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

Here comes the Eula

[bigattichouse]

In order to encourage open communication in [forum X] I agree to hold this list harmless, and waive any implied rights to defamation... blah blah blah or some such crap. Could a disclaimer/waiver hold up in court? They work for personal injury, why not "social injury"?

Um, no...

[kabocox]

I'm actually ticked at my local health inspector because they don't make this easy for my city. It's easy to look up this sort of info at other places
http://www.txkusa.org/health/Food_Report.pdf

Here is the real slashdot test. What did this guy happen to score on his local health inspection and how easy is that for his usual customers to obtain and see his results?

I actually think the judge needs to throw this right out. This is an opinion about a food serving place and it isn't even that harsh. If he doesn't want to hear what his customers think of his place, then he doesn't need to listen to them. Maybe, just maybe he needs to clean up his shop and present a better public image for his customers?

I wouldn't be surprised if his competitors are eating him alive.

Re:Legal Innoculation?

[Reziac]

I'm also wondering why, if the allegation is that untrue or that actionable, the franchise company doesn't come to his aid??

Seems to me if there was really a case here, Dunkin' Donuts Inc. would be first in line at the legal office.

Re:Give me their names.

[AviLazar]

Freedom of speech is important and required, but with that comes responsibility. The moment you use your freedoms to hurt someone, without legitimate basis (defamation) you are wrong.
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.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[cherokee158]

My wife worked at a Dunkin Donuts once...for about two hours. The little old Chinese lady running it asked her to go get some donuts out of the back, and when she turned on the light of the storeroom, she saw roaches scurrying all over them. When she told the old woman about it, her attitude was "Phah, just knock them off."

She left and called the local health inspector. That shop closed the next day.

Sometimes criticism is GOOD.

Re:You just got served by humor

[Pearson]

"Anonymity actually is contributory to many disruptions and deteriorations in an ethical society."

I agree that it causes disruptions, but those disruptions are not always deteriorations. Any time there is oppression, there is a need for anonymity so that the oppressor's acts are brought to light (and hopefully remedied). Even in societies which consider themselves to be ethical there are oppressions both small and large.