Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Judge Orders Identification of Topix Trolls

Posted by timothy on from the who-the-hell-are-y'all? dept.

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!"

11 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Seems like the correct procedure by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Seems like the correct procedure by zachdms · · Score: 2, Informative

      I still believe my right to free speech extends to offensive speech

      The key words are "I" and "believe". That's just not how things work in the real world (libel, slander, etc).
      Note that the Internet generally has intersected with the real world very loosely, which is part of many problems.

    2. Re:Seems like the correct procedure by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      IANAL. "I think you are an asshole!" is not actionable as it clearly states an opinion. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!" is actionable (unless you can show it to be true!) as you make a clear statement of fact. IANAL.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    3. Re:Seems like the correct procedure by DrLang21 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention that "offensive speech" is not synonymous with libel and slander.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    4. Re:Seems like the correct procedure by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 2, Informative

      Libel is fairly well deliniated.
      I don't particularly like the idea of pursuing anonymous posts as libelous, but your post is just ignorant.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    5. Re:Seems like the correct procedure by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I believe" is exactly the root of the issue. You are free to state your opinions up until the point where it might be actionable under hate speech laws, and need have no fear of reprisal. Saying, "I think this guy is a total piece of shit and I hope he dies" is fine, because you can stand up in court and say, "I'm anonymous coward, and I support this message."

      Saying, on the other hand, "This person is guilty of x crime" when that person has been proven innocent in a court of law...That's a falsehood, and actionable.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  2. Re:From TFA by seebs · · Score: 2, Informative

    Look up the word "defamation". There is actually something of a right not to be talked badly about in some very specific cases.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  3. Re:From TFA by orion67 · · Score: 2, Informative

    so if it's not in the Bill of Rights then you aren't allowed to sue over it? hey, everybody, the U.S. legal system has been simplified, and now all laws have been reduced to only what is in the Bill of Rights. Free speech is only free up to a point. Not everything that comes out of your mouth (nor, apparently, your keyboard) is protected by this right.

  4. Re:From TFA by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Either way, defamation isn't a criminal statute. Nobody is going to be put in jail for this, either way.

    On the other hand, I've been defamed recently, and was incapable of taking legal action because the person in question isn't likely to be believed, thus eliminating any ability to prove liability.

    I don't think anonymous posters to a website would meet the standard of believability, and thus would be 'libel proof'.

    That said, I lie every time I join a forum. "Oh sure, my name is Bob Dylan, and I'm from Beverly Hills, California -- Zip Code 90210!"

    Sue away, in that case. I'm sure Bob will appreciate it.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  5. Re:From TFA by nine-times · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well the right to free speech isn't unlimited according to current law. There are laws regarding defamation/libel/slander, for example, that could leave you open to a civil case. In this case, it's not really the government itself silencing you, but the government handling a dispute between two private parties.

    But also, there are rules against "speech" that recklessly endangers others, the classic example being yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Also, encouraging others to commit a crime or helping to plan a crime is not protected as "free speech". Conspiracy to commit murder, for example, is a very serious crime even though the action may have only been "speech".

  6. I kind of have to agree with the Leshers by Fooby · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.