Slashdot Mirror
Yale Students' Lawsuit Unmasks Anonymous Trolls
palegray.net writes "Two female Yale law school students have used the courts to ascertain the identities of otherwise anonymous posters to an Internet forum, with the intent of prosecuting them for hateful remarks left on the boards. At a minimum, the posters' future legal careers are certainly jeopardized by these events. While I'm not certainly not supporting or encouraging hateful speech online, these controversial actions hold potentially far-reaching consequences for Internet privacy policy and free speech." According to the linked Wired Law article, "The women themselves have gone silent, and their lawyers — two of whom are now themselves being sued — are not talking to the press."
How were they "substantially harmed"?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Considering that anonymous trolls have a tendancy to feed off of eachother, I would not be surprised if this whole case has the opposite of the desired effect. More anonymous trolls will probably blast them. If someone is going to seek damages for some absurd post by an anonymous troll, they should think hard about whether or not any real damage is being done.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Offence is one thing but comments like "I think I will sodomize her. Repeatedly" are in a different league.
What about the womens' rights to not feel threatened?
From the article and the court documents it appears that the plaintiffs are both "Jane Doe"s. That means that their identity was not explicitly known to everyone (else the Jane Doe ploy makes no sense) and that it is the supposed attacker's identity which is being exposed instead. Which makes the whole thing a legal equivalent of a tantrum (made possible by the fact that they were both law students). Libel is only applicable to a situation where some real person's reputation is being slandered by people who bid their credibility against the said person's. Which precludes anonymous attacks for they are not credible to begin with. If it were otherwise, the entire Internet would pretty much have to be shut down as nearly every forum on any topics on the planet contains phrases in the vain of "politician x is an idiot" by a poster named "Anonymous1213".
I think this points to how anonymity is *usually* used for evil
Really? C'mon... remember that next time you visit that medical web site to ask about that really embarrassing rash. You might want to be anonymous when inquiring about your options on terminating an unwanted pregnancy. You might also enjoy the anonymity when you visit those pr0n sites, when you criticize Scientology, when you're playing Unreal instead of working, when you visit that atheism web-site. When you bare your soul at an AA-type forum, you might not want your name on there. Or maybe you're blowing the whistle on your company's poisoning your town by publishing incriminating documents...
Anonymity on the Internet certainly has its downside, but I think it's one of the major features for why MANY millions of people use the Internet in the first place-- it can is a liberating, empowering experience to participate in open forums, chat rooms, etc. without fear of personal consequence. Yes, people say things that they would not say otherwise including libelous accusations and even threats... but I think the upside FAR outweighs the downside.
Posted anonymously, of course.
Unless of course the "identifiable group" happens to be Muslims and the person making the "hateful statements" in a national publication happens to be a Likudnik Zionist.
I don't mean "reasonable" in the legal sense, I mean in the normal sense of the word. Just based on what I read in TFA, their suit sounds completely unreasonable. That doesn't mean it won't be upheld in court, though.
Granted, but nobody really knows the details of the case just from reading the article, and so I couldn't judge either way. It will (and should) ultimately be left up to the courts. One does have to presume that the courts are "blind" (as in blind justice) and fair, but that is a different issue. Having somebody of the likes of "HitlerHitlerHitler" making statements about rape certainly is dubious and warrants investigation. Their may be stalking and libel issues involved, but that would be for the courts (and possibly even the police) to decide.
Yeah I'm big time into free speech, and I cannot accept farce and sarcasm as a legitimate form of uncensored communication. Harassment and libel however are different issues.
Best regards,
UTW
Best regards,
UTW
At the university where I served my sentence as an undergrad, the first time you plugged a computer into the campus network, you would be sent to a walled garden wherein you had to input various ID numbers and passwords.
Once you had done this, the campus network forever associated the MAC of that computer's network adapter with that student. You could plug that computer into any RJ45 jack on campus, and the network would know you and hold you responsible.
If one wanted to dissasociate the MAC from onesself, the process required paperwork.
Given how easy it is to change an MAC (even in XP,) I've always considered it something of a miracle that I never heard of anyone being impersonated and royally fucked---whether out of personal malice, or by someone just trying random MAC's to get a working network connection without exposing their own ass.
I shudder to think of what would have befallen someone who was victimized in that manner; how could they have even begun to prove their innocence? What if the MAC-impostor was trafficking in child porn?
I tend to think that assholes abusing anonymity is a small price to pay to avoid creating scenarios where the innocent can be screwed essentially without recourse.
In this case, everyone agrees that the "misogynists" are scoundrels. For my own part, I don't find the harm done to the women to be all that concrete and I don't find the danger to society to be all that abstract.
But they never made threats. The only thing that is mentioned that even remotely resembles a threat was the statement
"Women named Jill and Hillary should be raped."
1. There are a lot of women with those names. So this could not be considered a threat against any specific person.
2. It does not say they will be, or imply that they will be. The word "should" implies a statement of opinion, not intent.
While this may be offensive to the weak-minded, it is certainly not a threat.
Notice that the people who initially brought the lawsuit or their lawyers can't be reached. The lawyers (and the plaintiffs) need to be charged with filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Move along, no news here.
The solution? Give your children very common names. My wife is almost impossible to find online because her name is so common. When she was in high school, there were four or so other people with the same first and last name. One of them even had the same middle initial.
What about womens obligation to be REASONABLE beings?
In an internet forum, an anonymous post of:
"I think I will sodomize her. Repeatedly." is as harmless as me putting here on slashdot:
"I think Guillermo del Toro should make the hobbit with Hello Kitty drawings in mind" (hey, perhaps the second one is way worse!).
Yes, it will irk a geek/grl or two, but it would be UNREASONABLE to assume that I or the anonymous present ANY KIND OF danger to the girl or to The Hobbit.
Its just plain stupid.
NO SIG
The Washington law professor mentioned in this article, should be familiar to /. users from a previous work of his: "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"
Most importantly, anonymous communication is one of the last bastions of hope against a tyrannical state. The fact that nearly every tyranny that has ever existed sought to eliminate anonymous communication should tell us something. A free society is impossible without it.
No doubt, if the state could effectively criminalize anonymous communication, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If one pays attention to trends, one would notice that most of the world's governments are heading in this direction.
It's your right to be offensive. There are no laws against that.
It's my right to sue you for offending me. There are no laws against that, either.
Actually, yes, freedom of speech DOES and always has meant freedom from consequences. After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is "restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to, "you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad". Does "restricted speech" mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off their hands before they say something that might be banned?
Where you're confused is thinking that we actually have or ever had free speech. We're (in America, at least) supposed to be free from governmental consequences, but even that comes with a load of (all stupid) exceptions.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Not to mention the tendency of many slashdot members to begin their speeches with an insult to the parent poster's choice to remain anonymous, or to generally attempt to paint anonymous communication as a tool of malice rather than liberty. I can't believe how many otherwise intelligent people fall victim to this brand of mindless group-think, e.g. "I don't respond to anonymous posts", "anonymous posts aren't worth reading". Even when they have something to say that everyone desperately needs to hear? Really?
The end result is that by and large, anonymous speech is relegated to second-class (exactly how the religion of conformity would have it). Slashdot certainly isn't the only place where this kind of group-think occurs.
A thinking person would realize the value of anonymous communication and cherish it, rather than degrade it. A thinking person would realize that anonymous communication is one of the first prerequisites of freedom.
Here's where the hypocrisy comes in.
We know illegal felonious comments (threats of rape and murder) were allowed to remain posted on the website. We know the website administrators (including Ciolli) claim to have allowed those messages to remain posted in order to "protect" freedom of speech of the anonymous defendants. But why is freedom of speech OK in that case, but not OK when the Jane Does bring lawsuit against him? Was it because he suddenly found himself being dragged into the mix? Did he find out it was an awful thing having people making false accusations about him? Did he find out libel is NOT protected by freedom of speech after all?
He got a taste of what it's like to be libeled, slandered, and defamed in a horrid way and then suddenly changed his tune. He wanted to deny the Jane Does the freedom of speech and their freedom to bring lawsuit, but he didn't appear to be concerned about the harm caused by the messages posted by the defendants.
That's hypocrisy.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Actually, yes, freedom of speech DOES and always has meant freedom from consequences.
Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences when such speech does not infringe on other rights.
For example, your right to freedom of speech is trumped by my right to think you're an asshole.
Your right to freedom of speech is trumped by my right to not get killed in a stampede of people fleeing a theater because you yell 'Fire!'
Your right to freedom of speech is trumped by my right to not have knowingly false statements maliciously spread about me, especially if those statements cause permanent harm to my reputation/income/etc.
Your right to freedom of speech does not extend to telling the Chinese state secrets.
But, your right to freedom of speech apparently DOES allow you to trump my right to freedom of speech as long as you spend more money speaking than I do.
paintball
Okay. First of all, you realize that the Bill of Rights is actually the first ten amendments, right? The fact that there even are amendments should be enough to show that nothing in the Constitution is absolute!
:-)
Actually, the Constitution is considered a "living document." There are some that believe the Constitution to be enduring (Scalia being an example), but they are in the distinct minority. And even those extreme cases accept the use of amendments.
You may disagree with the unmasking of the punks that trashed these young women, but to deny that Freedom of Speech is not absolute is a bit odd.
Oliver Wendell Holmes' quote about "yelling fire in crowded theater" is the most common example of why these rights are not absolute, and rightfully so.
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Yes, these Jane Does sound like they feel entitled not to be threatened with rape.
That's rich, since the lawsuit alleges that the posters engaged in harassment. Wouldn't want them to be harassed.