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.'"

Comments

Give me their names.

[FredFredrickson]

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?

Re:Give me their names.

[RingDev]

If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?

This is where it gets sticky.

The store owner is claiming that they defamed him. The store owner (just like every other American) has legal protection from slander and libel. The only way to (legally) know for sure is to take the speakers to trial. It could be that they are not guilty of anything, or it could be that they are guilty of liable. But the only way to know for sure is to allow the shop owner to sue them.

But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it? Libel I believe is just a tort, a civil crime. So no one is going to be arrested, and it is unlikely that an over worked DA is going to do a whole lot for you.

Was it Jefferson who said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"?

Same basic deal, your right to free speech ends when your words impead other peoples rights.

Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" != You can make false statements that harm another person.

Or if you'd like to switch it up a bit, I can exercise my 1st amendment rights as many people around here seem to think of them to inform your family, coworkers, significant other, x-girl friends, and neighbors that you are actually an un-register sex offender that has aids.

I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right? /sarcasm

-Rick

WTF

[Capt James McCarthy]

I didn't know opinion was liable.

Re:WTF

[gatkinso]

Competitors aren't allowed to have opinions?

Personally I don't see how it would be possible to diminish the reputation of Dunkin Donuts further than it already is... but that's just me.

Good luck with that privacy thing

[nurb432]

I think we have lost that right for the most part. Or rather we have been giving it away at every turn.

No mention however

[Gat0r30y]

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?

Cheap lawyers?

[mangu]

whether the dunkin donuts was actually dirty

If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?

what constitutes defamation in Maryland?

[Glimmerdark]

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?

-1, Fail

[Mr. Underbridge]

*whoosh*

Re:Here comes the Eula

[innerweb]

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