Slashdot Mirror
Texas Judge Orders Identification of Topix Trolls
eldavojohn writes "Ars Technica has a story on a Texas judge who has ordered Topix.com to hand over the identifying details of 178 trolls that allegedly made 'perverted, sick, vile, inhumane accusations' about Mark & Rhonda Lesher. Mark Lesher was accused of sexually assaulting an unidentified former client (and subsequently found not guilty) which prompted the not so understanding discussions on Topix. Topix has until March 6 to give up the information. Let's hope the Leshers don't visit Slashdot!"
if the guy who made the first post would get a higher penalty?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
is a cad. Mark Lesher is also a cad. Mrs. Lesher, if she was a man, would be a cad.
"Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
I have herpes.
Now I demand that you hand identifying information of me to me for that slanderous comment I made about myself! You have two weeks to comply!
...they never logged identifying details?
Odds are good that the company will turn over the records, and nothing will come of it after that. Can you imagine them going after 170 people at once? I can't, unless they are the RIAA.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Seems like they're following the correct procedure here. They've identified specific posts, shown them to a judge, had the judge determine that they have a cause of action based on those specific posts, and now are proceeding to ask for the identities of the people who made those posts so they can proceed with legal action. That's in contrast to other cases where the demand is a blanket demand not based on showing that specific posts are actionable.
The right to state your views anonymously does not extend to being a shield against liability if your statements are found to be actionable.
"It just... basically made us both feel like common criminals," the Leshers told the Dallas Morning News (via TechDirt). "It's like someone had basically raped us of our reputation and our standing in the community over and over and over again."
Can someone provide me with the secret version of the Bill of Rights which has things like:
It's my right as an American to do (insert thing that is not in the US Bill of Rights)?
I want to see if the secret B.O.R. gives you the right to not be made to feel bad by someones free speech.
And if they were the RIAA, it would magically become 17 000 people.
...for failing to adequately moderate their forum?
This is Texas, I can indeed imagine it.
Go on! Away with your Lesherous actions!
I'm sorry...
if people began to believe that not anything goes on an Internet discussion board.
Yet again more evidence that all parties in very sensitive cases, especially sexual assault ones, should be anonymous until a verdict is delivered.
Too many "no smoke without fire" believers in the world unfortunately. The internet can mean someone's life is totally destroyed - that person will never get a decent job again, but they were innocent.
When will judgment come to Slashdot?
It seems like this kind of legal issue is popping up in the news more and more. With the increased media coverage of *channers trolling people, the "cyberbullying" scares of the past 10 years or so, and things like the Megan Meier case, libel and other forms of online harassment are becoming more of an issue.
Maybe it's just me, but I see parallels between this issue and that of copyright. Both are laws designed long ago, before the semi-anonymous mass-communication that is the internet, and both are facing the fact that this new technology challenges the very foundation of these laws.
But that would be because 50 of them used broadband, which is like using 100 56K modem lines.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I set up accounts like /. and the like by validating through email accounts in foreign countries that were themselves set up through email accounts in different foreign countries. Of course it's hard to remember to IP spoof every time I post. It's easier just to not be a troll.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Topix.com is the biggest internet freakshow.
Never heard of Topix (lol Streisand Effect), but I do know the Leshers, personally. Too personally. I once caught Mark Lesher browsing 4chan, and he gave me a goatse to keep me quiet. It was terrible.
Successful troll was successful.
Er, maybe too successful.
...we're going to have to take back everything we've said about CowboyNeal?
Have gnu, will travel.
It strikes me as odd that Texas, a state many of us considered the "first and foremost in protecting the rights of its populace against tyranny of federal government", now seems to be on a rampage of trampling on people's individual rights.
http://your-philosophy-sucks.blogspot.com/search/label/gummint
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2324220,00.asp
http://www.infowars.com/texas-lawyer-takes-on-bloodthirsty-cops/
...there were too many vile, inhumane and disgusting comments distracting me.
It is topix.net, and good enough to get some news from, you can ignore all the forum action if you prefer. I use it and google news for my "general" news sources, and drudge for breaking/interesting stuff..
...what the result would be if they visited 4chan instead?
Isn't that 5,600,000?
It's about time someone did something about anonymous libel on the Internet. Those cowards have it coming.
Free speech doesn't give unlimited protection to libel.
Ars Technica (TFA) claims that the judge's order ignores previous rulings, yet the ones it cites are not on point. They involve politicians and business executives.
These involve purported libel of private figures acquitted of a crime.
At one point in time, Texas was primarily filled with Texans. After the oil boom in the 80s and the rise of the Sun Belt, tons upon tons upon tons of people relocated to Texas. They didn't care a fig for how Texans did things in the past, and immediately began changing things to suit themselves. Prior to this, Texas and the United States sort of held each other at arm's length, which suited both parties.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Texas likes to protect its citizens from the tyranny of federal government so that the tyranny of state government has someone left to act on.
most trolls use free web mail accounts and use Tor or some other proxy server to hide their IP.
You'll most likely get a list of Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail, and GMail accounts and fake names like John Smith and Jane Doe going to proxy server IPs.
If any of those Topix Trolls had any sense, they'd quit trolling and give up their accounts that got them into trouble and generate a new account to avoid being caught, which I suspect they will. Then change the email address of the Topix account they trolled with to biteme@dontsueme.com so when the administrator looks it up, they give that email address to the Judge.
I myself don't use Topix, but there are many other web sites like it, Kuro5hin, IWETHEY, Husi, and a few others come to mind. Trolls on those web sites better watch out and cease and desist before they get sued as well.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
This is Texas, I can indeed imagine it.
Wait . . . did I miss the Beowulf cluster part of the joke?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I want to see if the secret B.O.R. gives you the right to not be made to feel bad by someones free speech.
You misunderstand both the Bill of Rights and Free Speech.
First: The Bill of Rights is a set of limits on government and its officials, not on other people. (And it solely recognizes preexisting rights and warns the government to not to try to take them away, rather than creating them.)
Second: The right to free speech that the Bill of Rights recognizes is a right to not be blocked in advance, not a right to be immune from a claim for restitution for any damages or losses to others that your speech caused.
Just as the right to bear arms isn't a right to shoot innocent parties without expectation of punishment and the right to free exercise of religion isn't a right to perform human sacrifice of unwilling victims, the right to free speech isn't a right to destroy someone else's valuable reputation with lies without having to pay him for the damage you caused.
(It IS a right to destroy his valuable but UNEARNED reputation with TRUTH. In the United States truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation. But you'd better be prepared to back up your claims - in a civil court, where the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".)
(And the obligatory IANAL.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is exactly what I would expect in a world where everyone feels they should be able to go through life without being offended. Politicians are just bending to the will of the (dumb) masses.
I think the problem here needs to be solved by maybe revisiting the language of the bill of rights. We need a constitutional convention anyways. Let's throw this one on the heap.
It strikes me as odd that Texas, a state many of us considered the "first and foremost in protecting the rights of its populace against tyranny of federal government"...
Not anymore. That distinction now belongs to New Hampshire: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Before now, I'd never heard of Mark or Rhonda Lesher. Now that they're suing, the name "Lesher" and the words "sexual assault" are going to be linked together forever in my mind. And of course, my little squishy blob of memory is nothing next to the Mighty Google.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
But what if all the trolls are twitter, with 169 of his sock puppets?
They don't have to go after 170. They can go after as many or as few as they want. If whoever they pick thinks that others should have been picked, that person can bring the others in.
Anonymous Coward and Cowboy Niel are sweating bullets!
Free Martian Whores!
Well, first, sometimes words are spoken without really thinking, writing usually means premeditation. Second, the written word normally lasts longer and reaches more people.
I think the difference between libel and slander is reasonable, and libel should be a worse offense than slander.
However, I'm not really sure that any of those should be illegal, unless some other form of violation is involved. You shouldn't slander or libel anyone to get a business advantage, for instance, but one should be absolutely free to voice or write an opinion, even if that opinion is not true.
Why? Because this crap was posted on the internet.
Two facts:
Ergo, since it was published on the internet, it is true, and since it is true, there is no actionable action :)
As an aside, since there is a distinction between slander (spoken) and libel (written), how would either technically apply to internet posts, as they are neither spoken or fixed to paper in a permanent form?
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
I find it ironic that none of the responses to this article, as of 3:25pm on Feb 11, 2009 have been marked as trolls. Nay, even the usual troll posts haven't shown up yet...a first in /. history! I shall mark this day on my calendar.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
This is exactly what I would expect in a world where everyone feels they should be able to go through life without being offended. Politicians are just bending to the will of the (dumb) masses.
I think the problem here needs to be solved by maybe revisiting the language of the bill of rights. We need a constitutional convention anyways. Let's throw this one on the heap.
How about a bill of no-rights?
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Let's hope the Leshers don't visit Slashdot!
Slashdot trolls can get pretty malicious. But I've yet to see anybody accuse another poster of being a rapist. Did I miss that thread?
shall not be abridged as written in the 1st amendment? The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves right now.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
And because each of those 17,000 potentially interacted with one of the other 16,999, it's more like 288,983,000 people. Then multiple in your 56k modem and... I love RIAA math, it makes no sense and all you have to do is multiple every number you have together and it becomes fact.
I would bet that there are far fewer than 170 discrete individuals. A few psychopaths with a grudge probably ran a few dozen pseudonyms to pretend there was a silent majority. The IP information will clear this up pretty soon.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
There are good reasons for it, too. Good or not good in each case is debatable, but don't confuse the two.
Prior to this, Texas and the United States sort of held each other at arm's length, which suited both parties.
I like that arrangement a lot, considering the past eight years.
They didn't care a fig for how Texans did things in the past, and immediately began changing things to suit themselves
I've contemplated moving to New Hampshire but am worried this will happen to them as all of the Boston ex-pats seek cheaper real estate. Guess that leaves me with Alaska. I suppose I'll have to learn to deal with months of darkness and the constant threat of Russian invasion ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In my opinion, all you Slashdoters are retarded maniacs ...
And for all other pitiful earthlings : you suck even more !!!
Who dears to sue me .. maybe they have such a law in Zimbabwe or Paraguay that prohibits insulting ... who cares ...
Gotta love New Hampshire.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Great. If this is actionable, I want to sue every spammer that has sent me mail telling me that my penis is too small. I've been irreprably harmed, and demand damages, preferably, in the millions of dollars.
And while we're at it, maybe Obama can sue Palin because she said he was "pallin' around with terrists", which sounds like an actionable claim.
And hey, it's a good thing that dude from the Author's Guild hasn't read the nasty names we called him a few stories back or we're all toast here on Slashdot.
It is seriously getting to the point where you have to think twice before using the internet.
Time to invent something better and move there. DARPA, we need you!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Actually it's restricted to 53,333 due to FCC regulations even though 56,000 participated.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
A company I worked for looked at the record of the Texas justice department in dealing with intellectual property rights in regards to technology we were developing and almost instantly got, "You would be better served to expand your operations elsewhere"
Seriously, some of those southern states should try to succeed from the union because this time we might be better off without them.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
No, it's not the end of trolling. If anything, smart trolls will simply begin taking care to add "In my opinion..." at the beginning of their posts. Statements of opinion are generally immune from defamation claims.
But the issue here isn't that you do or do not have the 'right' to make public statements about someone else, true or not.
It's more about the someone else taking issue with them, being able to prove that they are false or unprovable, and that you knew (or should have known, or could not have known and therefore are reckless) they were false or unprovable, and that you are entitled to be compensated for any harm or damage caused by those statements.
So it's rational that you be able to know who made these public statements, that you can confront them and that the courts can in fact compel them to compensate you. Along with whatever other penalties are available.
Hasn't this been argued fairly often in the 'Old Days', when newspapers had letters to the editor, and could be compelled to disclose the identity of 'anonynous' writers?
As much as I value anonymity sometimes, it's wrong to spew the sort of venom and expect to blithely walk away.
Then again, I believe less of what I read on unmoderated forums all the time. And not much of the moderated ones.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
States' Rights? WTF...talk about a discredited ideology...and in the northeast as well! I'd have expected this sort of thing out of Alabama or something. I suppose those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Yeah I know...GW Bush was exactly the sort of unwanted immigrant that I was talking about. The whole Bush family are Yankee bluebloods from Connecticut. I mean, Bush was in Skull and Bones at Yale...you think good ol' boys from Texas get into Yale, much less Skull and Bones?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
If Topix.com has a smart setup, the anonymous comments are permanently anonymous. No tie anywhere to a user account, no way to confidently connect them to a log entry.
I wonder if Slashdot runs that way? Incidentally, Commander Taco loves eating bags of cocks.
This is too good!
Yet George Bush is beloved in Texas and despised both throughout Connecticut and at Yale in particular (I live in CT and went to Yale).
How does that figure?
So Texas libel laws were possibly violated. But what if the person typing into the blog lives in and typed the words in question in from another state where it isn't libel and online anonymous speech is protected? That's the first question I'd like answered.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Here's a link to the original 12,000+ post thread (started in April 2008) on Topix http://www.topix.com/forum/city/clarksville-tx/T0SFJGJH99COJ51K6 . There are also a bunch of other threads on the topic in the Topix Clarksville, TX Forum.
Yahoo has OpenID, eBay is to Safe Harbor and PayPal.
They'll make it as hard as possible to get some commerce done, and when the commerce is tried it will usually be hindrance or mis-management on their part. This is just another flawed court process responding to unaffirmed and uninterested persons or parties only to fail and conclude by attempt to descend further on the erosion of our liberties.
I read all the troll responses for their esoteric or hidden value of spontaneous information or theory. I predict that these nuisance and frivolous proceedings of these courts will only aid in the local and national corporate News to focus all their attention on some lame incident, just like the OJ Simpson Trial or myserious California "Wild" fires take all the news just so some shady government operation gets brushed under the table.
Look: fires! Look: that retired jock killed 2 people, but he can't be a murderer 'cuz he's a sports hero just like our heroes in Iraqu or the dogs digging on the World Trade Center buildings! Look: that endangered Panda bear, one of only 10,000 left, is giving berth to a little racoon baby!
Pump and Dump those stocks, starting with Gold futures! Send the BATF to raid the Brown's! Declare martial law in Los Angeles before those unemployed unfed baboons start eating eachother!
I swear modern "news", as the News Company employees call themselves, is a lie compared to the peacful descendents of Pope Arius over on Mr. Rogers' neighborhood-like STORMFRONT.org
If you are an asshole, some that points it out is not being libelous or critical; he or she is just confirming your informity complementary as an asshole would expect to be addressed, you asshole. :-)
The "right" to not be defamed? Only you can control your ability of not being defamed by not creating any evidence and attaching to yourself those "defamatory" effects of truth. If you don't want to defame yourself in public, then don't assert such character for anyone to witness.
You see, I can be stupid all day long and still not hurt anyone; the #1 rule in criminal law of torts and arrest warrants is that there is to be an "injured party" among other things. This sheds some light on that pederast prissy cradle-robbing bastard child "president" Dwight David Eisenhower. That goddamn bastard started the military industrial complex the last moments before leaving his dirty office, while in World War II he was making-bed with a girl barely even in her 20's while he was in his 70's, he denied our brother at Arms, the General "George C. Scott" from invading Poland to liberate over 10,000 American soldiers from torture and medical experimentation by Russia, and didn't give any aid or comfort to Patton when there were over 6 attested Russian attempts to assassinate our beloved general.
(I through that George C. Scott thing in there just to show you how stupid I can be, but I sware he was there too right next to Patton!)
States' rights isn't a 'discredited ideology', it's the Tenth Amendment. WA (where I live) put together a similar memorial legislation for the new administration.
You're conflating states' rights with full-fledged secession, which is what I'd expect of a Hamiltonian.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I agree with the previous post in thier definition of defamation although I am not a lawyer. Brings to mind a case in Australia, a man was named by a police as prime and only suspect, no charges have yet been laid, mainly because the man is sueing on defamation grounds, police can't use thier evidence because any evidence they bring forward cant be used in a criminal case, Essentially, for the police to win the civil case they need to prove the man guilty, which would then mean they cant prove him guilty in a criminal court.
Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
Fucking. Pussies.
I hope that the prison rape enthusiasts who post comments on here will learn their lesson from this story.
In Texas, all the Beowolves have been hunted to extinction.
while i see the point about causing harm through speech, i think the concept is getting out of hand. take the example with the employer deciding to not hire based on some writeup he finds on the internet. if the information he finds is signed by the well known "anonymous coward", i would be glad to be that programmer who doesn't get the job, i hate working for imbeciles. if the text is signed, the one signing it takes responsibility automatically, and can be confronted if needed. (further more, in this particular case, if the employer is not able to decide if this is a good enough employee to risk at least a few weeks of test-employment, after a face-to-face interview, the employer is, again, a complete idiot).
what this comes down to is that the only damage slanderous text signed "anonymously" (or through pseudonyms, etc) can do to one's "reputation" is in relation to complete imbeciles who are stupid enough to believe anything they read on the internet, without discerning. if in this day and age this is a problem, i think the problem is generalized stupidity, not the extent, control, or "after-the-fact" control over freedom of speech.
I'm not so sure about that. Federal Civil Procedure was my worst class in law school as far as what I understood ('twas my 1L year and I was an idiot), but I'm pretty sure a defendant can't bring a 3d party defendant in unless the 3d party defendant committed harm against the defendant.
It's the plaintiff's choice as to who he sues. The defendant can't force the plaintiff to sue other people. Source.
At one point in time, Texas was primarily filled with Native American peoples. After the arrival of the Spanish and the rest of the white men, Texas was primarily filled with Mexicans.
After the Mexican-American war, tons upon tons of people were killed & driven out so that people who started calling themselves "Texans" could ranch their cattle.
These people were then flooded out by the oil rush.
Today, Texas is mostly filled with Bullshit, and is generally kept at arm's length. At least until one of them started tracking fecal matter into the White House.
But things are looking up. Pretty soon it will be back to mostly being full of Mexicans.