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!"
...they never logged identifying details?
Having perused the Topix forum for my local community, I'm honestly not surprised.
Literally half of the posts there are personal attacks, bigoted remarks, or slander of some kind.
My first time reading \b was less harmful to my outlook on humanity...
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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.
Topix is registered in Washington and hosted in California. What happens if they refuse? Is the judge going to 'ban' them from Texas? What if the posters are in Indiana or Europe?
How do they plan on identifying people that are more than likely pseudonyms? Most forums I'm on I have a random name generator give me a name and it goes to a generic gmail account.
do you think every time some punk in WoW calls me a "faggot", I should be able to turn around and sue him?
IANAL, but yes, if you choose to do so. But if he says "I think you are a faggot" then you probably won't get anywhere. If he says that he knows for a fact you are a faggot, and assuming that being known as a "faggot" is a bad thing for you, and assuming a ton of other conditions apply, then maybe you could sue him and get some relief.
But, as with many legal options, practical financial considerations often drive the outcome, rather than strict rule of law. What would be your financial motivation to sue the person ("punk" is kind of libelous, don't you think?) that is calling you a "faggot" online? If I were his attorney I'd try to convince the jury that you are not really legally damaged in any financial way by this comment, and that you are trying to abuse the court system by suing over something that would be considered trivial to most people.
None of this means you can't sue - it just means that it probably wouldn't be such a good idea.
In this case, I'd guess the burden of proving actual damage would fall on the plaintiffs. This might be one of those court cases that will get settled for pennies on the dollar, or outright dismissed, and THAT story most likely won't make the wire service, because it doesn't really spark any debate like this one does...
First, it wouldn't be slander, it would be libel. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
Second, it's not libel (or slander, for that matter) if the person you're attempting to libel (or slander) has not actually been identified. Since you posted anonymously and referred to the object of your libel as simply "I", no one has any way of knowing who you're talking about, and therefore your reputation has not been damaged (which is a requirement for it to be libel or slander).
Third, as someone else pointed out, it's not libel (or slander) if it's true.
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/
First, it wouldn't be slander, it would be libel. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
I've always thought that was a silly distinction for the law to make. The words are the problem, not the medium. What difference does it make whether it was spoken or written?
And what happens if I slander someone, and someone else writes it down? Am I guilty of libel now that my statements have been committed to paper?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
How does the old song go?
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In fact, in Australia we formally abolished the distinction several years ago for that exact reason.
Read Pynchon.
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."