Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity
Cornwallis writes "In a First Amendment case with implications for everything from neighborhood e-mail lists to national newspapers, a Maryland businessman argued to the state's highest court yesterday that the host of an online forum should be forced to reveal the identities of people who posted allegedly defamatory comments. The businessman, Zebulon J. Brodie, contends that he was defamed by comments about his shop, a Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville, posted on NewsZap.com. The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.' Talk about a Negative Nellie! At least the article didn't say the shop was the 'most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'"
The original poster was clearly making a joke by posting it anon. irony is thick and funny in that post.
oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
That is usually what it is called when you are doing something that affects a business in a negative manner. Slander and libel are problematic because even though we are all "journalists" now, the publishing of an opinion probably doesn't carry that much weight.
The question is more likely can you have an unmoderated forum of nothing but negative comments about businesses without ever incurring legal liability? For most of the history of the world, the answer has been no, you can't. Today, with the Internet the operator of the forum may be hard to find, too hard for an assembly of people with torches and buckets of tar to locate and deliver punishment.
I'd think that the operator of the forum can either shield participants and take all the heat or serve up the participants and hope nobody actually sues them. In today's world, betting you will not be sued is a very risky bet.
That's not how it works.
The business has to be able to prove that the comment caused financial damage, and sue for recovery of that damage. It is difficult to win that kind of case. Just ask anyone who tried to sue for negative feedback received on Ebay, claiming the negative hurt their business - so far no one's ever won.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
No, if you want to say some shop is dirty, you just say it. If someone wants to sue you for libel, the burden of proof is on them, not you. For libel cases, the burden of proof is usually very high. Generally, you need to make a false statement, you need to know it was a false statement, and you need to intend harm with your false statement, and the plaintiff has to prove all of this. A shop owner would have an almost impossibly difficult task proving that his shop wasn't dirty, the patron knew it wasn't dirty, and the patron intended to harm his business.
"This place is filthy" is an opinion. It is protected speech. "This place is disgusting" is also an opinion, and as such protected.
"This donut shop has been cited by the health department for health code violations fifteen times" when it in fact hasn't been IS a statement of "fact" and libel, and as such unprotected.
The hospital is FILTHY. Why else is it about the only place you can contract MSRA (flesh eating bacteria)?
There is no such thing as "clean". The donut shop owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Free Martian Whores!