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.'"
And just when I have no mod points to shine a spotlight on this...
I should be allowed to silence dissent. I should be able to bully people through seemingly legal means so that their use of the first ammendment doesn't go unpunished. The first step is getting their names.
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I didn't know opinion was liable.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I think we have lost that right for the most part. Or rather we have been giving it away at every turn.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Of whether the dunkin donuts was actually dirty. Has this Brodie dude even provided the court with evidence that his establishment isn't unsanitary-looking? I mean, what if these weren't just a couple trolls, but real customers who saw that this particular dunkin donuts was really nasty?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
The thing is, if the owner just cleaned it up, he could use that as GREAT marketing.
But, instead, he chose to sue, so now he looks like a dick.
And if presented as fact; which it was not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
obviously the article and summary don't state exactly what the posters in question were talking about. but from what was given, - is there really any defamation going on? can the plaintiff prove that the statement was untrue? this comment was back in 06. the state of his store -now- hold little bearing on comments made 2 years ago. on top of that, the post seems highly opinionated. it's very possible that the poster's history with food service doesn't include many with less than pleasant standards. if that was the case, would the comment not be truly stated? and can a true statement be defamation in maryland? IANAL, so it's a serious question. and if there was no defamation, why bother with determining the first amendment standing of the issue, when there may well be no issue?
Opinions are not statements of fact, something that apparently escapes even the highest court in Maryland. Slander and libel are passing off false statements as fact. This is why in the newspaper you always hear about the alleged crime, or how the government may be involved in massive surveillance domestically, or that the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) could be real.
Hopefully the court will realize that one person making his/her own opinion known in a public forum (anonymously or otherwise) does not constitute a malicious attempt to degrade the reputation of another. If not, we may have to bump Florida from the 2008 dumbest judiciary system award.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
*whoosh*
As a law student, it seems *entirely* prudent to me that a business man should be able to get a subpoena to get the IPs and names of people who are posting defamatory comments on the internet (assuming they are in fact defamatory). That said, NOTHING should prevent a person from being able to make anonymous posts. It is only IF your posts break the law that you should be "discoverable". Likewise, a person should be able to rant and rave about the government as much as they want. But if they make a post advocating an assassination, they face discovery of their IP/name. Seems 100% reasonable.
First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true. Maybe the standards of the person who posted are higher than his store's standards. Maybe he is mad because he is being called out on something that he does not want to admit. Or maybe he does have a case and his is a clean and proper store. That is the first thing that needs to be determined. After that, if there is a case at that point, then talk about revealing who it is.
I have worked in the food industry. I have seen what some places will let pass and it is disgusting. There are several restaurants in the local area that I tell people to avoid due to the sanitation and quality issues.
I don't know whether or not the owner has done this, but the proper response of the owner would have been to contact the person via the board (if possible) and discover what the experience of that person was. We call this customer relations/service. A law suit like this is likely to only harm the reputation of the store owner. It will cause people who visit the store to focus even more on the same issues the *anonymous* party is focusing on.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
If you are at a party and a stranger calls you a jerk, is the host required to tell you who he was?
If you can get a subpoena, then yes... yes you can. If he just called you a jerk, well you probably won't be able to convince the judge to give you a subpoena, but if the remark rose to the standard of defamation, I don't see how you couldn't.
Anonymity in the US, aside from some very specific circumstances, has always been something of a "catch me if you can" situation. And, in my opinion, that's the way it should be. As long as when you need anonymity (and I mean really need anonymity, like from the government or evil corporate overlords), there exists some way to get the word out, the right to free speech has not been abridged, in my opinion.
Today, using the internet, anonymity is easier to obtain then ever before. If the people voicing their opinions on that web-forum really wanted to remain anonymous and insulated from the consequences of their actions, there are simple steps they could have taken so the host wouldn't even know who they were.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
I think I have just borne witness to the most epic "woosh" ever.
I wonder if he would have included the age if she'd been young.
Or the gender of she'd been a he. :-)
I don't understand how this could be a problem. He didn't falsely claim the store poisoned him or anything, he just simply stated out of the stores he's seen, it was one of the most dirty. That's just an opinion, and as far as I know we're still allowed to voice our opinion.
The case is not about whether or not a person is allowed to state an opinion. The case is about whether or not somebody can use the power of the courts to find out who is "hiding" behind a nom de plume on the internet.
This is the part where I am speculating: Presumably the person who was hurt by the opinion wants to attempt to bully the opinion writer (probably by having a lawyer send some kind of threatening letter) into deleting the opinion or perhaps revising it. But if the bully cannot find out the name and address of the opinion writer, the bully is stymied. The bully cannot get the host of the forum to reveal the necessary information, but perhaps the courts have the power to do so.
IANAL but from what I recollect this guy is going to have a hard time justifying his demand for the poster's information to a judge.
My understanding is that in order to prevail in a legal action of this kind you must demonstrate that you have a case, e.g., give good reason to believe that the person may have defamed you.
The problem with the quote mentioned in this article is that it's not defamation if it's true. So without knowing who the poster is how do they hope to establish that the poster has been to less clean food-service establishments?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
But if he attached a qualifier "...that I've ever been too", meaning the claim might be truthful, and not defamation. IANAL but if a statement can be true, it isn't defamation. If I call Ted Bundy a murder it isn't defamation, if I call Ted Smith one (with no evidence) then it is, but if I say "In my opinion Ted Smith is a serial killer", then I'm in the clear.
Also can't dirty be a subjective term? If I say that something is dirty, it doesn't make it defamatory.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade. Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do.
Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK
Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
VICTOR
You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Because, after all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Don't you think Zebulon Brodie would have been better off just letting it go? By bringing the lawsuit he's bringing all this negative publicity down upon his allegedly dirty Dunkin' Donuts.
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
in general people make certain assumptions, one of them is that a business owner is a middle aged white male unless otherwise specified.
I believe
(while wearing my Star Wars t-shirt with Darth Maul on it, and sipping a mocha soy late as I recline in my blue chair that I bought at office despot on a cloudy June afternoon)
that all detail is relevant, you insensitive clod!
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
I call bullshit.
Nobody defamed a person, they mentioned their opinion about the condition of a business which this man apparently owns.
They owe him NOTHING.
Additionally, what he is likely to get from all of this is a little case of the "Streisand Effect," where now anyone who reads this story (which will get much wider coverage than the original posting) will now wondering the following:
1. Whether or not they want to chance eating at this establishment.
2. Assuming they decide they would, whether or not they want to support somebody who is fighting against anonymity online.
"oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative."
Want to play it that way?
This post is
30% Funny
10% Insightful
20% Overrated
and should be modded as such.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Interestingly, I wonder if you would have included the ethnicity of the manager if she'd been white.
That being said, I'm glad your wife called the health inspector.
Interestingly, i wonder if you would have said anything if the poster HAD mentioned she was white. Or if you would have noticed. Or if this person had been a man. Or a marmot.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Is it really that hard to keep up with a thread for 30 seconds?
You must be new here. ;-)
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Deterioration is a non-countable noun.