in a public forum!

Thank you, we now return to you to your normally-scheduled incoherent Slashdot ramblings.

Re:Serving the summons?

[Sunburnt]

Privacy has no place in a free society.

Really? I would assert that privacy is fundamental to the perpetuation of a free society. But this isn't an issue about privacy, it's about anonymity, which is different. I may privately think that another person molests children. I may even write this down in my diary, and I would maintain that it would be unethical for others to force me to reveal these completely private thoughts.

I certainly wouldn't have the ethical standing to publish this diary anonymously, however. Do you see the difference?

Re:Serving the summons?

[zarkill]

...or you're sitting there imagining horrors that aren't real to fill in the gaps of your ignorance and fear, and we need to get that sorted out right away before you do something stupid. This line of thought seems like exactly the reason privacy is important. Because apparently there are people who think that "imagining horrors" is something that needs to be "sorted out" by some higher authority.

Ok, so say I'm imagining some horrors. What then? What do you propose should be done to me, to "sort me out"? You're assuming that I'm going to "do something stupid" so are you suggesting that my "ignorance and fear" should be corrected preemptively?

If I'm prone to imagining horrors, should I be submitted to some kind of corrective therapy, against my will, just to be sure that my ignorance and fear don't get the better of me? Even if I never really would do "something stupid" about it? What's wrong with letting me have my ignorance and fear? Who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't think or imagine?

Frankly, I think a world where privacy is unneeded would be great, but in such a world everyone would have to mind their own business. As long as there are people who believe in thoughtcrime, and people who want to "sort you out" before you "do something stupid", I think maybe privacy is something we should hang onto for just a bit longer.

Re:Serving the summons?

[Sunburnt]

If you're sitting around thinking that so and so is molesting children, either they are indeed molesting children, and we need to get that sorted out right away before it happens again, or you're sitting there imagining horrors that aren't real to fill in the gaps of your ignorance and fear, and we need to get that sorted out right away before you do something stupid.

Strange. I would think that a free society would be one that cannot assume, based on a person's private thoughts, that said person would "do something stupid." Nor, for that matter, would a free society be one where people may be investigated based on the private, groundless suspicions of others. A free society is not one that seeks to deal with every paranoid instance of its members' private thoughts.

Now, if I periodically saw other peoples' crying children leave the individual's house, or saw illegal child porn on display after being invited into their house, I certainly would have an obligation to have this "sorted out right away." Fact is, people have groundless suspicions about things every day, and a society with the right to get to the bottom of every such suspicion - even when the suspicious person understands that there is no tangible certainty - is the opposite of free.

Re:Why would law firms read this stuff anyway?

[Hrothgar The Great]

If you were the most brilliantly qualified candidate ever to apply for a position at a big company, I doubt they would use random anonymous message board comments in their decision of whether or not to hire you; after all, they've learned enough about you through your resume and your interview - they don't need any further information.

Unfortunately, in the real world, most people applying for jobs, especially for nice jobs at big companies, have to compete with many other people with very similar qualifications. A manager might see some of these defamatory comments (some of which, according to the article, were work related) and decide not to bother with you because they have five other candidates without that baggage. That seems to be what happened in this case.

I'm not saying I agree with this as a hiring practice, by the way. I think it's bullshit, and you wouldn't catch me doing it if I were in a position to hire someone. It's unquestionable that it does happen out there, though.

Re:you're confused

[Sunburnt]

everyone is anonymous on the internet. you and i aren't posting as anonymous cowards, but we're still anonymous: all you know of me is my moniker, and a few tid bits of information about who i am that i choose to disclose which may or may not be true

Right. Now, if you should disclose anonymously that you have been giving my prospective bosses fraudulent information that negatively affects me materially, prepare to lose that anonymity at a judge's order, unless you're technically savvy enough to truly conceal your identity. I doubt that last condition applies to a bunch of idiot law students.

go ahead and view this thread with the cutoff point of -1 for posts. cheek to jowl with some high level intellignet and witty comments, you will find the most utterly retarded and ignorant asocial negative bullshit

I always read Slashdot at -1, in fact, and you're absolutely correct.

in other words, welcome to the internet. you should try to familiarize yourself a little more with your chosen subject matter. there is no such thing as an identity on the internet.

Thanks for presuming that I am unfamiliar with the Internet, but your contention is incorrect. One's real ID is certainly traceable in most instances from an online posting, given the proper court authority and technology.

Also, we do have some form of ID on Slashdot. Mine's "Sunburnt (890890)". When you read a post and see my ID at the top, you might recall previous posts of mine and think, "Hey, this guy's usually pretty sharp and probably onto something here, I should credit this more than most other posts" or "Hey, this guy's usually a total jackass and is probably lying about everything in this post." On the other hand, if I post anonymously, you can't even look at my comment history to make such a determination. The concept of anonymity can be applied to varying degrees in diverse situations.

so rather than some rather naive and idealistic individuals expecting that all human speech somehow become only good on the internet,

How did you get that conviction out of my comments? I'm a bit too misanthropic to ever expect such a thing.

maybe instead some of you, like these litigious law students, need to develop a higher level of tolerance to simple pointlessly negative and useless juvenile snark...when you use a rest stop on the highway, and you see the retarded commentary on the walls, does it devastate you? emotionally damage you? no. you just roll your eyes and forget about it 10 seconds later. so why would the snarky juvenile idiocy damage you on the internet?

RTFA. The plaintiffs are specifically alleging material damages as a result of the posts in question. If anyone in this situation needs to adjust their credibility detectors, it's probably the hiring managers who apparently take this sort of juvenile shit-slinging seriously. (Not hard to believe, given their profession.)