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."
I don't feel comfortable posting a comment.
This is not a free speech issue - the posters made threatening and offensive comments, inlcuding suggesting that they would assault/rape the female students.
These comments would not be tolerated in any other setting so why should they be tolerated online?
Hateful speech is not illegal. False claims that substantially harm a person ARE illegal under slander/libel law. This law applies whether the comments are online or on the playground.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
TFA makes it sound like these women are all upset because some asshat on the internet made a comment about how some women should be raped. Now, granted, that's an asshole thing to say, but if that's all that is going on here, they have no reasonable grounds to be suing. It's someone's right to be an asshole, for better or for worse.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
This is a pretty straightforward bit of libel...Even on the internets you have to be careful if you're explicitly slandering someone by name.
Illegal is illegal, and if these monkeys were dumb enough to put up all this crap under handles that they accessed from their homes, then they're screwed, and it's hard to see how they ought not be.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
This will almost certainly keep them out of the state Bar for a long period of time if not indefinitely. Even legally protected speech can be grounds for denial of bar membership.
Hmmmm?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Internet privacy policy
Expect none
Free Speech
Slander and libel are illegal
Just about covers those two concerns.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Slashdot sucks and all it's users deserve to be raped. Before you mod me flamebait, consider the implications of such an action. Ordinarily, on the internet, people are able to ignore the trolls. And we've all seen how many times non-troll comments get modded troll for reasons only apparent to the moderator. Although this comment is clearly flamebait, there are other cases where it isn't so black-and-white. I think this kind of decision by the court could allow abuse by anyone who wants to supress speech critical of them. I could see Apple's lawyers trying to use this as precedent to unmask people complaining about their iPhone development policies, for example.
The problem is... it is.
Companies are going to great lengths to search for anything particularly incriminating on people that are applying for a job, and when you're starting out in a law firm - where your basically doing bitch work anyway, and your #1 job is fitting in - anything that they could find that could make a person look bad is going to be held against them. No one has any privacy left anymore, so things that used to get passed off as "kids being kids" have long-reaching consequences later in life. I cry for that.
With all that said, no, I don't think that this case sets a good precedent. The fault here is anyone that would listen to anonymous slander and use it against the women in question for any reason.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
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.
Sister Bernice always warned me that things were going to Go On My Permanent Record.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
This classic "slippery slope" argument is baseless.
Calling for the rape of two women is hateful. There is no gray area here. There's nothing sacred about this "speech" that deserves to be protected, nor do the authors deserve any protection. Racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression need to be rooted out of society. Allowing these hateful ideas to be propagated anonymously is harmful to society and the oppressed minorities they target.
Revealing the identities of the authors isn't going to lead to the widespread revocation of people's free speech rights. However, it might just teach some neanderthals to keep their disgusting mouths shut.
> a reply claiming "she has herpes."
That's per se libel so long as it counts as a "loathsome disease" and identifies a specific person. Which is, per my understanding, the case here.
I thought these were law school students? They're screwed. They have no defense if they can prove who made comments like that.
Using that logic I can make any speech illegal and exposed to retribution. Either Free Speech is an absolute right, or it is no right at all -- there is surprisingly little gray area in -between.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Even before Autoadmit was around and he was in HS and college. Talk about someone who should be sodomized. If you can get the stick out of the way first.
When this came around the first time, I was not at all surprised he was involved.
When that hateful remark is libel.
And, I want to point out some of the statements:
The thread included messages such as, "I think I will sodomize her. Repeatedly" and a reply claiming "she has herpes."
These are by far more than hateful remarks.
What does being a woman have to do with anything? Isn't that a bit sexist in itself? Why aren't *all* people's rights more important? Why only women?
So you can post whatever you want under the guise of anonymity, full stop? Free speech has never meant freedom from consequences. Forgetting that is a dire mistake to make.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
As long as the anonymous troll trolls with other anonymous trolls, everything is fine. These idiots were smearing the real names of future competitors in order to ruin their careers before they even have started.
I personally can't wait until the top entry in google on their names will be "got sued by Jane Doe for defamation", together with a link to their highly professional statements. I'm sure it will greatly enhance their careers in the fast food industry.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
Fucking bitches.
If he's allowed to say those things, then her father/brother/boyfriend should be allowed to brutally murder the AC to protect her from rape (he did say he'd rape her). We (society) afford you rights and place limits on those rights, in exchange we protect you from your fellow man. Them's the rules. "God" didn't give us any rights, your rights are, in practice, what society decides your rights are. Often I disagree with society, but not in this case.
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.
Dear Sir, We almost have your identity. Sincerely, Nosy Lawyers
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Granted, hate speech is a somewhat subjective issue,
What body is going to decide what exactly is hate speech on the Internet?
Oddly enough, there is a body whose job is to determine the facts on matters that are somewhat subjective, and alledged to be harmful. That body is called "a jury."
No one has any privacy left anymore
Privacy starts at home, kids. If you don't want a future employer seeing pictures of you drunk and naked at a frat party, don't put them on the internet!
Seriously, the biggest privacy problem we have these days is people thinking that everything is private unless they explicitly make it public, but reality doesn't work that way. Nobody goes walking down the street naked, then claims their privacy was violated when people looked at them. Well, the internet is no different. If you want something on the internet kept private, you have to make it private, otherwise it's public.
http://www.mhall119.com
...please be careful with phrases like "womens' rights to not feel threatened."
No one has the right to not feel threatened. Under most circumstances you have the right to not be harmed, and under some circumstances you have the right to not be threatened. But there is a lot of jurisprudence about "true threats" that suggests a threat must be credible (among other things) before you have a right to silence someone or claim damages against them.
I don't know the context of this "threat", not having read the forum in question, but what do these women do when someone says "Fuck you" to them at a party or driving a car? Do they go running for a lawyer? In both cases, the threat would be much more credible than some anonymous net poster.
Infuriate left and right
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"
I think you are missing the point. This isn't about suing for being offended, or using the law to hit back at someone for saying something mean. The anonymous postings in question clearly meet the legal threshold for libel (accusing someone of having an STD is automatically considered libel without proof of damages in most jurisdictions, I believe), and may meet the legal threshold for threats. These are actions which have been illegal, and legally punishable, for centuries. That they take place on the Internet makes no qualitative difference, and shouldn't.
It is standard and reasonable for courts to issue subpoenas in order to ascertain the identity of someone who has broken the law.
The main differences here from printed libel to online libel are 1) that the publisher (owner of the web site) is, in many cases, likely to be off the hook, because hosts of online forums are not usually considered responsible for what those forums contain unless they control their contents (or fail to respond to DMCA requests); and 2) the reasonable expectation of damages is actually higher than it would be in print-- consider that, say, a New York Times op-ed that appeared only in print form and accused you of something vile and damaging to your reputation might be read by a few hundred thousand people and remain forever unread by all 6 billion or so people who never happen to encounter that day's paper. With the expectation that any potential employer will Google your name to see what turns up, however, the audience for online public libel is unlimited.
I don't see anything unreasonable or controversial here; the only thing wrong was originally including the host of the web site in the lawsuit, which probably was an understandable mistake given that we don't have many years of precedent yet for who is responsible in what sorts of online offenses.
I would submit that you are the new poster child for the pussification of America.
If it was Princeton then I'd be shocked. But Yale? I expect that kind of behavior Yale and the other clown colleges.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another
"so things that used to get passed off as "kids being kids" have long-reaching consequences later in life. I cry for that."
Have you ever considered, that's exactly what human beings need? Human beings are so repressed, shallow, and cheap that perhaps it finally force us to come to terms with our darker side, and passions other people would consider vile. I'm sure there is a lot of unpopular sexual fantasies, not to mention forms of social organization out there that people want to realize.
Well, it was. Now, of course, it's fucked...
With respect, I disagree. Law firms, particularly "prestigious" corporate firms, are notoriously risk-averse and likely would not hire someone who had "achieved" net notoriety, no matter how smart or otherwise qualified. I would assume that most potential hires are vetted at the least through a google search, if not a more detailed Lexis investigation.
If you were a blue chip firm, would you take the risk of hiring one of these women? Imagine your multi-million dollar client does a search on your new associate's name -- even just looking for phone number -- and comes up with a sordid sex story instead. Wow.... there's a real risk that you have just damaged the relationship with that client. Just as one example -- look at the Department of Justice's search on potential attorney hires. Now the DOJ was illegally considering political affiliation, not net fame, but the principle is the same: defamatory net stories would likely have prohibited these women from being considered.
That big firms are risk averse is hardly surprising. In fact, risk-aversion/paranoia is what -- in theory anyway -- is what makes an $x00 an hour lawyer worth paying for.
Note: this is also why I left a wanna-be big firm after a couple years. Who wants to work in an environment like that? But certaintly these women have the right to experience the hell of Big Firm life for themselves, and should not have had their careers permanently damaged because of a couple of idiots decided to slander them for fun.
It is a post to an online web forum. If anything the people running that forum should be the ones being sued. If the comments were that far out of line they should have been removed by the people running that forum.
People in general need to grow up and realize that not everyone in the world is going to agree with you or like you. Many will even hate you for what ever their reason. That is life, get used to it.
If an online forum can trash your chances of getting your career going, then that speak volumes for society. And not in a good way.
Flame away.
If you leave a bomb anonymously we'd all want you tracked.
Both hate speech and the bomb are an attack. So why not, freedom of speech shouldn't really enter into it unless what is said is true.
So if they posted something true as a judge that would be my requirement. Show me that it is a lie in which case I'll pass the order to bring them to be held accountable. Otherwise if it is truth well pants you can't sue over the truth (can you?)
Besides when was it freedom of anonymous speech?
Presumably, the women were as anonymous as the trolls
RTFA
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.
No, you got it wrong. You can post whatever you want, full stop. Which part of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" you don't understand?
Every aspect of the Bill of Rights comes with a big ole asterisk. (Freedom of Speech/*Hate Speech, Right to Bear Arms/*Fully Automatics, etc. etc.)
This has never been true with using "anonymous forums" on the Internet, really.
For example, someone just recently commented on Craigslist's "Rants & Raves" forum how his brother was paid a visit by "Homeland Security" here in the USA, because he had posted an anonymous comment advocating the shooting of the current president.
Anonymous message forums I've seen and used never gave me a written guarantee that my identity would never be subject to being uncovered if I posted there. They merely function anonymous as a matter of "general practice", subject to the prevailing laws of the land.
IMHO, anyone posting hate speech or directly attacking people by name on an "anonymous" forum should be aware that they better use methods of their own to ensure they can't be traced back by IP address to their whereabouts. Relying on the forum to "shield" them from the law is a risky bet, at best.
"Whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching."
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
No it doesn't. That is why we are in the FUBARed situation we are in. The Founding Fathers forgot to say that they meant the rights to be absolute. Unfortunately, the anti-Federalists were right and should be revered for their wisdom.
I'm not sure those two are analogous. Without having reread the case, I seem to recall that the women in question did not seek out the forums in question. Their pictures were put on the board, and then the comments started flying. When they then joined the board, (again, afair) seeking to have the pictures removed, they were then subject to even harsher comments, including the rape ones.
You, on the other hand, have joined the game yourself, and aditionally you have joined the chat, which is an optional extra, of your own volition. Aditionally, while "I'm going to rape you" might be a breach of conduct on Xbox Live (I don't know if this is the case), in most fps' this is the 'norm' where you attempt to psyche out your opponent. No adult of a reasonable mind will expect the speaker to seek out your address (is this even possible through Xbox Live?) and hunt you down.
However, on this board, not only were the women's pictures posted, their names and addresses were posted, and considering the vitriol spewed forth on the boards, even I, being a VERY common sense kind of guy, would not put it beyond the assholes and idiots* on the boards to actually following through on their threats**
Of course, I'm not in any way, shape or form a lawyer or had any law training. Hell, I'm not even from the US.
* In my humble and non-medical/-psychological opinion, since I am not refering to mental retardation
** Considering the writing, the constant agitation by the other posters etc, I do not consider the comments "innocent", "joking", "ironic", "sarcastic" or even "humourous"
Just as important - the court found in favour of the plaintiffs, so obviously the judge (jury?) found the threats to be credible and the derogatory comments to be libel. If you do not like that ruling, you need to write your congressmen and tell them why. Don't email, don't fax. Send them a physical letter, preferably handwritten. At least that's what the usual comments on the subject around here advices.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
There's actually a huge grey area. Time, place and manner are frequently taken into consideration by courts, as well as the content or commerciality of the speech, and the target of the speech, and the person doing the speaking. Free speech and first amendment rights are always brought up when a city wants to restrict sex-based businesses. However, since they're seen as commercial, that speech has less value in the public forum than a debate on our government's public policy. Governments can therefore, regulate the proper time and place for obscene or inappropriate speech (no adult bookstores within 500 foot of a school or church). Also, the manner of the speech can be regulated also. Public airwaves, i.e. radio and broadcast TV can be regulated by he FCC because the airwaves are a public resource and are leased by the federal government. That's why they can require mature material to be aired after 9:00. They also used to require a set amount of material to "benefit the public good", which is why radio and TV would air church services late saturday night and Sunday mornings, and why there were so many PSAs. Those rules have since been relaxed, but the rationale is still used. Public protests, even political ones, are frequently moved to protest areas, or required to have parade permits. This is to ensure that the protests don't cause a public nuisance or hazard. The same thing goes for the infamous "fire" in a crowded theatre.
There's whole books written on commercial speech - what's true (100 calories per serving), what's false (microsoft eats babies) , and what's puffery (Ford trucks are the greatest). Commercial speech gets less protection because it's used to sell things - not further the public discourse.
The New York Times Supreme Court Case re: Free speech held that when a public official was being criticized, the newspaper only had to refrain from saying things that it knew or should have known were false. Other cases have said that when the defamed person wasn't a public figure (i.e. a public official, a celebrity, or a person who sought the public eye), the bar against defamation was lower than when considering defamation against a non-public figure. And simply saying "Joe has herpes" may not be libel, depending on the context. Someone doing a comedy routine making jokes about Joe who says that Joe has herpes wouldn't be libel because no one would take it seriously - there's no "defamatory sting". You say that Joe has herpes in the middle of a medial report on NPR and it's probably defamation. That's why Howard Stern always has someone laughing at everything he says, to get people to thing it's a joke. And just stating that something's an opinion doesn't remove the slander - it's what people actually think that matters.
And don't forget, the truth is always a defense to a charge of defamation - if Joe has a cold sore and I write a story about how Joe has herpes, well, too bad for Joe, because it's true that Joe has herpes.
Regarding the threats, the common law varies from state to state, but you usually need a pattern of harassment or the imminent threat of harm. Standing in front of someone with a gun saying "I'm going to kill you" would likely be threatening, whereas saying it on the internet probably wouldn't because there's no imminent threat of bodily harm. (In New York, the person actually has to make some physical motion indicating that they are about to harm you - as my Torts professor used to say "words alone are not enough").
How is their right to freedom of speech being violated? They're not being censored. As noted above, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences, but you seem to be ignoring that and saying it does.
And you just insulted them. I think you're proving their point. you seem to think you can hide behind anonymity and say whatever you want. What if you couldn't? I can guarantee you that if you called me a bitch on an internet board and lived anywhere near me you'd get punched in the face. Clearly, what you're advocating is that your identity be protected. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Why not? Just because you'd rather it wasn't? What if a lot of other people don't feel the same way? Because a lot of people don't. And before you start calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid and trying to make out like they're morally wrong for not allowing you to get off scot-free with abusing people online anonymously, I have to wonder why you so apparently want to make sure that you can still troll others and keep your identity a secret.
In short, grow up. If you don't have the guts to say something and let it be known that you said it, you should keep it to yourself in the first place.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Well, I'm sure the day will come that even fast food joints will check up on their applicants. Just how many places do you think will want to hire someone to work alongside women and serve food to women, when they have repeatedly not only shown themselves to be womenhaters, but actively threatened to rape them repeatedly in the ass?
My guess is "not many".
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
If you don't want a future employer seeing pictures of you drunk and naked at a frat party, don't put them on the internet!
And what's to stop someone else from posting that pic of you drunk and naked at the frat party?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
That's the best analogy I've ever seen on /. that didn't involve a car. Seriously.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Freedom of speech not withstanding -
If you're not willing to put your name on it, it is probably not worth writing.
Normally I would agree with you, but you are misinformed about what really happened (I admit the article doesn't say much).
This story has been on slashdot a few times. Here's what really happened, if I remember correctly:
- Guys posts pictures of women and comment on the forum (she's a 9! she's a 4! such a bitch i'd rape her! etc.)
- Women ask site owner to remove pictures and offending comments
- Site owner laughs at them, and informs posters that the women in question asked for the pictures to be removed
- Guys don't like it ; they literally start stalking these girls, take more pictures of them (at the gym?), and start posting threats.
- Women sue.
Read this again. These girls got stalked and threatened. I don't care if it's on the internet or elsewhere ; when someone stalks you, takes pictures, and threatens to assault and rape you, it is wrong, and these women have a case. The whole thing about it affecting their career etc was only true at the beginning (the first pictures and comments posted). This thing got a lot more serious afterwards.
Privacy starts at home, kids.
What if you are home and Google Street View is in your driveway looking in your backyard or your window?
Hate speech is fully protected speech, unless uttered in a way as to provoke immediate violence (and even then, it's not the speech per se, but the intent to incite violence, that is the crime). Fully automatic weapons would have been protected by the second amendment in any rational world, since the context is clearly the right to bear military arms.
The big ole asterisks are flagrant violations of the constitution, not exceptions to it.
If we don't want people walking down the street with AK-47s and RPG7s and surface-to-air missiles, we should amend the constitution, not pretend it doesn't say what it obviously says.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Anonymity can be used to prevent otherwise unlawful repercussions. It doesn't much matter that Congress makes no law if the moment you blow the whistle on the local police department, you get indefinitely harassed with bogus, trumped up charges.
Anonymity can be an important part of free speech. The line between it being necessary and harassment is very fine, indeed. Usually, it depends upon who the speaker is talking about.
In order to claim slander, there are two prerequisites: first, the allegations must be false, second, someone must believe the allegations to be true. Unless they can prove there is someone somewhere stupid enough to believe in anonymous posts they read on the internet, there are no consequences to that trolling.
That's oversimplifying to a huge degree.
First of all, there are slightly different laws in different states. I'm not sure what the laws in this case are. If they are as you say, then fine, ignore the rest of this post.
A defamation claim can be made for just about any reason. If someone says something negative about you, you can take them to court for it. You've laid out the common defenses to a defamation claim--if it's the truth, in the US, you'll probably lose the case. If it's not true, generally, you have to prove that there was malicious intent. Believability is only one aspect of malicious intent. A statement could be slanderous without being believable ("Jane Doe kills puppies for Satan!"). Of course, if you are a celebrity, you have a higher burden of proof. Now, the alleged slanderer must have knowingly lied. If the guy heard from another guy that I (a celebrity) fucked a goat, and they publish it, I probably won't win the suit.
One of the most common defenses against such suits is that the person was stating an opinion. That's a whole separate can of worms. It's all really quite complicated.
In this case, it sounds like the trolls were making statements with the intent to defame competition, so that the trolls would get opportunities that these Jane Does would otherwise have received. I have no doubt that the Janes will win, unless the trolls made it quite clear that they were expressing opinion, and weren't attempting to state facts about the Janes.
Problem with this statement "Don't put them on the internet" is this - many of these photos on the internet were not posted by the individual claiming a desire for privacy.
Facebook is a horrifying example of this. I have a friend who's facebook photos are nice and clean and show him as he (99% of the time) is. Shown right below that are the 300+ photos in which friends have tagged his face in so that people know they are of him. So... the 1% of his life in the last 3 years in which he made mistakes and did things that look ridiculous (wearing a bra on a dare, that type of stuff), are now plastered on the internet, and he cannot do anything about it.
So... yes, true privacy is dead. Long live the False Sense of Privacy.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Huh? Okay, let's do a little experiment here. You must have a female relative or acquaintance somewhere who can get online. Now, send her an email or post on a forum she visits a lot of insults and threaten to assault/rape her. Indicate that you know who she is in real life. See how she reacts.
Now, try to imagine how you'd feel if exactly that happened to a woman you happen to care about, like, say, your mom or a sister. "Idle threats"? Sure, a threat to rape your mom or sister might be idle, but I'd bet you'd take it seriously. I know that if it were me and I found out who he was, I'd want his ass in jail for threatening me with bodily harm. It's little different from a guy calling you and telling you he's coming to your house to rape you. Simply put, it's not a matter of childish threats. It would be pretty damn scary, in fact.
Christ, the number of guys here defending these guys rights to threaten women online makes me wonder how many wannabe-rapists there are on slashdot. If I ever meet any of you in real life, keep in mind that I'm a redneck from the southern US and I will shoot you if you try anything. Yeah, we get a little upset when rape threats start flying around. What did you expect, them (or me) to just giggle and ask if we can get you another beer? Jesus.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Most of the time the person who is drunk and naked at a frat party isn't the one posting pictures on the internet. It would be impossible to count the number of times an ex-boyfriend post a passionate private video to an online porn site, or a passerby post a youtube video of an embarrassing moment.
Of course, people need to be careful about where and when they get drunk and stupid (never?) and who they allow to video them doing the nasty (no one,) but that doesn't make it right to post private moments, nor does it mean that the victims of that kind of invasion of privacy deserve the consequences.
If anything, I think it's a problem with our society that we are so ready to ostracize someone for being human. Most of us have done some stupid things we regret. Those that have not are either lieing or boring as hell. Few of us were caught on video doing it.
Libel != freedom of speech.
If you damage someone because you knowingly made false statements about them, they can sue for compensation of those damages.
You must be new here...
If I ever meet any of you in real life, keep in mind that I'm a redneck from the southern US and I will shoot you if you try anything.
Now who's making threats? Should you go to jail?
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And what's to stop someone else from posting that pic of you drunk and naked at the frat party?
Errr....I dunno, perhaps you taking charge for your own actions and not getting drunk and naked at a frat party?
One thing we should have learned by now, damned cameras are everywhere. Either take responsibility for your own actions, or expect the inevitable to happen.
It is pretty serious.
While I'm not certainly not supporting or encouraging hateful speech online[...]
I think the writer wrote this because they're a covetous Jew and they don't want anyone stealing their Jew gold.
It's been a long time.
This is not about privacy. It is also not, as the submitter wants us to think, about "Freedom of Speech".
Freedom of speech is the right to say what you think if you don't thereby infringe on other people's higher valued rights (by committing libel). It's not the right to hide behind a false identity and make libelous claims.
It is also not "privacy" to go out in public, use a fake name and yell something, independent of whether it's true or not.
Privacy is the right to decide for yourself how much of the "things you don't do in public" becomes public (that's a vague definition, given).
There is no reason to protect the identity of trolls. There is a reason to protect their right to say their honest opinion, however stupid it may be -- but not their wish to make libelous claims and go unpunished.
I don't know the context of this "threat", not having read the forum in question
There's your first problem - before passing judgment, it would be good to do at least a bit of cursory research.
but what do these women do when someone says "Fuck you" to them at a party or driving a car? Do they go running for a lawyer? In both cases, the threat would be much more credible than some anonymous net poster.
And there's your second problem - in spite of admitting that you've read nothing about this, including apparently the article, you're ready to make ad hominem attacks.
On the off chance you read this, the grandparent poster was wrong - the threats were graphic and specific, listing the girls' names, photos, and class and gym schedules. That becomes a credible threat.
"unless uttered in a way as to provoke immediate violence "
Which is exactly why it should always be protected.
As soon as an argument starts, someone says what the other person said is hate speech to get off the hook of attacking them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You've got the dumbest interpetation of freedom of speech I've ever seen.
If certain speech isn't regulated, then how can one be punished for it? If it's not censored, then how come you're being charged? It's axiomatic. In order to punish someone for saying something, their free speech must be abridged, or no infraction took place. In order for free speech to be abridged, you must have punishment for violations, or no abridgement took place.
It's been a long time.
Other people will put pictures of you, drunk and naked, on THEIR web pages.
The right way to keep your reputation clean is not to try to hush up everything you do, but not to do things that reflect badly on you in the first place... duh.
I piss off bigots.
Wait a minute. THE Sancho fucked a goat? I've gotta go tell my friends!
You are absolutely wrong. Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. If someone will take action against you for saying something, then you aren't free to speak.
The government is legally required to respect your freedom of speech; they cannot fine, imprison, harrass, or otherwise act against you because of something you have said. However, only the government is required to respect your freedom of speech; private people can do whatever they want in response to what you've said, so long as they don't break the law. For example, if you say something that I find offensive, I may refuse to hire or do business with you. I can do this because (a) I could legally have done it even if you had kept quiet, and (b) I am a private person, not part of any government.
In this case, a court has taken action against posters: it has revealed their identities, thus exposing them to harassment and other consequences from private parties. Since the court is a government agency, it can't do that.
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.
All bans on weapons(guns or otherwise) have done throughout history is create a victim society, mainly due to the fact that the people they are trying to keep from getting said weapons will have them anyways. They aren't going to care that they aren't supposed to have them.
This part I would call "wishful thinking". Allowing weapons to everyone has never minimized the number of victims. Theories saying that it should do so have been brought forward several times, and some of them actually sound pretty logical. But they all have collided with that strange thing named "reality" and crashed badly.
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
It shouldn't. However, I would suggest there are times when society and our good senses should over rule law. You don't sue every person who wanders into your yard for damaging your property (grass/landscaping), nor do you sue everyone who threatens to beat you up. I think if there was more credibility to the accusations of herpes or more of an indication of a real threat, I would sympathize more with this case. Instead, from what is written in TFA this sounds like Encyclopedia Dramatica style trolling. It's best to just let assholes be assholes until they actually do something to harm you. Otherwise you will waste your entire life fighting with assholes.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
So you are claiming there's no such thing as ban on assault rifles, and the right to bear arms in unconditional and absolute? That's why we have constitutional law--because nothing is absolute.
You hate people with opinions? After you spout off four lines of your own opinion of how the Bill of Rights are to be interpreted? My whole point is that your opinion and my opinion don't matter, because I'm just going to assume that you aren't a constitutional lawyer (and I know I'm not one).
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.
Of course a court can take action based on speech. What do you think happens in a defamation suit?
You sound like you're against this result, but your argument supports it. No one said these guys don't have a right to say disgusting shit, but their statements were lies or threats or calls to harassment or other things that have no merit and are wholly intended to be harmful to specific people.
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.
Let's see if I can follow your logic here. Pseudo-Anonymous people on a blog post photos, home address, email addresses, telephone numbers, and full legal names, of women accompanied by death threats and rape threats. That's perfectly ok.
The women seek to have the identities of the people who posted their identities revealed, that's horrible and makes them asswipes?
Can you explain where you're coming from here, because honestly I'm not following you. Why is it ok for the "let's rape the bitches" crowd to post the names and other personal information of the women, but it isn't ok for us to know the identities of the people doing the posting?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
No it doesn't. That is why we are in the FUBARed situation we are in. The Founding Fathers forgot to say that they meant the rights to be absolute. Unfortunately, the anti-Federalists were right and should be revered for their wisdom.
So you've interviewed Mr. Jefferson have you? Mr. Adams told you from the grave "d'oh! I knew there was something I left out!!".
Forgive the sarcasm, but I'm trying to point out that you are making an assumption of the Founding Fathers intent was based on what your personal desires are.
IMO our Constitution is so amazing not for what it says, but for what it leaves out and makes us figure out for ourselves, every decade or so. This ensures it is a living document, continually updated by those living under its authority, never a dead document forced on the living by those long dead.
IMO, Ben, George, James and the rest forgot nothing, least of all that they were doing an incredibly dangerous thing -- trying to predict the future, and how that future might best be governed. They knew that every word could just as easily be a noose as a gift.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for