Slashdot Mirror
Hospital Wants Critical Blogger's Anonymity Ended
rs232 sent in a link to this story about one's right to privacy, which opens: "An unlikely Internet frontier is Paris, Texas, population 26,490, where a defamation lawsuit filed by the local hospital against a critical anonymous blogger is testing the bounds of Internet privacy, First Amendment freedom of speech and whistle-blower rights."
"Or else he'll end up in the hospital!"
If he's spewing false information, then libel is libel. He can and should be punished. Just because he's on the intarwebz doesn't mean he has immunity.
On the other hand, if he's telling the truth, the hospital has no case.
I don't see what the big deal is.
46487 466780 252994 376409 96920 39622 205366 244315 622115 512361 668040 63608 259203 955314 811176 652718 166330 23922
That was one of the reasons that I would previously let doctors post anonymously on carotids.com. Medical systems are huge, reputation-based systems. If a hospital doesn't have a good community name, people will take their personal business elsewhere. So hospitals will sue and sue to protect their reps.
Carotids has not thrived even with anonymous postings because docs are still scared. I still get frequent contacts with people considering posting... however, most never pull the trigger.
Sad.
IF that is true, then there absolutely needs to be an investigation. I'm all for allowing folks to honestly criticize care and use medical documentation that was authorized by the patient, but getting it without patient authorization?! I would have a problem with the employees that gave it to him. If the blogger is on to something, then he should approach the patients involved and ask them for the information. In this day of litigation, I'm sure most patients would jump on board for the chance of suing for $$$.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
"Fox said Essent's biggest concern is that the blogger has said some hospital employees have given him patient records. Even though they have not been posted on the blog, Fox said this represents a violation of federal law and the company needs to find the employees who are doing it."
If he hasn't posted them on the blog, how are they so certain he's been given patient records?
This sounds to me like maybe some of the employees told him something, probably *without* giving him access to the patient records, and possibly without any specifics (e.g., "we had a patient where x happened, and that was messed up"), and the company is crying 'he's been given medical records!' to make it seem like they have a better reason to get the employee names than they actually do.
If the blogger's accusations turn out to be false, the blogger's credibility will fall down like those wacky conspiracy theorists. Case closed. And if they turn to be true, cool, one point for justice.
;-)
But certainly I don't think the blogger should be arrested for libel unless he gives his name and accuses the hospital. See, he's anonymous and his credibility is null. Big deal.
I mean, it's like the rumour about a Coca Cola bottle with a rat inside. Nobody can verify it, and it's just hearsay. Or what about the people who say there are UFOs in Area 51? Are they going to get sued for libel, too?
Around 10 years ago, where a famous news agency reported on the Chupacabra according to some information they found "in the internet!" (lol). Gee, the internet became the Brittanica all of a sudden
If people start believing every freaking thing they see on the internet, then the problem isn't the blogger, or the hospital. It's the bunch of idiots behind the monitors of their compies. Why should people believe an ANONYMOUS blogger? Or everyone's guilty until proven innocent now?
It's the authorities' duty, not ours, to judge the hospital.
All you say is true but so what. Why should people who criticize have an expectation of anonymity or escape libel charges? Were assured free speech by our constitution but that is emphatically not an assurance of anonymous speech. We (in the US) are free to associate with whom we please and exclude reporters. But if we do say something publicly it becomes public.
The fact that someone might fear retribution does not hold. People are obligated to testify in trials even though they might fear retribution. They don't testify anonymously. We do recognize extreme circumstances and conditions liable for abuse. That's why there's such things as the whistleblower protections laws and witness protection programs. But those are not for everyone.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
All things being equal, I would agree; it's not a private institution's job to enforce federal regulation.
However, HIPPA is a very fucking scary piece of legislation. If the hospital isn't doing EVERYTHING in its power to determine who's leaking this information, the patient and/or the patient's family (or survivors) can sue the hospital into oblivion. It's in the hospital's financial interest to destroy this guy by any means necessary (both because they'll lose business from negative publicity and the fear of a civil suit); whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' never enters into the discussion.
This leaves aside the fact that the hospital should actually FIX things if they don't like what's being said (and if it's even partially true). It's kind of like the RIAA trying to solve the problem of declining record sales; instead of fixing what's wrong (the product sucks, CDs are an order of magnitude too expensive), they try to use the courts to enforce the status quo.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
That way if they are unattractive they can be sued into poverty.
And if they are hawt, they can be made into media darlings.