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

Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymity is the bane of a civilized society and should not be tolerated on the Internet.

Re:Anonymity

[Terrin2k]

And just when I have no mod points to shine a spotlight on this...

Re:Anonymity

[lupis42]

Consider the source before marking the parent a Troll. (Flamebait, otoh, is harder to dispute).

Anyway, anonymity is worthless in political speech if it can be bypassed by the force of government.

Re:Anonymity

[cayenne8]

During the court case, I'd like to introduce the following as evidence that privacy, indeed the need to 'not be seen' is an important and fundamental right and need for human existence!!

Re:Anonymity

[Reziac]

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

I think that's the essential point -- gods, consider if Slashdot were forced to divulge identities (even if they knew 'em!) of everyone here who ever dissed Microsoft? I see no difference in the two situations.

BTW I love the Saki quote in your sig ... and it's SOOO true in places like slashdot. And on that note... like someone else pointed out, you missed the irony in the anonymous post. Don't be so "accurate" and you'll need fewer explanations. ;)

Re:Anonymity

[johnsonav]

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.

Re:Anonymity

[mea37]

Your "party" analogy doesn't really hold up. It's unlikely that "calling you a jerk" could ever be prosecuted as defamation, even if you knew who the guy was. Defamation can come into play when the statement is public and is presented as factual...

Correcting for that... If a stranger at a party declares publicly that you are a jerk who beats his wife, and you find your way to pursue the matter in court, then parties with information that can identify the stranger may be compelled to reveal it, actually.

I don't really believe that "free speech" is the key issue. I think people like to conflate every legal issue in a case that involves someone saying something, with free speech. There may be a free speech issue at stake -- and if so it should be framed as a challenge to the defamation laws in general, rather than an attempt to end-run around them via anonymity.

Who does or doesn't have a responsibility to identify the person who did this or that, is much more general than defamation. It comes up routinely in copyright cases lately, for example.

Re:Anonymity

[mcgrew]

You're under arrest. You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you.

Your Rights Online.

Re:Anonymity

[BitterOak]

Today, using the internet, anonymity is easier to obtain then ever before.

Correction: Today, using the internet, the illusion of anonymity is easier to obtain than ever before. And that is a huge part of the problem.

Yes, I am aware of services like Tor, but most people aren't, and that's the problem. (And besides, do you really know who is running all those Tor nodes? I sure as heck don't.)

Re:Anonymity

[johnsonav]

Correction: Today, using the internet, the illusion of anonymity is easier to obtain than ever before.

It is true, it is easy to be lulled into thinking you're anonymous when you're really not. And solutions like Tor require a healthy dose of technical savvy to use properly. But, with open an open wifi network and a throwaway GMail or Yahoo account, pretty much anyone can do whatever they want on the internet without much fear that they will be found out.

If the person who wrote the allegedly defamatory comment about the donut shop had cared at all about remaining anonymous, this entire issue would be moot, as no one, especially not the host of the web-forum, would have any way to identify the complainer, even with a subpoena.

Re:Anonymity

[Larryish]

How much info does some classified ads website like newszap.com actually have on the posters?

Seriously.

How many of you sign up for any public forum with your real personal info?

I don't when I can avoid it, which is pretty much all the time.

What happens when the website owners tell the court that the party in question appears to be

Dicklick Shitballs
12345 Hershey Hwy.
ImAmIn, Uranus 54321"

Couple that with an IP address from 2006 and ... ?

Epic fail.

Re:Anonymity

[sticky.pirate]

Where is the '-1, Whoosh' moderation button when you need it?

Re:Anonymity

[blueskies]

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.

Their consequences should be nothing since they posted under a pseudonym. Who cares what Carebear99 says about a DD? People's opinions don't matter unless they have the reputation to back them up.

Re:Anonymity

[tedrampart]

not sure this is the same issue..

a miranda warning like that, basically tells you that now since you're in custody of the law, anything you say is taken as part of your statement, and is legal evidence in the case. Has very little if anything to do with defamation of character. IANAL though.. just seems pretty straight forward.

Re:Anonymity

[Daengbo]

Korea now requires your national ID number (think SSN) to register for any web site. No anonymity here.

Re:Anonymity

[purpledinoz]

You should get yourself an Irony Detector (TM). It might help you understand some of the hilarity of these posts. While you're at it, you might as well buy yourself a Sarcasm Detector (TM). I have a feeling you might need one of those too.

Re:Anonymity

[jonadab]

This isn't really about anonymity per se. It's about libel, and whether someone can trivially get away with libel by doing it anonymously. If the comment had said, "I don't like Dunkin' Donuts because the food just isn't yummy enough for me, and also I don't like the decor", a lower court would have thrown the case out and the state supreme court would never have touched it. In this case, though, the comment made concrete claims that the plaintiff holds are untrue. That is (at least potentially) libel, and it's legally actionable.

Being anonymous is one thing. Getting away with things you otherwise couldn't just *because* you're anonymous is something else altogether.

Re:Anonymity

[mcgrew]

Ever see Foghorn Leghorn cartoons? It's a joke, son.

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"?

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Surt]

Why should the dunkin donuts' owner sign/agree to such a eula, though? He need only know that he WAS defamed, even if he doesn't acquire that knowledge through the website. He can have a third party retrieve the data for his court case.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[bigattichouse]

How about the Eula completely encapsulating use of the site? Then the site could use the DMCA on the guy if he uses the content in open court... I think we need an opensource version of our legal system, this old one's got too many bugs.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[theaveng]

Even if the Dunkin Donuts owner learned the identities of the people, what would it accomplish?

Last I checked defamation is protected by free speech. He would be laughed out of court.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Surt]

No good. All he need do is be informed of the statement. Once the court case is in progress he can get the actual statement via discovery. There's no way in our legal system to protect the website, other than to establish precedent that they cannot be required to produce information in such cases, which is fairly likely to be the outcome here.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[thirty-seven]

Last I checked defamation is protected by free speech. He would be laughed out of court.

That is untrue. See Wikipedia's article on US defamation law.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Surt]

Defamation is definitely not protected speech. That's why there's a legal definition for it. Now, he would be laughed out of court because the speech in question is not defamation, but not the other way around.

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

Re:Here comes the Eula

[maxume]

It becomes more problematic. If sites are required to produce such information, the next step is requiring that they store it.

Without precedent, it seems like web sites should be able to protect themselves by disposing of information that is not publicly posted (because laws usually aren't retroactive).

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Surt]

I certainly agree with all of that (in terms of what he SHOULD do). I was really only considering what he CAN do. That he has made a bad choice is, I think, fairly obvious (although, one might argue that the increase in visits from maryland slashdotters checking on the filth levels may be yielding improvements in exposure for him, and at least one slashdotter has now reported the DD as 'spotless', so who knows).

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Dare nMc]

free speech would not protect the poster, if disclosed (since dunkin donuts is not a public official, etc.)
So he would have a case in a civil suit, but since this sounded more like a opinion than a fact it would be very week.
free speech amendment only applies when loss of liberty, etc or government is involved, so it should protect the ISP that published this, and thus the persons identity if the ISP doesn't want disclose, but it would not protect anything said about a private business/individual.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Mister Whirly]

It would accomplish drawing national attention to the fact his Dunkin' Donuts is a shithole. Way to think that one through Zebulon!

Re:Here comes the Eula

[RingDev]

First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed.

So you would rather allow the government to hear a case and possible find against you with out ever informing you of the charges or allowing you to defend yourself, then using that trial as cause to determine your identity and hold you accountable?

-Rick

Re:Here comes the Eula

[mcgrew]

That's the thing - it's an opinion. One man's cleanliness is another man's squalor. If I say your store is flthy, how can that be considered slander or lible? It's an opinion.

The donut shop owner is doing a SLAPP. He should be smacked down hard.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Omestes]

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.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

Actually, most people are smart enough to know that Dunkin'Donuts is a chain of stores owned and operated by franchises as well as the company which means that they aren't all the same. They would also look at the claims, "Man claims what was said is wrong and defamatory" and probably not carry too much weight behind it.

The people who go to Dunkin'Donuts have already been to the ones in their area and no that wouldn't be true.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

Every store that sells or prepares food in the US has o pass a local and sometimes state or federal health inspection. Usually this is twice a year or more depending on what the last report showed.

The problem this raises is that there is a filth level already defined by law and you have to use that gauge when making comments about it. If they are passing their inspections, then regardless of what you think or want to think, the filth level is at least acceptable or they wouldn't be in business.

Also, a note to people who think posting rants is the way to effect a store that you think doesn't meet your standards. Complain to your local health department. They are typically the people in charge of inspecting the restaurants and can make surprise inspections and so on. They will get anything wrong corrected or put the establishment out of business. Also, be specific in your complaint and don't forget to complain to the store itself through it's internal comment car system if one is in place.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

What he is saying is that the case should have to demonstrate standing before it goes further.

This means that a judge or someone would look at the comment and say "this could be defamation" instead of looking at it after the identity is known and saying "this is just an opinion it can't be considered defamation".

Saying I don't like pasta so I won't goto olive garden or I think Pasta is Disgusting so I don't like Olive Garden is obviously an opinion and can't be defamatory. Saying Olive Garden is gross and nothing else possible could be defamatory and should have standing.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

That's the thing - it's an opinion. One man's cleanliness is another man's squalor. If I say your store is flthy, how can that be considered slander or lible? It's an opinion.

Not in this case. There are legal standards for food service establishments that are dictated by law. They all are subjected and have to pass an inspection periodically and so on. If they pass, you cannot describe them in a way as if they wouldn't pass by the nature of them passing without subjecting yourself to a legal challenge and possible liability. This is true being your opinion or not.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Mister Whirly]

That is why I said "his Dunkin' Donuts" and not "all Dunkin' Donuts".
And in all honesty, I bet most people don't have a clue how franchising works, and I would certainly disagree with statements that start out "Most people are smart enough", because in my experience, most people aren't smart enough.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Surt]

It is definitely true that there are state requirements, but they unfortunately fall far below the level that many people consider acceptable. In my state you can operate your eatery with a c-grade inspection. I wish they would close any eatery with less than an A. The previous state I lived in used a 100 point scale and you could be open at 60, but I wouldn't eat at any place that had less than 95 (it took some seriously scary violations to drop below that level). Thankfully there they were required to post their score on the front door.

So the bottom line is, that though there is a filth level defined by law, there is a huge range in the legally acceptable eateries, and I feel just fine discussing what are among the most disgustingly filthy eateries I have seen.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[HungryHobo]

Step one: trial to decide if there's probably been a crime.
Step two: If the first trial decided there was something serious enough to answer for the persons identity is found.
Step three: Step one repeated with the person there to defend themselves.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

But you have to use caution in what you say because "disgusting and unsanitary" are not permited to operate by most of the laws. So even when your value system places them lower, the state says it is X and you will most likely be bound by the state's standards seeing how they are written in law or with the effect of law.

You can still make the statements but you have to be clear that it is what you think using your standards and not the state or county's standards. Otherwise, there is room to challenge it.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

Lol.. You caught me.

I didn't see the his until you pointed it out. But I guess this sort of shows how statements can imply something without actually saying it when most people aren't smart enough to read and understand the entire statement.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[knails]

Also can't dirty be a subjective term? If I say that something is dirty, it doesn't make it defamatory.

Except that the establishment in question is a restaurant, which are supposed to be sanitary. Stating a restaurant is even a little dirty is bad press for the restaurant, and could easily sway people from going to it.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[blueskies]

It doesn't matter that it is supposed to be sanitary. People are allowed to state their opinion. In my opinion the plaintiff is an ass.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Surt]

I doubt if anyone could successfully argue in court that I'm using the state rather than a personal definition unless I'm an agent of the state, or somehow specially familiar with the state's standards. Also, I doubt if the state standards reference disgusting (sanitary is more likely).

Re:Here comes the Eula

[knails]

Yeah, and that's defamatory. Slander isn't protected by freedom of speech.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[raju1kabir]

But the statement, as cited in the article, could not be proven slanderous without a thorough audit of the sanitation at all the restaurants the speaker has visited. And the burden of proof is not on the defense.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[raju1kabir]

The statement was that the Centreville Dunkin Donuts was "of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen".

It makes no claims as to the store's cleanliness relative to legal health code standards:

It only makes claims relative to the restaurants the author has visited.

Obviously, not all restaurants have identical levels of sanitation.

Therefore, even among those which have passed inspection, there are varying levels of cleanliness.

And most or all restaurants that most people visit have passed inspection.

Therefore, the statement can easily be true without implying any claims of failure to abide by legal filth thresholds. In fact, it's far more likely that it doesn't imply such a claim.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[ScrewMaster]

Or maybe he does have a case and his is a clean and proper store.

Well, if it wasn't before ... it is now.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[leabre]

We're too sue happy in this country. Years ago, if I had experienced any major customer service problems with a company I would complain or write a letter or whatever. Years go by where I read about how everyone is suing and my endless thoughts about what a tragedy it has become to be in this country and potentially be sued for anything and that I don't want to ever be like that.

A few weeks ago I had problems with a major OEM accidentally charging me 2.5x the invoice amount for some desktop workstations I purchased. When trying to resolve it through their customer service and the folks in India saying they cannot access my records (for 5 days straight at all hours of the day)... I eventually contacted a sales rep in the US that had instant access to my records and cancelled the order then created a new one. Instead of crediting the incorrect charge, it charged again, in addition to the new correct charge. Actually, it was only holding the funds and hasn't charged but totaled $20k in pending state holding my card so close to the limit that my monthly revolvers would have failed. My immediate reaction was to call an attorney rather than call them up and attempt to resolve it. In the end, their India support center still couldn't access my records but when I managed to contact the sales rep in US he had access to my records instantly again and the issue was resolved after the OEM called my creditor card issuer.

My point here is merely: it has become the American way, so-to-speak, to sue because it nearly has come to the point where either a) many are opportunists and see it more likely to win a civil lawsuit than the lottery, b) just have to make a statement and throw their superiority around, or more likely c) it has gotten to the point where the threat of a lawsuit or the act of a lawsuit is nearly the only way to get results these days because business and customers alike (or citezens/aliens) just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.

Regarding the merchant in question, for all I know he does have a filthy shop (I've seen many in my day, just watch Kitchen Nightmares) and if so, the correct response should be to clean it up before a health inspector arrives. Will he sue the health inspector for writing in a formal statement that the shop is filthy? But if it is clean and someone is making such accusations and customers decide to go elsewhere, perhaps a lawsuit is warranted if the perp refuses to make an apology.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

Sure they could. If you saw me going the speed limit, you couldn't say I was speeding because you think the speed limit is too fast. If you ran a red light and hit me while I was lawfully driving through an intersection, you couldn't say that I was driving reckless because I didn't look to see you not stopping and alter my course. The fact is that the law sets the standards and they have a great impression when it comes to things like this.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

And that is why it will probably get tossed out if it goes further. But, there is enough room for doubt that the guy has made a case out of it and this case had enough standing that they are attempting to force the disclosure of the identity of the person who made the comment.

The statement did say it was dirty and unsanitary. Unsanitary is a specific word with a meaning and if they are passing the inspections, then it can't be unsanitary at least to the point the laws define what is acceptable. This is why it is important. The Poster didn't say it was almost unsanitary, they didn't say it was unsanitary according to my standards and not the state's, it said not only unsanitary but the most unsanitary she has seen.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[CrimsonAvenger]

Step one: trial to decide if there's probably been a crime.

Step two: If the first trial decided there was something serious enough to answer for the persons identity is found.

In criminal cases, a Grand Jury fills these two functions. After watching the SCO debacle all these years, I've often found myself wishing that we used some equivalent in Civil Law to filter out the crap lawsuits.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Danse]

But the statement, as cited in the article, could not be proven slanderous without a thorough audit of the sanitation at all the restaurants the speaker has visited. And the burden of proof is not on the defense.

Worse, the audit of the plaintiff's restaurant would have had to have taken place at the time of the defendant's visit, since that's what they are referring to. It could have been cleaned up since then. There's simply no way to prove defamation/slander here.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[Danse]

But you have to use caution in what you say because "disgusting and unsanitary" are not permited to operate by most of the laws. So even when your value system places them lower, the state says it is X and you will most likely be bound by the state's standards seeing how they are written in law or with the effect of law.

The person said that they found it disgusting and unsanitary when they visited it. It's perfectly possible that the place was in violation of the law at that time, but has been in compliance since then. The person is referring to a single visit as far as I can tell, so I don't see how it could be proved to be defamatory.

Re:Here comes the Eula

[sumdumass]

A trial court judge already said that there was enough evidence that the comment was probably defamatory.

The problem, is that even if it was just that one time, and it might have been, no one knows for sure if it was or was not sanitary as the food service laws define that one time or if someone is making something up because their Ex works there or something. It could be very well that the anonymous person is a competitor who opened up down the street and everything is fictional. The proprietor is claiming the statement is false and obviously using a different standard for not sanitary then others want to and had a judge support his standard enough to claim the identities of the posters should be disclosed.

There is a legal claim being made. A person is claiming that something was said that was defamatory and damaged him and his image as a result. He is entitled to an equal protection of the law which states that he can attempt to take the claim to court and redress damages. He is entitled to his day in court when the judge indicated that there was standing and ordered the names to be released.

Now here is another question, ISP's and OSP's get an immunity from what the users of their services and servers do but they don't get an immunity from what they do themselves. So here is something to think about with the anonymous user question, if the ISP or OSP (online service provider) can't show that a third party did whatever, then what proves that it wasn't them directly? I mean nothing is showing that the ISP or OSP didn't take the action in question except the disclosure of the third party who took the action. So think about this as a mental exercise, if the user is anonymous and the OSP refuses to disclose their identity, then if the proprietor names the OSP directly, then in their defense (because they are only absolved from their users actions), they will have to show that it was a user and not them- more or less forcing the disclosure of the anonymous user or take the rap themselves.

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.

[Surt]

Election funding should be public information, and where your political actions are obviously immoral, you should be prepared to be boycotted for your actions.

Frankly, a boycott of businesses that decide to spend their money on immorality is well warranted. Anti-rights businesses deserve to lose money. We don't need those people around, best if they lose everything and starve to death.

Re:Give me their names.

[morgan_greywolf]

yeah ... how dare anyone exercise their right to free speech. must be terrorists or something...

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: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

Re:Give me their names.

[maxume]

On the other hand, it is hard to show a great deal of harm from an anonymous comment on a website (because most people won't even read the comment, and most of those who do read the comment will take the anonymity into context).

I suppose there is also the issue of whether the eatery is dirty or not.

Re:Give me their names.

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

Re:Give me their names.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slande
[sesame street]One of these things is not like the others[/sesame street]

Re:Give me their names.

[pha3r0]

I read that article a bit differently, first off they took a list of mostly private donations and because California law requires donaters to list there employers, they got along with that the business names.

They then decided to post the business names even though they knew the donations were made by private individuals. To say that since one guy that works for megacorp X supports prop8 that must mean the whole company should burn and starve to death?!?!

Re:Give me their names.

[Altus]

I agree with you but If you read the article you will find that dell computer has been blacklisted because a marketing manager made a private donation. I think this goes too far. If a business makes a donation then by all means, punish them for it, but punishing a business for the private behavior of an employee is a bad idea.

The last thing we want is to give businesses more reason to keep tabs on their employees private lives. It would be wrong for Dell to fire someone for their private political beliefs or to keep tabs on their employees political donations to make sure that they are in line with corporate policy. To punish them for the actions of an employee is to encourage them to keep tabs on such things.

Re:Give me their names.

[Mister Whirly]

I think the owner may also have to prove damages - hard to prove that someone didn't stop in there entirely due to a comment posted on a web site. Now if it is discovered that the anonymous poster owns Ed's Donut Shack down the street, it would be an different case.

Re:Give me their names.

[hesiod]

When you terrorize free speech, only the terrorists will speak freely?

Re:Give me their names.

[Just Some Guy]

So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof.

Yep. When you say you found dog poop in the halls of the Ramada Inn in Kearney, Nebraska, it's nice to have pictures to prove it. There's not a lot they can do about that.

Re:Give me their names.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment, Nigger.

Re:Give me their names.

[Jaysyn]

Pretty sure an opinion isn't slander. This Zebulon guy is a moron.

Re:Give me their names.

[mcgrew]

"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.

Re:Give me their names.

[beyondkaoru]

i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech. if that were the case, china isn't that different. while i don't think that one should be allowed to yell at people, for example, communication between consenting parties should be allowed regardless of its content.

in china, for example, you have (some) freedom to go onto a website and talk about tiananmen square. however, i hope you're ready to take "responsibility" four your speech.

i'm exaggerating of course, but that's not too different from having to take "responsibility" for a comment. a difference, you could say, is whether the speaker is on the side of truth or not, but in china, the tiananmen square massacre is generally not known to have happened.

anyway, the legal proceedings surrounding a lawsuit (or pretty much anything involving a courtroom) are quite a punishment. even if the accusation is thrown out, there is nontrivial inconvenience caused.

because of the difficulty of ascertaining what is 'true' in many cases (not to mention that i hope people will eventually learn to take things with grains of salt), i think that 'freedom of speech' should include 'freedom to lie'. it might seem convenient to live in a world where people never lie, that just isn't possible -- and our current implementation means that one's ability to speak depends on anonymity... or money to spend on lawyers.

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

No. The quote was " one of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." That's an opinion. That is not defamation. If it was "the health department recently said that's the most unsanitary place they've ever seen" (or something like that), then you might have a case for defamation.

I don't have to prove my opinion, and I am free to say it on a forum that supports open discussion. This is nothing more than a business owner who thinks he can squeeze someone because either a) he's got an axe to grind, or b) he really does have a stank-ified establishment and he is trying to cover his butt... which is sleazy to the nth degree either way you slice it.

Defamation? I think not. And I think the courts are with me on this, or we've truly slipped into the abyss.

Re:Give me their names.

[AviLazar]

i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech. if that were the case, china isn't that different. while i don't think that one should be allowed to yell at people, for example, communication between consenting parties should be allowed regardless of its content.

You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty. Some say "big deal its an anon internet poster" - guess what, people believe what they read - maybe not slashdot, but others do.

Re:Give me their names.

[philspear]

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?

Well yeah, that guy is a real jerk, comitted a lot of crimes.

Forutnatley, I hear he died the other day.

Re:Give me their names.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited.
...
I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right? /sarcasm

If we didn't have all those laws about getting butthurt to do the thinking for us, then yes you should. Instead the definition of a reasonable person is now "idiot" so no one is expected to apply critical thought to completely unsupported statements.

Re:Give me their names.

[Omestes]

So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof.

I don't think "dirty" or "bad" fall into the defamation category, since they are subjective, and largely a matter of opinion. If I said "unsanitary", or "the donuts are laced with the HIV", or that the proprietor poisoned them, for the explicit reason to cause harm, then yes, I am defaming.

If people could sue every time someone said something had bad food (or overly high prices, or bad atmosphere, etc...) then the restaurant review business would be dead, and it would be impossible for anyone to ever give advice about food (or any other service). Hummer could sue everyone (for the car analogy) for saying they get "bad" gas mileage.

Hell /. could sue all of us for pointing out the ugly that is new user page, or idle.

Re:Give me their names.

[RingDev]

That matters entirely on jurisdiction. Also depending on the context an opinion that is an expression of fact may still be liable if the person making the comment is believed by the listeners to have sufficient knowledge as to be able to make a factual statement.

Also, from all accounts at this point in time, his store is spotlessly clean, and he is getting tons of free publicity. Maybe not such a dumb move after all.

-Rick

Re:Give me their names.

[RingDev]

Instead the definition of a reasonable person is now "idiot"

Unfortunately, the definition of a reasonable person has always been an "idiot". We just have more lawyers now exploiting that fact.

-Rick

Re:Give me their names.

[Golddess]

Because it can ruin your reputation if what they said was wrong? A better question is, what would be the better way to fight this?

1) Trying to silence anyone who says you've got a crappy and unsanitary store.
Pros: If you succeed, the comment is like it was never made.
Cons: If you fail, the Streisand effect.

2) Issuing a response proving them wrong.
Pros: You have truth on your side.
Cons: If MSM has taught me anything, it's that truth is bollocks and all that matters is scary news.

I had a third option when I began writing this, but I can't remember what it was anymore. >.>

Now I'm not advocating Mr Bordie's actions, merely playing Devil's Advocate.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

The relevance of the venue or place the comment is made will become an issue in the legal proceedings that follow. If the case is frivolous, generally the judge will give the defense lawyers fees and so on. If there is merit, then the amount of damages with certainly take all that you mentioned into account.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

In this case, the burden of proof might already be established. There are state and local food inspections and obviously if this business is open still, it is at least clean enough to pass the state and local guidelines. This goes a long way when you claim is something such that the conditions of the store are lower then what the law considers safe.

Re:Give me their names.

[winomonkey]

The donut shop owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Is that from the MRSA? That might explain why he is so colicky.

Re:Give me their names.

[Translation Error]

The donut shop owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Unfortunately, this is a statement of fact, and as Mr. Brodie is not, in fact, missing both legs, you should expect a visit from his lawyer any day now.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

You alluded to health code and food service code violations and yet you don't see the concept that because they passed those and are in business still, they are at least clean enough to meet the law's idea of clean.

This means the owner already has a basis to ground the cleanliness of the store on. When you express your opinion in a way that suggest this isn't true, they you have possible crossed that line.

Look at it this way, if your driving the speed limit and go through an intersection on a green light and get into an accident because someone else ran a red light, I can't say your reckless driving caused the accident. This is because you met the confines and obligations of the law. It could be my opinion that had you slowed and looked to the one side, you would have seen a car barreling at you at a high rate of speed with no indication of trying to stop and that makes you reckless, but that opinion is wrong because you followed the letter of the law and acted as you were legally expected to. You wouldn't have been driving reckless in any legal way and in so as much, the law actually shows that you weren't reckless even if slowing down and looking is a good idea and can make you more safe.

SO if the guy is passing his health and food service inspections, then the most you could say is that it wasn't as clean as you were expecting or something along those lines. You may be able to claim that it wasn't consistent with the inspections on your visit but a general claim that is is (not was) dirty and such will automatically be refuted by the existence of the inspections that he passed. Now you can claim that the food standards are too lax and all that but as long as it is law, then it is law and the standard.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

What's wrong with letting the courts determine if it was opinion or defamation? I mean if the charges of obviously frivolous, they will simply award the anon user attorney's fees. If it isn't, then no harm done.

Re:Give me their names.

[forand]

I never understood this. Exactly why does:

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

Seems to me that you are now interpreting the constitution to mean that some speech is restricted because it might make someone hurt in some way shape or form. But I don't think the US constitution says anything about people having any right not be be called names or lied about.

Re:Give me their names.

[Just Some Guy]

You alluded to health code and food service code violations and yet you don't see the concept that because they passed those and are in business still, they are at least clean enough to meet the law's idea of clean.

This means the owner already has a basis to ground the cleanliness of the store on.

Not even close. The health inspection states that the place met the minimum government standard of non-deadliness, but that's entirely different from saying that it's clean by another person's standards.

Re:Give me their names.

[RingDev]

Straw man.

By harm I mean provable physical or monetary damages.

Part of successfully arguing a libel/defamation case is proving damage. If the shop owner did not suffer any loss of business, he would be hard pressed to successfully prove defamation, and even if he did prove defamation, with out damages in civil court, there would be nothing for him to recoup.

-Rick

Re:Give me their names.

[Snuhwolf]

There are websites designed just for complaining about services or conditions one encounters as a part of doing buisness. An obvious and well-used one is www.complaints.com
Maybe its the bit about it not being anonymous that keeps it out of litigaton?

Re:Give me their names.

[blueskies]

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

There's thousands of dollars to hide from lawyers for legal fees. But other than that you are right.

Re:Give me their names.

[techno-vampire]

Why else is it about the only place you can contract MSRA (flesh eating bacteria)?

No, MSRA is not a "flesh eating bacteria" in the sense you presumably mean. (I know; I've had two different MSRA infections.) MSRA is a form of staph that's resistant to the most commonly used antibiotics and thus, hard to kill. The two times I had it, they needed to use sulpha, because it was about the only thing that works. Nasty stuff, I agree, but not quite what you were thinking of.

Re:Give me their names.

[gnuASM]

You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty.

Of course it appears he disregarded a key point of what you said. That's because your point is not logical. You state that the "opinion" was "fact". That simply forgoes any proper logic. How is it that you have RTFA (yes, I am assuming you have) and yet claim that the individual made a statement such as "That Duncan Donuts is one of the dirtiest places in Maryland"? That, of course, is a statement of fact, possibly carrying the speaker's opinion.

The speaker said that it was one of "the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." This is obvious a statement of pure relativity that may or may not have its foundation in fact. It is clear from the statement itself that the speaker was giving an opinionated overview of the establishment in relation to his own personal experience.

The only fact apparent here is the fact that the statement is the person's own opinion based purely on personal experience. Regardless of this fact, you make the statement, "You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it." Yet, he did not make a statement of fact that the establishment was dirty by any legal means, but that his own experiences, relative to other establishments, placed this particular Duncan Donuts on the lower tier of his personal review of these types of establishments. The only statement of fact in all of this is the fact that the statement is the speaker's own opinion.

By your very logic, because of the possibility that someone may decide not to do business with this particular establishment based on the speaker's own experiences is no different from banning video games because some kid crashes a car through some business after playing GT4. It's no different from the logic that says since most college students are 19-22 and since "music piracy" is rampant on college campuses, any accused 19-22 year old is obviously guilty of "piracy".

I just fail to see how one can logically state that a negative opinion regarding product or service is just fine, but a negative opinion, relative to one's own experience, regarding the atmosphere is somehow crossing some invisible line and suddenly no longer acceptable.

Re:Give me their names.

[DinDaddy]

Crap. Missed the funny mod and hit overrated.

Re:Give me their names.

[geminidomino]

This goes a long way when you claim is something such that the conditions of the store are lower then what the law considers safe.

Except nowhere in the quote did the poster claim that.

Re:Give me their names.

[ScrewMaster]

i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech.

Free speech (as understood in the United States, under our Constitution) sets limits on what the government can do to suppress speech. It says nothing about individuals (or corporations) suing each other for redress due to libelous or slanderous statements. So no, the government can't go after these anonymous posters for whatever it was they said (assuming it falls into the "protected speech" category) but this Zebulon character certainly can.

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

Because the person has to come forward. Do you think the court will examine this statement as it is, without the identity of the one who wrote it? Anonymous speech that isn't a violation should remain anonymous. It's none of the owner's business who holds that opinion.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

The thing is, the minimum standards are not filthy and not disgusting. This means that the bar is raised above that by virtue of them being open and still in business. The government standards are the standards provided by law which means they will be used against someone elses standards.

It's like I mentioned with the going through a green light lawfully. There is already a standing legal standard and if your standards different, you will have to be clear that your talking about your preferences and not the standard.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

Well, yes the poster did. The laws close down unsanitary environments. She said the store was the most unsanitary. Keep in mind, I say She just to use a pronoun instead of the poster.

It's like if I said you were the most perverted child molester I have seen. Of course by molester and my standards I mean it to mean alterations of the mind as in you molested their thought process. But we already know that child and molestation have legal meaning and you are no in fact a child molester according to those meanings. But to anyone who doesn't know of my standard, they will read it as you being a pervert of the worst kind. I know this so I can't really say it unless I'm willing to go through a lengthy statement either explaining what I mean or that it isn't what they think. That hasn't happened in the AC post case, they used the term unsanitary which contradicts the passing of an inspection and leave the impression that the store is unsanitary.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

The courts can keep an identity secret. It's just like that argument that they can keep a national security secret confidential so there is no reason why the government should be able to hide papers by claiming classified when people sue the telecoms.

It can remain anonymous enough. Besides, the court can look at the speech in question as is and determine if it is likely protected speech or not before ordering the user to be identified.

Re:Give me their names.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well, yes the poster did. The laws close down unsanitary environments. She said the store was the most unsanitary.

No she didn't. The claim was that the place was the most unsanitary looking she had ever seen. How sanitary an location is represents a sliding scale. Nowhere did she claim the establishment was so unsanitary it would not pass a health inspection.

Re:Give me their names.

[TheMuon]

The thing is, the minimum standards are not filthy and not disgusting.

The thing is, that is an opinion. Your opinion is not bound by the states legal definition of sanitation. Your argument as to why this could be seen as a statement of fact is simply wrong.

Further, the person said unsanitary looking. Even if I take your incorrect assumption to be true, the commenter never called the place unsanitary. The person called it unsanitary looking. Pray tell, how do you prove a person did not preceive something the way they say they preceived it.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

It doesn't really matter unsanitary means not sanitary, the law says they are sanitary. If the claim was the least sanitary or less sanitary then she preferred, I would buy the argument. But it wasn't, the argument or claim was most unsanitary meaning not sanitary which is contradictory to the laws concerning the inspection.

May be a poor choice of words, may be the competing store down the road attempting to get people to go somewhere else. It doesn't matter, it made a statement and that statement is what it at stake here. The store is either sanitary or not, if it passed inspections, it is.

Re:Give me their names.

[geminidomino]

The store is either sanitary or not, if it passed inspections, it is.

Bullshit. Just because you claim it is a boolean value, doesn't make it so.

If it passed inspections, it's sanitary enough... for the government, at least, which is well known for having lower standards than your average crackwhore.

Re:Give me their names.

[mcgrew]

I recently was educated about MSRA after a friend's father died from it. Apparently it isn't that dangerous unless your immune system is compromised in some way, such as having AIDS, cancer treatments, some arthritis medications, etc.

Except for one exception: a person with a good immune system can get it from surgery.

Generally, according to literature I picked up at the other hospital while visiting my friend (and roommate before she was admitted to the hspital) who is dying of cancer, if your immune system is normal you generally don't have to worry about any staph infection, antibiotic-resistant or not, except if you have surgery. IINM that's how Amy's dad got it.

Re:Give me their names.

[mcgrew]

"the world is six thousand years old and you will go to hell if you don't believe it is" is also a statement of fact and does harm.

Perhaps in some sort of nebulous way, but by "harm" you're not going to lose your job or money or house over it. OTOH saying "Dr. George, the geologist, says the world is six thousand years old" does indeed harm Dr. George, who as a geologist knows better and would not say that, yet if the statement is believed could harm him greatly. "Dr. George is a pedophile" or "Dr. George smokes crack" could certainly harm him greatly.

you could just say gays go to hell. that definitely has the potential to harm some gays

That would be an opinion, not a statement of fact. If your OPINION harms me like that, that's due to my own shortcomings, not yours.

by dissuading would-be gays from becoming gay

IINM that's not possible. One may choose to commit sodomy, but a gay doesn't chose to be gay any more than I chose to be hetero. You can choose what you do, but not how you are.

who cares what anyone says about anything?

It's not JUST harm, for it to be slander or libel you have to lie about a person, not lie TO a person or be mistaken. If I told your children you were a crack whore you would certainly care.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

Bullshit. Just because you claim it is a boolean value, doesn't make it so.

I didn't claim it, the governments did. Do you eat in unsanitary stores? why would the government allow unsanitary restaurants to stay open so you can eat in them?

f it passed inspections, it's sanitary enough... for the government, at least, which is well known for having lower standards than your average crackwhore.

Well, no. The health department or whoever does the inspections do no have differing scales depending on who will be visiting. They have defined a level that is sanitary and passed and one which is not sanitary and fails. It's that simple and if you don't specifically say you are using your own made up scale, people will default to the one that has been presented to them by the government in their area. No matter how hard you look at it, the post didn't say "with my scale" or anything like that. It said the most not sanitary that the poster has seen. The passing of inspections show that it is at least sanitary so that statement is at least wrong.

Re:Give me their names.

[Requiem18th]

But don't you agree that times have changed? The nature of libel what that some pertinent person talked ill and false about something in a prominent channel of media, example:

  Fox News interviews the ex-wife of some rock star saying that his husband was abusive and violent.

  Compare that to, some anonymous user in some obscure BBS says superman sucks.

  Precisely because it is an anonymous source and because its hidden in some forum the damage caused by it is negligible. In fact he is causing himself more harm due Streisand's.

  You may say the law is the law and technological progress doesn't affect it but consider the relation between SPAM and the first amendment.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

The problem is, there are many different reference values. As a matter of fact, there are probably at least as many reference values in this particular case as there are human beings on earth, and then some.

But the real problem is when you attempt to figure which reference value you are using when you don't state it, the propriator can claim it was the one everyone knows because it is the law. Remember, ignorance is no excuse for breacking the law because you should have known. So when you aren't clear that you are not using the law's version of sanitary verses not sanitary, that reference that everyone else knows can be assumed.

When you aren't clear, you allow others to be clear for you.

What I may consider to be unsanitary might not be what you consider to be. And what the law might consider to be unsanitary may or may not be equal to either of our preferences, or even near any of them, for that matter.

Agreed which is why you need to be clear in your statements so I know that you are talking about your idea and not what the law prescribes. The poster didn't do that, they said most unsanitary they have seen. This means not sanitary but by who's standards. Well, they didn't say so the lawful one can be used. At best, the "that I have seen" could be manipulated into her reference scale but the reader still doesn't know if they are talking about the legal scale or some other scale, they just know that the poster has seen more then one unsanitary place.

In short: It's quite possible for a specific location to be sanitary according to relevant law, while still being unsanitary according to the personal preferences of an individual.

Sure, but when saying that some place isn't sanitary according to your standards, you need to be clear that you are using your standards and not someone else's or else you can risk having to defend your statement when someone takes offense to it.

I'm not suggesting that you can't have your own opinion. I'm saying that when your not clear that it is your own opinion and it is according to what you think should be right or wrong, then it leaves the point open for interpretation. In the case of the post, the interpretation can go directly to the one presented by law or some other commonly understood value because the statement made wasn't clear.

This is really no different then saying something like "I wouldn't eat there, I know what goes on there". Well what you know could be that illegals work in the kitchen and you won't support an enterprise the employs illegal aliens over working Americans. But you didn't say that so a normal person can conclude that something goes on that would make them not want to eat there. That statement can be in just as much question as the poster's statement and in the past had been used as slander showing defamation in a court because of the open ended insinuations.

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

Well certainly, but this is so blinking obvious, why clog the courts? The statement is so obviously an opinion, even people with English as a 3rd language can comprehend the statement isn't defamation, it's simply an opinion. Granted, the courts might swiftly (as swiftly as they can move) dismiss this case, but the fact remains that there is a slim chance for a moron (or someone with an agenda) to turn this upside down and like the good old days with the "DeCSS" case, screw up something fierce.

I'd rather let the obvious stand, and let the courts sort out the confusing ones.

Re:Give me their names.

[moortak]

The fastest moving car you have ever seen could still be moving within the speed limit. Government standards do not make opinions into statements of fact.

Re:Give me their names.

[moortak]

Any open wound can lead to an infection of MRSA. Community acquired MRSA was a major problem in some of the local football stadiums here last year. at risk

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

It seems to be that a lower court already said there is reason to believe the statement was defamatory. Or that there was enough of a question that the claimant should have his day in court. That's why this is at the Maryland Court of Appeals which the article claimed was Maryland's highest court, the claimant is attempting force the exposing of the identities of the anonymous poster and the site is appealing the earlier decisions.

So no, legally, it isn't obvious. It may be to you and me, it may even be obvious to both of us and we have differing options to the importance of it, but a court already made the claim that there was enough evidence to pursuit the matter.

Of course the appeals court might decide against the first judge, but they would need a reason why. Whatever the first judge used as a suggestion that there was a case of defamation would have to be refuted which might be hard.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

But the statement didn't say it was the fastest moving car, it said it was speeding the fastest.

This is what I mean about how you are clear in your words. If they would have said the least sanitary I have seen, then it would be sanitary, just not on the levels that the poster would like. By saying the most unsanitary, they are saying not sanitary which the inspections say it is. It's like the speeding car, the law defines speeding as going over the speeding limit. Although you can infer the same meanings from the usages of the words, one actually makes a different statement then the other.

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

The issue here must not be the obvious, and more importantly, how this sort of thing affects whistleblowers etc (this would set some sort or precedent in Maryland at least). I'm not privy to the reasoning they used, but for me taking the statement at face value, it simply doesn't pass the "reasonable man test" (to qualify for defamation). For the courts in MD, though, it could very well be a bad law making bad precedent, or like the case with that girl who committed suicide and the whole myspace EULA nonsense rulings that were the result of using a VERY big legal hammer to "get" someone who did something morally reprehensible, but not illegal (in the case of the woman).

In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to see where this goes... not only in terms of the legal implications of anonymity on the web (and otherwise), but in terms of how we can take things meant to be an opinion and turn them into defamation. We used to have a VERY narrow definition of defamation, and I think we're losing that narrowness. Whether it be because the legal system is struggling to deal with the new medium of the internet, or we're simply becoming too sensitive, it's anyone's guess I suppose.

I mean, for instance, I could say that Angelina Jolie is "the ugliest woman I've seen", and say it in public (or post it), and since Angelina makes her living on her looks (and acting too, but she has modeled IIRC), she could claim I defamed her and I'd get the shaft... admittedly it's a stretch and most people would think I was batshit crazy for thinking it, much less saying it. (I may think she's a beauty deep down, but she's like an Italian sportscar... entirely too much maintenance for what you get.)

I still hold to the truism "on matters of taste, there is no argument." Either way, this is (and should) get a bit more press, since it might have implications even we can't think of at the moment...

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

Well, we have some complications with this in that the health and food inspectors already decide what sanitary is or isn't. So even though it was an opinion, the question or legal question of what does sanitary mean applies and when some one makes a statement that something is unsanitary, then is that opinion of their own scale of reference or is it using the inspections scale of reference.

Legally, it could be obvious that it is their opinion, but their opinion makes a definite statement about the state of the premises that when compared to the law in which stops unsanitary business from selling food or drink, then the statement needs to be compared to what is sanitary or not. This is more obvious if we do the car analogy. In effect, the person said the car was speeding faster then any speeding car they have seen before. Well, we know that speeding in a legal sense means going over the speed limit. So if the car wasn't going over the speed limit, then it couldn't be speeding. Now if the poster would have change their wording to something like least sanitary of simple faster then any other case I have seen, then it doesn't cross that semi legal boundary and venture into a statement that was never intended to be made.

Anyways, I think this is a case where a person made a statement of opinion concerning taste but because of the ambiguity if the wording, it can and is being taken in different contexts causing the conflict. Personally, I think let the courts figure it out. They should be able to keep the identities quiet until such time true harm is seen. This should be consistent with protecting whistle blowers and so on too.

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

Well, that's assuming this person (anonymous or not) either has information as to the breadth and scope of the Health Inspector's information and data, and 2nd, that they are using said data as a barometer to express such an opinion. Since we cannot assume this person is a health inspector, we have to conclude they are speaking for themselves (as reasonable people), and such expertise is not in question. (Thats why I think the anonymity thing's going to be a bigger deal than simply seeing if this statement is defamation or not... at some point they're going to need to figure out if this person is indeed someone who would benefit from the closure of this establishment, or the reduction in business, say for a competing business say...)

But here's the rub, your example with the car specifically states that the "speeding" car is the fastest "speeding" car they've seen. Now, that puts a qualifier on what kind of car, and hence that could be construed as someone who knows, or has more info on the subject of speeding cars... (or the person's a kook... that's a possibility too.) That in and of itself lends to the original argument w/r/t health inspector. But, if, like this person did with their statement about how dirty the establishment is, it's more generic than say "that's by far the filthiest establishment I've ever seen a dirty establishment before." Now that would qualify as a specific barometer and not the hyperbolic opinion that I think the original is. I mean, they don't put you in jail for saying "I'd kill for a klondike bar"... though, they might arrest you if you told someone "I'd kill person X with a lead pipe for a klondike bar..."

I see your point, don't misunderstand, but in terms of specific, narrowly focused speech, I think there's a great deal of leeway both the poster and the "allegedly defamed" (I forget his name) are using when promoting "opinion v. defamation". Now, I can see if the person cited specific items that were nasty, etc.. that could be some shaky ground (if it's not true, of course.... this is all moot if it's actually a true statement.) But like I said, it'll be interesting to find out what shakes out of this whole thing. :)

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

Well, that's assuming this person (anonymous or not) either has information as to the breadth and scope of the Health Inspector's information and data, and 2nd, that they are using said data as a barometer to express such an opinion. Since we cannot assume this person is a health inspector, we have to conclude they are speaking for themselves (as reasonable people), and such expertise is not in question. (Thats why I think the anonymity thing's going to be a bigger deal than simply seeing if this statement is defamation or not... at some point they're going to need to figure out if this person is indeed someone who would benefit from the closure of this establishment, or the reduction in business, say for a competing business say...)

I don't think that anonymous person's knowledge matters much in determining if a statement was defamatory or not. Their ignorance wouldn't excuse the effects their statements would have on other people. Imagine that you said you saw someone kissing a girl that wasn't his wife. His wife takes it out on him, divorces him and in a heated argument, she pulls a guns and shoots him. The damage is done regardless of the fact that you mistook someone else for him. Well, the same can be said when your ignorance causes financial harm that statutory damages can be recovered by. It wouldn't matter that you were clueless at the time of making the statements, what would matter is that the statement was made and people took it in a certain way while harm was done to someone's reputation that caused damages that were legally recognizable.

Now, if the statement can truly be read in multiple ways, then the arguments you put forward would count significantly for a defense but a judge and jury would most likely need to make the determination to ensure justice is done.

But here's the rub, your example with the car specifically states that the "speeding" car is the fastest "speeding" car they've seen. Now, that puts a qualifier on what kind of car, and hence that could be construed as someone who knows, or has more info on the subject of speeding cars... (or the person's a kook... that's a possibility too.) That in and of itself lends to the original argument w/r/t health inspector. But, if, like this person did with their statement about how dirty the establishment is, it's more generic than say "that's by far the filthiest establishment I've ever seen a dirty establishment before." Now that would qualify as a specific barometer and not the hyperbolic opinion that I think the original is. I mean, they don't put you in jail for saying "I'd kill for a klondike bar"... though, they might arrest you if you told someone "I'd kill person X with a lead pipe for a klondike bar..."

I think your missing the point. The qualifier was speeding which has a specific meaning, going faster then the posted speed limit. Unsanitary has a specific meaning, not sanitary. Now both of those have a legal meaning that could actually harm someone if they were used inappropriately. In the case of speeding, it could get someone popped for reckless op or even make them liable for an accident that someone else caused. Unsanitary means it doesn't meet the state health code for food service. You wouldn't want to eat at some place that doesn't meet the state's guidelines which determine sanitary conditions. Again, given the arguments you made, the guy should have his day in court and the defense should stand in it's own. If it turns out that comment was nothing but a marketing ploy by a competitor, it will be very difficult in claiming arrogance and ignorance for a defense.

I see your point, don't misunderstand, but in terms of specific, narrowly focused speech, I think there's a great deal of leeway both the poster and the "allegedly defamed" (I forget his name) are using when promoting "opinion v. defamation". Now, I can see if the person cited specific items that were nasty, etc.. that could be some

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

I see your point, and the court is a vital tool for the host of ambiguities that come up in this sort of thing, but I'm always cautious when we have to get courts involved. Because of the simple fact that there have been entirely too many cases that simply fly in the face of precedent and equal application of the law merely because some judge or prosecutor has an axe to grind. It's not rampant, but anytime you involve the court, you run the risk of doing damage to freedom for what we both agree is something that needs to be cleared up somehow. I just look at the statement from a "least squares" perspective (so to speak). I'm just one of those crass individuals who take a probably overly skeptical view of defamation in general.... particularly when it's used as the "big hammer of silence" for certain powerful entities/persons who want to cut off their detractors. (that's not always the case with celebrities, but by and large, it seems like bad press gets a defamation smack... but with the internet, it's getting harder to cover that up.. heh.) Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think you'll agree that there's something else brewing just below the surface on this one.

As for the ISP situation, I think obviously we can see that pure anonymity isn't going to work on the internet any more than it would in real life... and we've got to remember the boundaries we set for anonymity can change, and we must be careful not to change them for the worse, or we'll lose valuable things like whistleblowers and anonymous tips for crimes if we close the circle too tightly to protect against every single piece of possible defamation that exists in print or on the web.

My hunch is, as I've been mulling this over, one of two things have occurred here... 1) the owner thinks he might know who this person is and is using the court to flush them out. Perhaps it's a rival franchisee... or an ex of some sort... *shrug* or (or possibly and) 2) the place was a sty and the owner's using the courts to cover it (and future dissent) up... but since it's public now, I don't suspect (if he indeed was trying tactic 2) he had thought that through all the way. :)

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

I think if the appeals court supports the position, it isn't necessarily going to be a judge or prosecutor with an axe to grind unless they are justified within the bounds of the law. I mean if someone is hell bent on getting justice for whatever reasons, if justice is served, then I think all is well until the person gets treated differently then anyone else in sentencing.

As for internet anonymity, I have come to that conclusion too.

As for the one of two things happening, I think it is closer to the first. I think the guy not only thinks he knows who the person is, but because of who the person is, that would mean that there is no way or very little chance of the statement being a mistaken opinion about a single experience someone had. I think he believes that it is a malicious attempt to damage his credibility and harm his business. How much of that is only in his mind could be in question. Hopefully the courts figure a way out to both let this guy have his day and protect the names of the people involved if it isn't what he claims.

Re:Give me their names.

[Doctor_Jest]

Good points... thanks for the discussion.... I enjoyed it.

Re:Give me their names.

[moortak]

Health and safety codes can only verify sanitation at the time of inspection. It may have even been unsanitary at the time of the visit.

Re:Give me their names.

[sumdumass]

The point is that is a claim that it wouldn't pass the codes. It isn't a claim that is relative to my experience or from what I know. It's saying something specific that has specific meanings and consequences.

It very well could have been unsanitary at the time of the visit but the onus is on the poster to clarify that instead of making a blanket statement that it isn't sanitary and would pass the codes if inspected.

Elephant in the room attack!

[TaoPhoenix]

"We don't like your comment about some random Dunkin Donuts. Please turn over your entire internet history so that anyone on the planet can sue you for defamation."

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[mewshi_nya]

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.

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[JCSoRocks]

My thoughts exactly. Just clean up your store, take a bunch of pictures, post them to that forum, and issue a press release. You don't have to be a douche to protect your company's reputation.

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] if the owner just cleaned it up [...]

What's interesting is that, based on a quote from "some guy" on the Internet, you are assuming that the place really is a mess and needs to be cleaned up.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that you'd think twice about going to that particular store, based upon the posting of "some guy" on the Internet.

Sounds like the guy has case to me...

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[Kabuthunk]

Well yeah... but cleaning costs money, and suing gets you money. The decision is obvious :P.

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[Richard_at_work]

Why couldnt he do both?

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[VeNoM0619]

No... because

A) I don't take restaurant advice from the internet
B) One person (not a food critic) feels the place isn't good will only lower the chance of me going, but might:
C) Make me want to go just to see if it really is all that filthy

And D) McDonalds, Arbys, Hardees are dirty places..........until after the rush hour when they get a chance to clean up, but I still eat there.

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay. That's you.

But how many posts have you seen on this topic that start with, "Well, if the guy cleaned up his place..." as though it was already determined that the place was dirty--merely because somebody on the Internet said it was.

That was what I was talking about. mewshi_nya said, "if the owner just cleaned it up..." thereby implying that it must be dirty because some guy on the Internet said so.

Re:Elephant in the room attack!

[geminidomino]

[...] if the owner just cleaned it up [...]

What's interesting is that, based on a quote from "some guy" on the Internet, you are assuming that the place really is a mess and needs to be cleaned up.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that you'd think twice about going to that particular store, based upon the posting of "some guy" on the Internet.

Sounds like the guy has case to me...

Sounds more to me like a case of "methinks he doth protest too much."

I'm inclined to believe the random post on the net because this guy is so willing to press the "sue" button.

WTF

[Capt James McCarthy]

I didn't know opinion was liable.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know opinion was liable.

What if the person who wrote it was the owner of a competing donut shop, and his/her intent was to diminish the reputation of the establishment.

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.

Re:WTF

[DirtySouthAfrican]

Or libel.

Re:WTF

[JoeMerchant]

It (opinion) is not slander, either. However, nothing stops any idiot from filing a motion in court, no matter how inane.

If you get a Lawyer to do it for you, the filed motion also has a fair chance of requiring the appearance of the other party, regardless of merit (or complete lack thereof.)

What's needed is a clear method of redress for frivolous lawsuit - say $500 base fine payable to the offended party, plus a generous per-diem on top if the situation manages to drag on beyond a single appearance. The ISP in this case could then at least be compensated for their harassment, but instead, they have to file countersuit (also paying fees to the court), obtain judgement and then attempt to collect on that judgement.

Here, the courts make a judicious attempt to get cases settled before coming to trial - which does nothing to reduce the harassment factor, but at least keeps the judges' calendars a little clearer.

Re:WTF

[Yez70]

Opinion is not libel. In fact - from the summary: "The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'" The key point here is that the poster described it as one of the dirtiest places HE had seen. In court, the store owner would have to PROVE that the poster was telling a lie. They would also have to prove he had seen many many more dirty shops - an impossibility. You can't prove an opinion though, as everything is in the eye of the beholder. If he instead had said there were rats climbing through the donut holes and feces on the windows (when there were not) then he would have a case. Simply saying he thought the place was unsanitary is only an opinion. You have the right to think whatever you want, as long as you don't make things up to support your opinion. If he had made up supporting facts for his argument, then they might have a case for libel and to disclose the identity of the poster, but it doesn't seem like he can meet that burden. IANAL

Re:WTF

[ScrewMaster]

There's one near where I used to live that I would hit sometimes for a breakfast sandwich on Saturday mornings. Bit into one of the things, and the meat was rotted. Had to pull over and throw up, it was awful. Never went back. To be fair, though, I had a very similar experience at a nearby McDonald's that I switched to after the first experience.

Never went back there either.

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.

Re:Good luck with that privacy thing

[TubeSteak]

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

Just because the Federal Government can assrape your privacy does not meant that privacy in the civil sphere is weaker.

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?

Re:No mention however

[TheSpoom]

Technically it's the responsibility of the person who stated the comments to prove truth, not the other way around.

That said, I agree with the other posts here: if the comment was stated as the summary says it was, it's an opinion, not a statement of fact, and thus can't be considered defamation.

Re:No mention however

[theaveng]

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.

Re:No mention however

[gnarlyhotep]

Has this Brodie dude even provided the court with evidence that his establishment isn't unsanitary-looking?

That's a matter of fact for a jury at trial. The question about who to sue and if the anonymity is protected or can be divulged, it a matter of law for a judge to determine prior to a jury being seated.

As long as he has a case that appears to be valid, a judge can't toss it out based on facts, only a jury can decide that (unless both parties allow for a bench trial, which obviously they can't since one hasn't been served yet).

Re:No mention however

[CTalkobt]

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.

Has anyone won yet for negative moderation on Slashdot yet?

Just wondering...

Re:No mention however

[Altus]

yes, our law is based on "Innocent until proven guilty" and the person on trial is the one who is innocent until it is proven that what he said was false, believable and damaging to the business and reputation of dunking donuts.

Re:No mention however

[langelgjm]

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)?

"Innocent until proven guilty" would mean that the people who made the comments are innocent of defamation/slander until they are proven guilty. The burden of proof is going to be with the person who is bringing the charge, and that's the way it should be. Otherwise, you'd have some very chilling effects on free speech. Someone would simply have to claim defamation regarding any statement they didn't like, and it would be up to the accused to defend themselves.

Re:No mention however

[Qzukk]

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.

"Your comment is a mortal insult to me and has harmed me and my business greatly. I shall now be forced to sue you for it. Prepare your proof that you didn't cause any harm."

Now do you see why it doesn't work the way you want?

Re:No mention however

[DrVomact]

The facts are irrelevant here. What's at issue is whether someone who makes remarks alleged to be defamatory has a right to anonymity. The offended party wants to take those who made the comments to court, but he can't do that if the doesn't know who they are. The right to seek redress in a court of law is also a right, and shouldn't be lightly dismissed. I see this as a conflict of personal rights, and I'm not sure quite how I feel about it.

To what extent is this a First Amendment issue at all? Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a guarantee of anonymous free speech. If you get up in a public assembly and state your opinions, then you show your face. If you own a newspaper or T.V. station and use it to editorialize about government policy, everyone knows who you are. The First Amendment guarantees that you can't be punished for expressing your opinion; it is silent on whether you can do so anonymously.

The internet has, for the first time, made anonymous public communication easy and potentially influential. Previously, one would have had to resort to unsigned placards posted in the dark of night (or perhaps the odd shout of "The King is a fink!"). I am inclined to find little merit in the claim that one should be able to disparage individuals or businesses anonymously, but I do think that the issue of anonymous political speech should be taken very seriously. One could argue that in the United States, we don't need the protection of anonymity because our right to speak is already protected, and the government can take no action against us, no matter what we say. However, there is more than one way in which the government can punish those who speak the truth (think "whistleblowers"), and there are other perils to speaking one's mind publicly in a forum that has such wide circulation as the internet—I do have reasons for habitually posting under a pseudonym, after all.

I'm glad that the courts are treading carefully with cases such as this one.

Re:No mention however

[plague3106]

I think you're right, but it would also be the responsiblity of the one filing to prove actual harm had been done by the comments on the website. So he'd have to find someone that said they were going to go to the DD, saw the forum post, and then decided not to.

Re:No mention however

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody makes any money by keeping good karma.

And if they are, I'm suing for back pay. ... posting anonymously to not ruin my income-destroying moderation here. :D

Re:No mention however

[Omestes]

The internet has, for the first time, made anonymous public communication easy and potentially influential. Previously, one would have had to resort to unsigned placards posted in the dark of night (or perhaps the odd shout of "The King is a fink!").

Wrong. Anonyminity is about as old as news, and probably as old as politics. People had to resort to nom de plumes or nom de guerres, or various other flavors of pseudonyms. Look at American revolutionary history, there was a veritable blizzard of pseudonyms and anonymous editorials and pamphlets flying about. Hell even modern (but pre-internet) history is rife with them. Deep Throat comes to mind, as the most famous, and anonymous of them.

The only difference now is that it is the default, and is expected.

Re:No mention however

[TheSpoom]

Goddammit... *hires a lawyer for the impending lawsuit*

Someone Post Pictures Now!

[TaoPhoenix]

"The question of the state of cleanliness is a material fact in the issue. Someone please post ZoeTroped pictures of the restaurant so that we may see its condition. It's only defamation if it's false."

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[geekoid]

And if presented as fact; which it was not.

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[nedlohs]

You would need to see all the food service places the commenter had seen, and rank them according to "dirty and unsanitary-looking"ness and then determine where the cutoff is for "one of the most".

The language is so vague it is meaningless...

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[Surt]

Even if it is pretty clean or pretty dirty, the original poster is safe since he stated it in relative terms to his personal experience of other establishments. Just because he normally eats at 4 star restaurants and wandered into a DD by mistake does not invalidate his opinion.

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[DragonTHC]

incorrect. It is never false. It can always be true since it is based upon one person's opinion and his experience of never having seen a dirtier place.

Therefore, it is always true and not defamatory.

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[clone53421]

You could always get a subpoena requiring his mom to reveal what his room in the basement looks like. Assuming she's still paying for his electricity, it's safe to say he's seen it.

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[CTalkobt]

You would need to see all the food service places the commenter had seen, and rank them according to "dirty and unsanitary-looking"ness and then determine where the cutoff is for "one of the most".

The language is so vague it is meaningless...

and in addition, it was the one of the worst the _poster_ had seen - one person's opinion may be different from anothers.

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[hoggoth]

Please post the pictures on 4chan to make sure we maintain a professional level of discourse.

Pics or it didn't happen!

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[clone53421]

Bwahaha, the invalid BASE HREF strikes again!

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[liquidsin]

that's pretty much what i was thinking too. as far as my understanding goes, "...the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." is an opinion, which can't be libelous. now, had the poster used wording such as "...the most dirty and unsanitary food service place ever" then there could be a case. since it was presented as opinion rather than fact, i don't believe it can be libel. and if it's not libel, there should be no reason to remove the posters' anonymity.

Re:Someone Post Pictures Now!

[aadvancedGIR]

But he could sue Google (good luck with that, it's more likely that this guy will be fired for the bad press he makes for the franchise), with the words Dunkin Donuts dirty, I get over 200k answers.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[mamono]

Maybe he is an invader from the Crab Nebula

the arguments continued...

[deft]

the arguments continued... that Zebulon would bring down a fleet of Vogon constructor ships upon the first ammendment if he should not be pleased.

I posted that weak ass hitchhiker reference just because I was hoping to be one of the first people to say something diparaging without being anon... posting anon coward would be too obvious. perhaps the forums should use the coward moniker..seems to really put people in their place here!

Well that, and Zebulon really made me think of mork from orc... :)

Simple case

[hypergreatthing]

Stating an opinion is not defamatory.

I think bush is the worst president we've ever had.

Should i be expected to be sued by bush for defaming his name?

Re:Simple case

[mewshi_nya]

This is needs to get over it.

He appears to not understand that suing over this will only serve to legitimize the claims.

Not only that, being on the internet makes it no more damaging than a friend saying "That dunkin' donuts sucks, dude..."

And he just makes himself look like a total dick by doing this.

Re:Simple case

[Surt]

Your daily beatings, waterboarding, and other assorted tortures will all be provided gratis as well!

Great use of funds.

[Volante3192]

Instead of hiring a legal team, wouldn't that money be better spent, oh, I don't know, fixing up your store?!

There're reasons I won't go to any fast food place other than In-N-Out. One is I have yet to enter one where I felt the urge to break out saniwipes if I accidentally touched a table.

Customer service is dead. Next he'll be suing people because they're shopping at a competitor...

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[PachmanP]

Man that guy is an asshole. And I've been to his DD it sucks. The kitchen is nasty, and the people behind the counter are all fat kids, and there's never any waffles!

Good thing I posted this on the internet where people have learned to take everything with a grain of salt and realize that I could be from ukraine and be posting this having never been to mary's land or where ever.

Maybe...

[himurabattousai]

he should be more worried about the actual conditions of his store. I'm not naive enough to think that people don't use the internet to cause trouble, but if the comment is echoed throughout the forum, he's most likely got a problem on his hands. He may not like someone coming out and saying that his store is filthy, but if the comment is true, then this falls under the realm of informing citizens.

Somehow, I doubt he wants the poster's name and address to send him coupons.

Legal Innoculation?

[TaoPhoenix]

... Why him?

Why does some second tier fast food owner bring up one of the biggest precedent setting cases ever?

Can he be bringing up a weak version of a precedent setting case to angle for a pro-rights victory?

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:Legal Innoculation?

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Either way, I have the feeling that he's going to be under the microscope by Dunkin's legal team from now on.

Re:Legal Innoculation?

[Reziac]

I suspect you're right. No franchise company wants a branch store making them look bad, and this sure isn't doing them any good.

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?

Re:Cheap lawyers?

[Samschnooks]

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?

You can't pay a janitor with contingency fees.

Re:Cheap lawyers?

[innerweb]

Ego gets so many people into trouble that way. Ego does not care about cost, only about feeling good (revenge?)

InnerWeb

Re:Cheap lawyers?

[gstoddart]

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

Why fix the problem when you can stifle the criticism?

Cheers

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?

Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville

[frost_knight]

Huh. I picked up coffee and an egg sandwich from that very establishment yesterday morning. The place was spotless. Then again, it was the first time I've ever been there.

Re:Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville

[lecanucker]

You're defaming the original Defamer! quick, CmdrTaco, reveal his true identity!! But Not mine, as I am acting in the public interest by exposing defamers.

Re:Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville

[Culture20]

You're defaming the original Defamer! quick, CmdrTaco, reveal his true identity!! But Not mine, as I am acting in the public interest by exposing defamers.

You're defaming the defamer of the original defamer! quick, CmdrTaco, reveal his true identity!! I'll spare you all the infinite regression by admitting that I'm defaming the defamer of the defamer of the original defamer, and I'll even reveal that my real name has been legally changed to Anonymous Coward (anonymous.coward@example.com), so CmdrTaco need not bother revealing me.

You just got served by humor

[deft]

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.

Re:You just got served by humor

[ookabooka]

The original poster was clearly making a joke by posting it anon. irony is thick and funny in that post.

oddly, this post is redundant, but should be moderated as +5 (or is it -5) redundant because that would make my day.

Re:You just got served by humor

[clone53421]

I was about to mod you down, but then I realised your post was most likely sarcastic...

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.

Re:You just got served by humor

[Daimanta]

"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.

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:Um, no...

[Volante3192]

You think that's convenient, try this sucker out:

http://www.ca.gov/OS_Consumers_inspections.html

Re:Um, no...

[Drakkenmensch]

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?

It's so much easier to sue a single website for defamation (and hopefully make a few thousands in damages in the process) than to actually clean up your restaurant and serve halfway decent food (which costs effort and money). It's the law of the least effort, it works as well on people as it does on atoms and chemical reactions.

Re:Um, no...

[SuseLover]

Perhaps someone just should call Gordon Ramsey and have him visit the shop? If he thought that poster was harsh just wait until Ramsey gets there....

Re: Crab Nebula

[TaoPhoenix]

Is Kerrigan Mahan available to do the voices?

Re:Thank Christ

[qwertphobia]

Thank christ Maryland isn't the center of the known universe. Maryland can do whatever the hell it feels like, and all the citizens can cow down to its respective governments, but as for me, Mr xxxx yyyyy, I will revel in my internet anonymity.

That's easy for you to say. I have to go through Maryland on my way to the beach!

Maybe I'm missing something here

[R2.0]

The only people who have the ability to resuse to testify or give evidence are priests, spouses, and various other job classifications. As far as I know, ISP owner isn't one of them.

A subpoena is a subpoena. I will agree that courts have been issuing them inappropriately in some cases, but I don't see how this qualifies.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something here

[DeadManCoding]

Just because you get served with a subpoena, doesn't mean that you have to immediately comply with it. In this case, the DD guy wants the names of the "intar-web posters". The newspaper place says fuck you, their opinion and right to post opinion is covered under the first amendment. Somehow, this one will end up far beyond just the Maryland SC.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something here

[R2.0]

The problem is that the question of whether it was a statement of opinion or fact is what needs to be adjudicated. The text in question doesn't say "I believe" or I think"; it says it isthe dirtiest restaurant he's ever seen. The wording is ambiguous - if taken literally, the Plaintiff would need to find the other restaurants the defendant has seen and compare filth levels. If they find one that's dirtier, then the defendant was stating an untruth. Or it could just be an opinion. But that's what the case was about. I don't say the case has merit, but it's there.

As for 1st amendment considerations, it wasn't political speech or the other categories most often associated with it.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something here

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

The text...doesn't say "I believe" or I think"; it says it is the dirtiest restaurant he's ever seen.

actually, i think that if you are going to make that assertion you should look a little closer at the quote in the article and the summary:

The shop was described as one "of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen."

there is a real difference between 'the dirtiest' and 'one of the dirtiest'. the first is a concrete claim (although usually used as hyperbole). the second is a grouping, among other similarly dirty shops. even if the statement was not preceded with 'in my opinion' a reasonable reader would understand that the writer is stating his opinion. he makes no scientific or factual claims. dirty is interpretive, not quantitative. and the poster stated that it was "unsanitary-looking" which is also an interpretation. unless the poster then enumerated further, everything in the quote sounds like an opinion.

As for 1st amendment considerations, it wasn't political speech

i also think that it is important to note that the 1st amendment does not specifically protect political speech, but rather all speech.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something here

[TheMuon]

The problem is that the question of whether it was a statement of opinion or fact is what needs to be adjudicated. The text in question doesn't say "I believe" or I think"; it says it isthe dirtiest restaurant he's ever seen. The wording is ambiguous - if taken literally, the Plaintiff would need to find the other restaurants the defendant has seen and compare filth levels. If they find one that's dirtier, then the defendant was stating an untruth. Or it could just be an opinion. But that's what the case was about. I don't say the case has merit, but it's there.

As for 1st amendment considerations, it wasn't political speech or the other categories most often associated with it.

No, it say it is one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.' That is clearly an opinion.

"the most...I have seen"

[Linux987]

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.

Re:"the most...I have seen"

[danzona]

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.

Citation needed?

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Citation needed?

[russotto]

Opinions are not statements of fact, something that apparently escapes even the highest court in Maryland.

The highest court hasn't ruled yet. And the question isn't about the merit of the libel claim anyway; it's about whether the plaintiff should have to demonstrate that merit before obtaining the identity of the defendant.

IMO, even if taken as an absolute factual statement (which it was not), the claim is not provable either way -- there's no way the plaintiff can show the restaurant was not dirty and "unsanitary-looking" at the time the defendant saw it. And IANAL but I think the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the defamatory statement was false.

Re:Citation needed?

[girlintraining]

the courts have already partially answered this question elsewhere -- the harm the comment can/has made to the reputation of the plaintiff must be substantial and demonstrated. In that case, they can ask the provider in that jurisdiction. Maryland cannot order, say, a New York ISP to do so. That must be resolved at the federal level. And nuts to him if the data he wants resides on an international system. Of course, whether those records exist, to what degree they can identify a specific person, etc., is not a trivial matter.

Ironically, the plaintiff is drawing more attention to this than it ever would have received had he not brought suit; He'd had been better off keeping his mouth shut. this may be a case of economic darwinism -- he's self-selecting himself into bankrupcy.

-1, Fail

[Mr. Underbridge]

*whoosh*

Re:-1, Fail

[Utini420]

yup, missed the joke.

point still stands.

Re:-1, Fail

[Vu1turEMaN]

yep. deft was being daft. not deft-like at all.

Where does the judge get his/her authority here?

[MikeRT]

NewsZip.com is registered in Delaware, and this is a state court from another state, attempting to impose a court order outside of its jurisdiction. What, pray tell, gives them a basis to even think about doing this? I'd like to see the federal statute...

Prove the allegation first

[Todd Knarr]

My opinion: the judge should require the plaintiff here to first prove that the statements were defamatory. You don't need to know who said them to do that, the statements stand on their own. Once the owner has a ruling that the statements were in fact defamatory, then demand the identity of the person who made them so they can be held to account for them.

Re:Prove the allegation first

[cdrguru]

Do you not believe accusing a food service establishment of being unsanitary is not defamtory? What sort of places to you eat at, anyway?

Or are you trying to say that it is only defamatory if untrue?

Re:Prove the allegation first

[Wonko the Sane]

Or are you trying to say that it is only defamatory if untrue?

In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.

Re:Prove the allegation first

[Todd Knarr]

No, having and stating an opinion is not defamatory. At least not in and of itself. And nobody should be subject to massive legal bills just because someone else doesn't like their opinion.

Now, if the owner can show that the stated opinion is false (no reasonable person would have believed the place was unsanitary) and that the opinion was stated with the intention of harming his business, then he's got a case for defamation. But he hasn't even attempted that. All he's done is state his opinion of the posts. And if the posts are defamatory, then his statements about the poster are also defamatory by the same standard.

Nowhere in the law does it say you've a right to never have anybody say anything you don't like.

Re:Prove the allegation first

[jvkjvk]

No, I don't believe that accusing a food service establishment of being unsanitary is defamatory.

As long as I state that as my opinion. Which was done in this case.

Or are you trying to say that it is only defamatory if untrue?

Yes, that is another possible reason; statements of fact are not defamatory.

Cheers.

Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

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.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[pm_rat_poison]

Yeah, but this doesn't cover matters of opinion. For example, I could claim that "restaurant X is the worst I've ever been to, and I don't recommend anyone going there"

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lecanucker]

This seems like a way to open a massive can of horrible horrible worms. Imagine spiders sweeping the internet for any negative comments. A Private version of big-brother regulating the comments of the masses. Want to write a negative review of a hotel/car/performance? Forget about it. Want to mod something -1 on /.?? No way.
Shouldn't posts from anonymous cowards be considered an opinion anyways? Just as this post constitutes my opinion?

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

I see your point, but that isn't how speech has worked for 100s of years. If you write something defamatory, presented as a fact, e.g. "there are rats in the kitchen here" you have always been liable for that speech. A business would spend a HELL of a lot of money on lawyers if they subpoenaed every forum out there on a daily basis. A hell of a lot, as in tens of millions of dollars a year.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

Oh, but I would be totally up in arms if we ever allowed something like the DMCA take down notices, i.e. -- all you have to do is ALLEGE that something is a lie to have it taken down. That would be BS.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[jvkjvk]

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).

Of course! You're a law student. Already well away down the dark path. I'm only partially kidding.

You are assuming as a basis part of what the judge is trying to decide. I thought as a law student you would have at least read what was going on before posting. Sigh.

Yes, I don't think many people are saying that illegal things done over the internet can use the partial anonymity of the Net to shield themselves from the consequences of their illegal actions.

At the same time, it doesn't appear that there were any illegal actions. In that case, it doesn't appear prudent of the courts to let someone muck around with private citizens who are offering their opinions on businesses.

No matter how much it hurts the business.

So, does this case still seem 100% reasonable to you?

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

Well, lets flesh out the full hypo: In the real world, a person can put a sign up in their front lawn saying "McDonalds is the worst tasting food ever" and no you can't touch that because it is opinion. It doesn't matter if it is anonymous or not. On the internet, a person can do the same, with the same results. But in both the real world, and the internet, if you write "This McDonalds puts human flesh in its burgers", you can be sued for defamation. The court/jury will look at factors including whether or not it is parody and of course, whether or not it is true. I don't see why posting on the internet (as apposed to placing a sign in your yard) should give you any sort of immunity from prosecution. There is a legal PROCESS. If you didn't do anything wrong, you will be acquitted. The only difference between print and the internet is that in theory you can print 1000 flyers defaming McDonalds, not put your name on it, and no one will ever know who spread them around central park. You can "get away" with it. But similarly, you can go to a public library, make an internet post defaming McDonalds, and "get away" with it. The point is that I see no reason why the internet should be different than print, anonymous or not. That said, the court SHOULD AND MUST respect the difference between opinion and fact. I can say, "The resturant should have been cleaner" and that is an opinion.. and should be protected on both the internet and print. (Unless maybe they can prove it was a Level 3 clean room, I kid, I kid)

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

Also, imagine you were a business owner. Another business owner, down the street, hires 10 people to anonymously post brutal lies about your business on yelp.com. Suddenly, you are almost broke. Now, just because those lies were posted anonymously on the internet, you are saying that there should be NO LEGAL PROCESS by which the true identities of the people should be revealed? If not, please clarify what your position is..

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[jvkjvk]

Please re-read what I wrote. I'll say the same here in different terms and perhaps we can approach understanding.

Again, "The Internet" is no safety shield from prosecution of illegal activities. Should an anonymous (*but with the potential to be identified) individual break any law then clearly they deserve their day in court under their true identity.

However, this particular case is stuck in the illegality determination phase. On the face of it, it does not appear if the anonymous parties did anything illegal. This is an important point!

Do you believe that anonymous persons should be compelled to reveal their true identities regardless if a crime is committed?

If not, please clarify what your position is... :)

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

Well, in 99% of all legal cases the ENTIRE POINT of the proceeding is the "illegality determination phase." From murder to defamation, criminal and civil, innocent people of all sorts have to defend their actions (and even non-actions)! I don't see how this sort of case is any different. This is no different than the RIAA subpoenas of ISPs to determine who is illegally swapping music. I don' like the RIAA, but I understand that private people and organizations MUST, under our legal structure as it stands, have the right to a PROCESS to determine the identity of someone causing them harm. THEN, there can be a determination of whether or not there was any crime or civil tort or breach of contract. TO be frank, I think that you are ignoring how our legal system actually works in 99% of all cases.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[jvkjvk]

You are swerving around the main point.

It is not in the best interest of society to allow trolling of anonymous persons especially if no illegal activity has occurred. I believe that this can be established in this case without having to reveal the identities of the anonymous parties.

So, I'll take your response as an affirmative answer to my question: You believe that anonymous persons should be compelled to reveal their true identities regardless if a crime is committed.

I disagree strenuously.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[lordsegan]

Well, apparently outside of Maryland, the issue appears to be pretty well settled: If users are notified, it affords them a chance to protest the subpoenas in court and, if successful, keep their identities secret and avoid being sued or targeted by somebody claiming defamation, copyright, privacy or other breaches. When individuals challenge subpoenas, the lawyers seeking their identity sometimes drop the case. And the courts routinely quash challenged subpoenas if they conclude there were no legal violations to begin with, privacy experts said. "The notice gives you the opportunity to speak privately, by filing a motion to quash," said Fred von Lohmann, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The courts, before somebody's identity is released, are requiring a legitimate claim against you." Still, if the subpoenas go unchallenged, the ISPs comply with them. " http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2007/09/vw_parody_ad It sounds to me that this process works a lot like a motion for summary judgment. You can't just IGNORE a lawsuit against you, but you can motion for summary judgment, basically saying, "the case against me is so weak, please just throw it out." It sounds like these internet subpoenas are being treated basically the same way. You can't IGNORE them if you are served with a subpoena, and companies must have the ABILITY to get your identity via a subpoena, but if they have a total bullshit case, the judge can just decline to issue a subpoena. That sounds TOTALLY reasonable to me. Maybe we are just arguing past each other now... But my basic point is that companies (and people) must have some way to "unmask" your IP/user handle for those cases where it is necessary to determine if you violated their legal rights.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[jvkjvk]

Yup, we are arguing past each other now.

Certainly if it is necessary to identify someone to determine if what they have done is illegal or not then this must be part of the process. If you read what I wrote I made it clear that illegal activities should not be afforded protection on the internet. Twice. Maybe three times.

Your argument appeared to be that discovery of identity outweighs consideration of illegality. That is what I had an issue with. Since you have amended or detailed your view to include the provision that anonymity should only be given up in cases where it is necessary to determine illegality (or of course, where it is apparent that the actions are illegal), we appear to be on similar pages.

Cheers.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[plague3106]

Well, as of right now the posters haven't broken any law, because it hasn't been shown their posts are defamatory. It would be up to the owner to prove they are, would it not?

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[raju1kabir]

You've fallen into my trap. Now I'm going to open a pizzeria called "Restaurant X" just so I can have the courts give me a copy of Slashdot's user database.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's the problem with your approach: how do you know whether a crime has been committed? When someone's been convicted of that crime in a court of law, duh. Oh, wait..... that means that in order to prove that someone committed a crime, you need to remove that person's anonymity. Convenient, isn't it? You don't need to actually prove anything to remove someone's anonymity, you merely need to state that you think that something illegal happened.

And that's smack-dab in the middle of having no anonymous speech at all.

Re:Nothing sacred about speech on the internet.

[pm_rat_poison]

If I'm going down, I'm going to take everyone with me! It was slashdot that made me do it, I swearz!

Re:Where does the judge get his/her authority here

[gstoddart]

NewsZip.com is registered in Delaware, and this is a state court from another state, attempting to impose a court order outside of its jurisdiction.

Increasingly (and scarily) jurisdiction is being extended through some pretty tenuous reasoning.

That whole Lori Drew case was a woman in Missouri being sued in Los Angeles -- because the servers are located there.

Sadly, the internet seems to have created cases where lawmakers still say "well, you're guilty here" -- which is kind of scary. Just think, there is a precedent in the US which allows you to be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction you don't live in and possibly have never visited.

One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!

Cheers

Tortous interference?

[cdrguru]

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.

Re:Tortous interference?

[proton]

In today's USA, betting you will not be sued is a very risky bet.

There, fixed that for you. You see, in the rest of the civilized world we dont have that problem with frivolous lawsuits since unlike in the USA, the loser pays court costs. /pro

scary judges

[Eil]

The scariest part is that these case is absurd on a number of levels, but at least one judge so far thinks this Zebulon J. Brodie whackjob actually had a valid point.

First off, the First Amendment protects freedom of expression. We're not all the way there yet, but most intelligent people (including many judges) agree that anonymity is essential to guarantee free speech without fear of reprisal. One exception of course is for libelous or defamatory statements but those do NOT include negative criticism framed as opinion.

The statement "[one] of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen," is very clearly an opinion by the author and he or she is making a personal judgment of the place in comparison to other food-service stores.

Re:scary judges

[JimFive]

The statement "[one] of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen," is very clearly an opinion by the author and he or she is making a personal judgment of the place in comparison to other food-service stores.

Unless the poster happens to be the owner of the Doughnut Shop down the street, or someone with a grievance against the DD owner who has never been in the shop. You can't know that without knowing who the poster actually is. If the poster has never been in the shop then the statement is a lie, and potentially defamatory, even though it is couched as opinion.

--
JimFive

Hey, Zebulon J. Brodie!!!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Zebulon J. Brodie is one of the biggest douchebag assholes that I have ever read about on the Internet.

Re:Hey, Zebulon J. Brodie!!!

[raju1kabir]

You're confused. It's his donuts (at the Centreville Dunkin Donuts) that are made of douchebags. Slimy, dripping, thrice-used douchebags from the women's prison. Or at least that's what I heard.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[cdrguru]

The problem is, your statements are written out. They are "in print". People have known for a hundred years or more that only things "in print" are true and not to pay attention to anything else.

Therefore, lots of folks believe only what is written on the Internet. I guess if you stated these things in a YouTube video it would have less credibility.

Further, most people will believe any negative comment about a business or product. And the state of businesses must be really awful because you see so few positive comments. Obviously, all businesses are terrible which just lends further credibility to any negative comments. Completely self-reinforcing.

Thie plantiff needs to learn this and realize the only solution is to shut down and move.

"Some People Say..."

[picaro]

A foxy way to fortify an opinion, e.g. "Some people say the doughnuts at this particularly DD are, well, delicious."

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.

It should be

[ishmalius]

Free speech and free press should, by default, be transcendent over property, reputation, religion, and even security. The laws and judicial opinions we have today are full of cruft from old moments of political expediency.

The "'Fire!' in a theater" argument is an example of a poor decision that is often used to justify continued eroding of free speech. People are born with all rights; as they grow older they allow them to be taken away. They justify it by their need to live in a pink and fluffy padded cell.

It is up to each individual to decide for themselves what to say and think. If I don't want to say something to hurt someone's feelings, then it is my decision, not the law's.

Re:It should be

[Omestes]

People are born with all rights; as they grow older they allow them to be taken away.

What rights? People make it sound like rights are some natural phenomena, as real as rocks and oxygen, but they really are a social convention, existing nowhere outside of human culture. Rights are what your society consider rights, and you don't have them until your society becomes convinced you do.

If rights were innate, how do explain the fact that until rather recently (in a historical sense) we had slaves, women couldn't vote, black people needed to use a different water fountain, etc... In much of the world lots of people (mostly women, 51% of the population) don't have these rights still. How can we explain this if rights are natural?

Where do they come from?

Not necessarily...

[denzacar]

But you might expect a visit from Knights Who Say Ni for insulting the shrubbery of the world.

Re:European or African?

[Teilo]

And to whomever modded this Offtopic: Whoosh!

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[flaming error]

"Zebulon" is just his alias.

Um... no

[dfm3]

[citation needed]

Here, I'll help you find one. From TFA:

A Circuit Court judge in Queen Anne's County ordered the company to hand over the information. The company appealed, setting up yesterday's argument in Annapolis.

A lower court actually ruled against the defendant. The decision was appealed on first amendment grounds.

Styrofoam

[fireheadca]

Doesn't Dunkin Donuts still use styrofoam? That in and of itself is disgustingly dirty.

I heard the guy running this store smells funny actually.

Re:Styrofoam

[geminidomino]

Who sells coffee and doesn't?

N.B. AFAIC Starbuck's is not coffee.

Sorry Maryland

[Nom du Keyboard]

Sorry Maryland, but you're too small of a state to be allowed to decide such an important issue for the whole country - even if your ruling would only apply within your own tiny state boundaries. You need to punt the issue to some larger state - like Texas or California.

Re:Sorry Maryland

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thing is, this kind of thing is coming up more and more, all across the country. The real problem is that most people who are victimized by this pernicious practice have no way in the world of getting -- or affording -- first amendment legal counsel to represent them, much less top drawer legal representation like Paul Levy and Public Citizen. Also they only find out about it usually a couple of days before their identities are about to be divulged. I had a case in New York where my client was one of about half a dozen people whose identities were being sought. I made a motion to quash the subpoena. The corporation seeking the identities just dropped their claim against my client and went after the other 5, who didn't have legal representation. It's another inappropriate example of bullies using "ex parte" litigation, Nom.... sound familiar?

Re:Sorry Maryland

[Pichu0102]

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...

Re:Sorry Maryland

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:Sorry Maryland

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Nevertheless, sometimes a vacation is in order.

+1 Missed the point in a funny way

[Anonymous Coward]

Utini sits at his desk, pina-colada in hand, surfing Slashdot. Occassionally taking a pull from his -- slightly too effeminate -- cigarette holder, containing a Gauloises cigarette. Its dark, heady odour fills the room, while thick smoke hangs in layers, waiting to be disturbed by a draught.

All is calm like this for several minutes, then suddenly, outraged by what he sees as a crime against free expression, Utini is forced to down his drink and cigarette upon the table. He must fight against those who would destroy the anonymity the Internet affords. He writes furiously and ceaselessly for several seconds, penning a Slashdot post he is sure will make the original poster repent from their stupidity, and save anyone swayed by the flawed argument.

He finishes writing, diligently presses the Review button, before submitting the post. He is certain this will do good, he may have even saved the Internet as we know it! This is a good day.

Almost immediately after pressing the Submit button, he hears a dull roar in the distance. It's beyond his log cabin, beyond the small garden with its piles of wood and lumberjack's tools. He strains his ears before going outside to look over the tops of the trees surrounding the mountain retreat.

The noise is increasing in volume, the source of it is getting closer. Utini squints as a shape begins to define itself, turning at first from a dot, to a blob, then taking shape as some sort of aeroplane. He has time to observe that the plane must be moving at phenomenal speed before it has practically overtaken him; with a mind-shattering screech, and noise of engines, Utini sees that, somehow, the plane is the post he replied to. Puzzled he reflects that it must have been a trick of the mind. The anonymity argument must have really bothered him. He thinks this until a piece of paper drifts down from the sky, landing at his feet.

Seeing the paper is folded, Utini opens it up, and not without some trepidation. Upon it is written a simple message, so simple it seems bizarre that the Anonymous Coward went to such lengths to get it to him. The paper said:

*WHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOSH*

Love,
Anonymous Coward

"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."

Re:+1 Missed the point in a funny way

[clone53421]

"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."

Have no fear... AC has come up with an even more roundabout way.

Re:+1 Missed the point in a funny way

[clone53421]

Hello? I didn't miss the joke, in fact I thought it was excellent. I just piggybacked on it for my own +5 funny...

Re:+1 Missed the point in a funny way

[clone53421]

Well, good. You do realise, though, that my link creates an infinite loop in the roundabout way, which is arguably the most roundabout way possible? ;P

Re: The most dirty and unsanitary ....

[GunDawg]

That's probably only half the story. If there is a Baskin-Robbins attached to that Dunkin Donuts, it probably SMELLS like SOUR milk and OLD ice cream.

Personal Opinion

[Nom du Keyboard]

What is stated in TFA would clearly seem to be a personal opinion, and as such protected. Certainly the poster's valid opinion of the state of the DD shop is at least equal to that of the owner. I don't see the case here, or why it was allowed to get this far.

Note to anonymous poster: Next time document your comment with a couple shots from your camera phone. Truth is an excellent defense in the USA against such charges. Also add the words, "In my opinion..."

In Britain, however, this would be an entirely different matter.

Re:Personal Opinion

[logicnazi]

Could be opinion but it's unclear. After all relative cleanliness is fairly objective.

I still think the problem is establishing this guy has been to worse places before they know who he is.

party analogy is bad

[Sloppy]

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

I'm not sure that's a good analogy. The "stranger" at the party might just be a stranger to you. Or maybe not.

If the stranger is a stranger to everyone, then nobody else at the party who heard the remark, will have reason to assign any credibility to it, thus you are not effectively defamed. Essentially no harm has occurred (though that's not emotionally realistic, I realize).

If the stranger is just someone you don't know, but other people who hear the remark may know, then the remark may carry some weight and you were really defamed.

Presumably, this internet case is one like AC posting on /. : nobody (except the poster and possibly the site's admin -- an insignificant audience) knows who it is, so no one has reason to take it too seriously.

I wouldn't make the party analogy, because harm may actually occur there. I don't think that creates an obligation for the host, but it's still a situation that doesn't quite match.

Sp what did it Weigh?

[rossdee]

Sp what did it Weigh??

!) 42 lbs?
2) The same as a duck?
3) 10 Newtons?
4) Tom Brokaw or some other anchor
5) 1 library of congress
6) Rhode Island
7) more than CowboyNeal
8) ????
9) 4 bars of Gold pressed Latinum

Re:Thank Christ

[The End Of Days]

I'm not entirely sure why a person bringing an action that may or may not succeed to a Maryland court is reason to deride the state. Don't get me wrong, like every good NOVA resident, I'm pretty sure Maryland is the root of all stupidity - but this isn't why at all.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I have just borne witness to the most epic "woosh" ever.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[jasen666]

Probably not. But then if someone simply says "little old lady" most of us assume a little old caucasion lady. Adding that the lady was Asian adds a bit more detail to the story, but doesn't defame the person's race necessarily. OP in no way indicated that her race had anything to do with the conditions of the store.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[frosty_tsm]

I wonder if he would have included the age if she'd been young.

Or the gender of she'd been a he. :-)

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[oh_bugger]

Or species if it had been a dog

Compared to what HE had seen, not absolute

[noidentity]

The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'

Maybe this guy was a "bubble boy" who had lived in cleanrooms all his life, and this was the first food shop he had seen since stepping outside that world? After all, he properly qualifies it with "one of the most" and "I have seen". That says nothing of its absolute nature.

Yep

[roland_mai]

Yep. He's an asshole!

Maybe He Doesn't Eat Out

[logicnazi]

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?

Re: Zebulon J. Brodie

[rnturn]

Heh, that name sounds like it came from a Douglas Adams novel or it's a character in a Foghorn Leghorn cartoon.

I know this place

[Venik]

Should I mop the floor and clean the bathroom or hire a lawyer? Hmm... I'll hire a lawyer.

Cleanliness?

[Etrias]

Maybe so, but the guy runs a donut shop. It's not like the patrons are there for the health food.

Dunkin' Donuts has lots of PR problems...

[Xenographic]

> First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true.

You know, this reminded me of a *very* old news story where someone took a picture of a rat in a Dunkin' Donuts and it caused a huge fuss. I had all but forgotten about that, too. I think the news at the time quipped that you should avoid the chocolate sprinkles.

Oh, and then there's that stupid thing where people decided that one of their spokeswomen was wearing a "terrorist" scarf or something. But that was totally idiotic.

I'm sure this isn't what they wanted to remind us of. If they'd wanted to solve this normally, they should have posted on the forum rebutting the claims made rather than suing.

Re:Where does the judge get his/her authority here

[man_ls]

One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!

I think that's already happened. Something about the German government prosecuting in absentia, a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. for selling Nazi memorabilia and artifacts on eBay, then nabbing him when he got off the plane on a vacation.

It's entirely possible I have some details wrong, but it's not the first time I've heard of this occurring.

just to inform you

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is only valid for criminal cases.

Civil cases just neeed (I think...) a "preponderance of the evidence."

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Phroggy]

Or the size if she'd been tall.

Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity and

[slapout]

finds that it weights 48 pounds.

First Amendment case?

[Ash-Fox]

How on Earth is this a First Amendment case? It's speech against a business, not the government. First Amendment only protects free speech against the government.

Re:First Amendment case?

[plague3106]

Huh? Really? Where does it say that in the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... "

this reminds me...

[e-scetic]

This reminds me of the time on IRC when one channel operator, a network administrator in real life, insisted all channel participants must speak on the channel using their own nicks, if they spoke from behind a bot they were summarily banned. His argument was that the internet was not built for anonymity, that speaking from behind a bot was subverting the original purpose and intent of the internet.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[nsayer]

Because, after all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.

Was litigation the smart play for Zebulon?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:Where does the judge get his/her authority here

[Mex]

One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!

This has already happened a few times, hasn't it? I seem to remember a case where an internet gambling mogul was arrested vacationing in the USA even if all his stuff was in England (servers, etc).

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Anonymous Coward]

in general people make certain assumptions, one of them is that a business owner is a middle aged white male unless otherwise specified.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Hellpop]

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!

That's The Fairsley Difference!

[joemawlma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4yX2rkpBc From Mr. Show

Pseudonym capable of defamation?

[GargamelSpaceman]

It makes sense to me, not that my opinion matters, that a Pseudonymous person is inherently incapable of defamation.

If someone takes the trouble to use a Pseudonym, or post as Anonymous Coward, then they have no credibility, and so can not defame.

Claims by a pseudonym are similar to a statement like:

Fictional Character X said, "So and so blows goats for canned food."

While it may or may not be true that so and so in fact blows goats for canned food, someone hiding behind a pseudonym is not to be taken any more seriously than a fictional character. Or in other words, How is putting words into the mouth of a Pseudonym and different than putting words into the mouth of a Fictional character?

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[blair1q]

Whether you believe it's true or not we all have a right to face our accusers.

And if it isn't true, you deserve to pay the price, not the person you're defaming.

And if you are just some idiot in Ukraine making jokes, then the victim has a right to know that and explain it to those who took the joke seriously.

Or to travel to Ukraine and bust you in the nose.

The Internet is not a free ride on the libel train.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[moxley]

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.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Cajun Hell]

Or her size, if she hadn't been one of those cute Little People like Warwick Davis. Or her age, if she hadn't been old like John McCain. Or her sexual preferences, if she hadn't been a necrophi-- oh wait, he left that part out.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Facegarden]

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

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[setagllib]

Which is why Phroggy is asking if that detail would have been omitted if the lady was tall. Is it really that hard to keep up with a thread for 30 seconds?

defamation is strange

[dilvish_the_damned]

First and foremost, I am not a lawyer in any way. I have only incidental and accidental experience with law. Given where I grew up, law is still a strange beast to me. You have been legally forewarned.

defamation is strange because its cross accusatory. When you accuse someone of defamation, it is on you to prove what they said was not true at the time. Its only defamation if its grossly untrue.
Not sure how this plays into him wanting names, I am pretty sure that should not happen for any reason before some element of the court proceedings.
Basically, he needs to be able to prove his innocence before he can prove the accused of wrongdoing, and he should have to do that before he gets names. Its always near impossible to prove ones innocence.
Assuming you don't believe me, think about how you will prove your not a pederast. Mere accusation is practically damnation in some cases.
Best you think twice before buying awesome mint cookies from girl scouts. Turn them away. "Go away little girl, I don't need your kind around here; have shotgun". Above all, DO NOT GIVE HER MONEY! Its practically a shut case if she is wired.
On the other hand, he is probably guilty as sin, for running an unclean shop, lets not forget what we are talking about.

As per usual, DO NOT LISTEN TO ME for anything important. I will stear you wrong. Sometimes intentionally. Unless it saves your life. Then you can listen to me, and give me credit of course.
I am pretty serious about defamation being a hard row to hoe. Its usually used as a threat to make people think about what they are saying, most times the threat is used it goes no where near court for good reason. Its usually used to prove that the words you say can cut both ways.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Sj0]

That's office despot; Where our prices are so great that KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHN!

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Phroggy]

Is it really that hard to keep up with a thread for 30 seconds?

You must be new here. ;-)

Re:Oh, it's not so bad

[geminidomino]

I don't think that's his... this post took place in 2006, according to the linked site, that store didn't even open until early 07...

Internet Anonymity

[prndll]

"Internet Anonymity" does not exist. It's a fantasy and really doesn't have anything to do with this.

Privileges

[ishmalius]

You are mixing the concepts of rights and privileges. Rights belong to you. Privileges are given to you by someone else. They are like a licence. If they can be given, they can be taken away. Rights have no such limit.

Re:Privileges

[Omestes]

I frankly don't see the distinction. If rights were some a priori thing, then why are they limited to so many people throughout time? We couldn't even imagine a free black person 120 years ago, but yet now we view their freedom as a given right, just like the rest of us.

I just don't see the essential innateness of rights when what we consider as such changes dramatically throughout time and geography.

My general definition is "a right is something that you can convince others you have, and then constantly fight to keep".

get a clue zeb

[museumpeace]

you are hawking the most overhyped dishwater coffee on the planet. anyone with an honest comparison of your swill to stuff such as I brew on my desk at work would seem to defame you. You have no fame. Go sit on a cup of your "coffee", buster. Your case cannot do anything but harm free speech.

Re:Not as funny as you probably thought....

[macraig]

deteriorate
v. deteriorated, deteriorating, deteriorates
v.tr.

To diminish or impair in quality, character, or value: Time and neglect had deteriorated the property.
v.intr.
1. To grow worse; degenerate: The weather deteriorated overnight. His health had deteriorated while he was in prison.
2. To weaken or disintegrate; decay: The nation's highways are deteriorating at a rapid pace.

[Late Latin dterirre, dterirt-, from Latin dterior, worse; see de- in Indo-European roots.]

deterioration n.

deteriorative adj.

----------

Idiot. You might consider learning English vocabulary before attempting to criticize others' use of it.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[jackbird]

I figured it was to call attention to the fact that she wasn't South Asian. I don't think I've seen a Dunkin Donuts with non-Desi owners/managers in 15 years.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Daengbo]

Since you mentioned Asians ....

Korea recently went through a scandal where an actress was libeled (is that a word?) on the Internet, subsequently killing herself.

The result? Exactly what is being proposed in Maryland -- there is no anonymity on the Korean Internet anymore and there are designated Internet police to take you down if you fail to follow netiquette (a required course in school now).

When I discussed this situation with a Korean co-worker, I tried proposing that we should educate people that killing oneself isn't an appropriate response to slander or libel instead of tacitly admitting that it is (through government protection of people over this issue), and she looked at me like I was nuts.

Sigh. I'm glad I'm not on the Korean web much. I bet the rest of the world is heading in much the same direction.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Daengbo]

All the DD owners I know are Korean. Of course, I live in rural Korea ....

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[localtoast]

Let's take this a bit further for fun... I believe you omitted some important details: 1) What size is your Darth Maul t-shirt? I'm left to assume it is at least XXL based on your beverage choice and sedentary activity you describe. 2) Are you using a laptop or desktop? I have to assume a laptop because you are reclining. 3) Which room in your domicile contains the chair?

Re:Not as funny as you probably thought....

[Anonymous Coward]

Deterioration is a non-countable noun.

Re:Steve Jobs is Twitter

[Reziac]

Funniest Twitter jokes ever!

Someone mod these ACs up!

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[Tubal-Cain]

The problem is, your statements are written out. They are "in print". People have known for a hundred years or more that only things "in print" are true and not to pay attention to anything else.

Therefore, lots of folks believe only what is written on the Internet.

Ummm... Your comments are written on the Internet as well.

DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU'VE DONE?!?

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[joss]

> The Internet is not a free ride on the libel train.

Yes it is. You are a twat. Sue me.

Do you really believe that all communications should be monitored and logged so that people can go after anybody saying any little thing that bugs them ?

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[EmperorKagato]

Koreans take the death of an actor more seriously than Americans. Especially if she was a Korean Drama actor.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[kurzweilfreak]

Oy, my head asplode. :(

how can you prove dishonesty?

[mattwarden]

What if it really IS the most dirty place that person has ever seen? How can you invade someone's privacy without showing harm? IANAL, but this seems pretty obvious (at least based on my professional opinion of the 4 sentences in the summary). It's one thing if he had said "there are dead rats in the kitchen"; but he didn't; he said it was one of the most dirty places he had seen. How can you disprove that or even show that it LIKELY isn't true?

Should be thrown out.

Look up in the sky!

[Travoltus]

It's a bird!
It's a plane!

It's an excellent point soaring far over over Utini420's head!

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[blair1q]

"They owe him NOTHING."

Then it should be easy to prove in court and you can then go after him for defaming you with false accusations.

The fact remains: the Internet wasn't created so you could hide, and there's no reason to allow you to.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[blair1q]

Do you really believe that anyone should be able to say anything they want about you from behind a cloak of anonymity?

What if it's the government disguising itself as a supplier of credit reports and police records to prevent you from ever getting a job or a loan?

The anonymity of the Internet is a bug, not a feature.

Solve your social problems in the elections and the courts, not by assaulting the integrity of others and hiding.

Re:Zebulon J. Brodie

[moxley]

That argument (about what the internet was created for) is even more pointless than arguing the chicken or the egg - it's like asking if the sky is supposed to taste like blueberries...

The original Arpanet was evolved and transformed into something that is so dynamic and fantastic and completely eclipses anything - and of course it wasn't "created for" one or any specific purpose, but one of the core traditions of the internet and of online culture is the ability to be anonymous and use pseudonyms.

It is an EXTREMELY important facet of online culture and probably the last place where a whistleblower or someone with little wealth and/or power can expose the truth about any sort of authority or corporation with more power and not have to worry about retribution.

Obviously these points have ben very eloquently argued in the comments attached to the recent posting regarding Esther Dyson's comments regarding internet anonymity - but to break it down so that you can understand the point easily:

Anonymity is crucial, and just because some will abuse it doesn't mean that it should be stopped. People abuse cars, we don't ban them, people abuse firearms and knives, we don't ban them. Why? Because with any good thing there is always some asshole who will misuse it, but the benefits far outweigh this sort of thing, ESPECIALLY online.

Most western countries are plunging headfirst into neo-fascism, evolving into authoritarian surveillance societies where corporations are usingh the government to get rights, privileges and other things tha once were the sole domain of governments, and governments are using these corporations to do their dirty work and get around laws and regulations that prevent them from being able to do some of the shady things they'd like to do....

SO now more than even anonymity is KEY.

Re:Not as funny as you probably thought....

[duckInferno]

Criticise. Stop butchering our language!

Re:Not as funny as you probably thought....

[macraig]

Ah, that ship has already sailed. I dare say the French, Italians, Germans, Scots, Irish, Spanish, and other cultures too numerous to name would have a similar admonition for the Anglo-Saxon English. ;-)