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."
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.
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.
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.
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.