Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity
Cornwallis writes "In a First Amendment case with implications for everything from neighborhood e-mail lists to national newspapers, a Maryland businessman argued to the state's highest court yesterday that the host of an online forum should be forced to reveal the identities of people who posted allegedly defamatory comments. The businessman, Zebulon J. Brodie, contends that he was defamed by comments about his shop, a Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville, posted on NewsZap.com. The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.' Talk about a Negative Nellie! At least the article didn't say the shop was the 'most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'"
Anonymity is the bane of a civilized society and should not be tolerated on the Internet.
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"?
meh
I should be allowed to silence dissent. I should be able to bully people through seemingly legal means so that their use of the first ammendment doesn't go unpunished. The first step is getting their names.
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I didn't know opinion was liable.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I think we have lost that right for the most part. Or rather we have been giving it away at every turn.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Of whether the dunkin donuts was actually dirty. Has this Brodie dude even provided the court with evidence that his establishment isn't unsanitary-looking? I mean, what if these weren't just a couple trolls, but real customers who saw that this particular dunkin donuts was really nasty?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
"The 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."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Maybe he is an invader from the Crab Nebula
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.
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.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
obviously the article and summary don't state exactly what the posters in question were talking about. but from what was given, - is there really any defamation going on? can the plaintiff prove that the statement was untrue? this comment was back in 06. the state of his store -now- hold little bearing on comments made 2 years ago. on top of that, the post seems highly opinionated. it's very possible that the poster's history with food service doesn't include many with less than pleasant standards. if that was the case, would the comment not be truly stated? and can a true statement be defamation in maryland? IANAL, so it's a serious question. and if there was no defamation, why bother with determining the first amendment standing of the issue, when there may well be no issue?
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.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
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.
Opinions are not statements of fact, something that apparently escapes even the highest court in Maryland. Slander and libel are passing off false statements as fact. This is why in the newspaper you always hear about the alleged crime, or how the government may be involved in massive surveillance domestically, or that the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) could be real.
Hopefully the court will realize that one person making his/her own opinion known in a public forum (anonymously or otherwise) does not constitute a malicious attempt to degrade the reputation of another. If not, we may have to bump Florida from the 2008 dumbest judiciary system award.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
*whoosh*
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.
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.
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.
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:
"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."
I wonder if he would have included the age if she'd been young.
Or the gender of she'd been a he. :-)
Don't you think Zebulon Brodie would have been better off just letting it go? By bringing the lawsuit he's bringing all this negative publicity down upon his allegedly dirty Dunkin' Donuts.
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I believe
(while wearing my Star Wars t-shirt with Darth Maul on it, and sipping a mocha soy late as I recline in my blue chair that I bought at office despot on a cloudy June afternoon)
that all detail is relevant, you insensitive clod!
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
I call bullshit.
Nobody defamed a person, they mentioned their opinion about the condition of a business which this man apparently owns.
They owe him NOTHING.
Additionally, what he is likely to get from all of this is a little case of the "Streisand Effect," where now anyone who reads this story (which will get much wider coverage than the original posting) will now wondering the following:
1. Whether or not they want to chance eating at this establishment.
2. Assuming they decide they would, whether or not they want to support somebody who is fighting against anonymity online.