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

Re:Anonymity

[Utini420]

And that, posted anonymously.

This is such bullshit. Regardless of anything society or the internet should tolerate, why is this to forum mod's (or whatever) problem?

If you are at a party and a stranger calls you a jerk, is the host required to tell you who he was?

I don't think so.

Re:No mention however

[AviLazar]

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?
So you support someone from making disparaging remarks about an establishment and now that establishment has to prove those remarks as wrong? Isn't our society based on "innocent until proven guilty"? How about the folks who posted those comments show proof (e.g. pictures, audio recordings, etc)? If you make a comment prove it, then the defenders can refute your statements.

Facing my accusers (Give me their names.)

[mi]

I should be allowed to silence dissent.

Did you say Dissent? As in: a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government's policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies)? Over criticism of a local Dunkin Donuts?

Now, I happened to know people, who were dissenting with Soviet Russia (yes, that one) by signing their names on letters to foreign governments, the UN, and NGOs exposing USSR's abuses of human rights, for example. They faced not just potential monetary loss for defamation, but incarceration (in extremely hostile camps), forced "medical" treatments, beatings, and death. It never even occurred to them to try to be anonymous...

Are you sure, the term "Dissent" is appropriate here?

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

Yes, as a matter of fact, if they speak ill of me, they better be able to back it up and repeat it in my face. There is a good reason, an accused has the right to face their accuser in a US court.