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?
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.
And if they were the RIAA, it would magically become 17 000 people.
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/
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=define%3A+cad
Although, from what little I know of the situation, I disagree with the assertion that the judge is a cad. At face value it looks like he is doing the correct thing. He was presented with specific posts that are legally actionable and he is continuing the action on those posts.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution, so doesn't the right to free speech over-ride the "right" not to be defamed?
This is Texas, I can indeed imagine it.
if people began to believe that not anything goes on an Internet discussion board.
Anonymous libel/slander does not equal free speech.
And it's kind of funny you posted AC.
Of course. You have the right to say it. I have the right to recover money damages for the harm you've done me.
When will judgment come to Slashdot?
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution, so doesn't the right to free speech over-ride the "right" not to be defamed?
I am not a lawyer, and am going purely on common sense here: I think that the right of to not be defamed (I didn't put those sarcastic quotes of yours) is a basic human right.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
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.
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.
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution, so doesn't the right to free speech over-ride the "right" not to be defamed?
What made you think the bill of rights is in any way complete? It's perfectly reasonable to make it illegal for someone to spread damaging disinformation about you.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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".
Umm, it's not slanderous if it's true. And it may be actionable of you don't tell your partner. Oh, wait! This is /.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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.
God forbid this judge actually visit part of the internet... I shudder to think what would happen if he saw 4chan... although it would be pretty funny. "Judge orders anonymous to turn itself in."
"Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
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.
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution
And according to the Ninth Amendment, neither are a whole host of other rights. Just because it wasn't enumerated in the first Ten Amendments doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
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.
Sigh.
The ability to sue for libel, slander and general defamation does not infringe the right to free speech, because it does not restrict speech. It just does what most civil law is intended to do: hold people accountable for harm they cause.
To see an example, suppose you're a programmer looking for a job, and a company is about to hire you. But then someone at the company reads a post I've written about you on the Internet where I make (false) claims that you don't know anything about programming, that you were incompetent and cost my company lots of money, etc., and as a result they decide not to hire you. My post has caused actual harm to you (loss of a job opportunity), and you could bring a lawsuit against me to recover damages. Not a lawsuit forbidding me to write things, or forbidding me to say what's on my mind, but simply to compensate you for the harm my words caused. This is really no different from, say, being forced to pay to replace a window if I throw a rock through it.
And that distinction -- between regulating the act of speech, and holding people accountable for the consequences of the action -- is what makes all the Constitutional difference (a law forbidding you to speak would be unconstitutional -- the term is "prior restraint"). In other words, it's the difference between saying, before the fact, "you aren't allowed to do that" and saying, after the fact, "you must make amends for what you did". The former, when speech is involved, is called prior restraint and there are very few cases in which it's allowed. The latter is simply called a civil suit, and is as common as weeds.
To troll for a moment, Yes. that's the point of free speech not to be superseded by any government law. After all it was created because they weren't allowed to speak out against government laws and criticize the king.
You have no right to stop someone from saying something. But so too do you have a right to not listen to it. You can always close a page or otherwise obscure the free speech of another for yourself. You don't have to listen or read it. But that right does not extend so far as it stops someone from saying what is in their right to say. As there is always the option of not being there.
...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's not slander anyway, it's libel.
And the test of truth happens in court, in front of a jury, which is why they're trying to find the people making the statements so that they can bring them into court and test their veracity.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
...what the result would be if they visited 4chan instead?
or abridging the freedom of speech
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they do not wish to. Harassment either verbal or physical is a form of trespass and does not fall under speech. As an internet forum is neither a physical place or a reasonably inescapable venue there can be no trespass and therefore no crime can be committed with regards to speech.
At least that's how I view it. The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we. IANAL YMMV and other acronyms I'm sure that may apply.
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.
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!
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.
It is important to note that a decision that appears bad or stupid may well result from a perfectly smart and competent judge correctly interpreting a bad or stupid law.
When a judge says the law says something you don't like, don't blame the judge unless you really think the law says something different than they do. Cases where there is good reason to disagree about what the law says are not nearly so common as cases where the law clearly and unarguably says something dumb.
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
Brother Orion, you share my first name.
Free Speech is not unlimited, slander and libel laws allow people to sue in civil court and that puts a damper on free speech.
In this case the written word is libel. The only defense I know about it is if those words were written in parody or part of a joke, like Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler.
Watch what you say about others, as they can turn around and sue you for it. The only ones we can honestly say anything about are politicians in our government, and even then there are exceptions.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
The First Amendment does not preclude punishment for what is said. It only precludes Government censorship.
To troll for a moment,
So, you know what you are about to say is stupid?
Yes. that's the point of free speech not to be superseded by any government law.
Unless you are pre-pubescent (in which case, "why are you here??") or an imbecile, you should know full and well that "freedom of speech" is not absolute, and it never has been.
You have no right to stop someone from saying something.
That's a priori suppression, and is almost always unconstitutional. But even then, there are exceptions that SCOTUS has deemed allowable.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
"The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we."
We should just use your interpretation instead? Yes, I know, yours isn't an interpretation, it's the obvious meaning of the words. Good thing nobody else thinks that; well, nobody who isn't obviously wrong...
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
God forbid this judge actually visit part of the internet
Excessively bad behavior by a large (or active) enough minority will destroy a free and civil society by causing "everyone else" to defend themselves by enacting more and more laws to try and tamp down such disruptive behavior.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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?
Not a lawyer here, maybe someone can help.
Question:
If you have an observation/opinion/speculation about someone and wish to discuss it with others via. internet communication -- and that speculation involves things of 'perverted, sick, vile, [and] inhumane' nature -- how do you go about it?
What if you express your idea artistically? (I'm only guessing people might have made images to represent ideas since the internet often has this trend.)
What is the difference between discussing an idea about someone and slander/libel?
Is there a difference between discussing one's opinion on, for example, this specific case, PRE or POST trial?
A lot of people thought O.J did it (and what they are talking about is a horribly disgusting bloody murder with a knife), and even post-trial people still maintain the idea and express it publicly. Are they in the same boat?
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."
The loss of personal character due to libel or defacement was never originally viewed as harm and was never intended to levied against. Why do you think they dueled so often? Because it was more fun to shoot someone then take them to court? With the loss of character as a primary motivator for business most libel and defamation suits have no real life merit anyway.
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.
So you would rather rewrite the meanings of words to suit your needs? If you follow the words as to their original meanings for that era. Then and only then should these laws be interpreted for their meaning in a modern situation.
Anonymous Coward and Cowboy Niel are sweating bullets!
Free Martian Whores!
Free speech is pointless unless it is 100% free.
We'll have to tune the morans out, but it's a small price to pay for actual freedom.
Sure, let people sue for damages (breaking NDA, taking out a full page ad that looks like an obituary listing with Steve Jobs being listed, etc.) if they can prove actual damages.
Do NOT, EVER, imprison someone for saying something or not saying something (contempt of court, I'm looking at you).
Do NOT, EVER, restrict someone's ability to say anything.
The difference is that the spoken word (unless recorded) is gone once it leaves your mouth, but something on paper (or the internet) sticks around.
I take it you've never heard of 4chan.
Yeah I love how the interpreters of laws rewrite the definitions of those laws on a semi regular basis don't you? I'm sorry I don't believe in "a living breathing constitution" I believe in absolute law. If a law is doing harm then the law must change not the interpretation. Changing the interpretation means it can be changed whenever it's inconvenient to follow the law and is a very slippery slope.
You can only build a radio station and broadcast your speech to hundreds of thousands of listeners around the clock if you are willing and able to spend the money to do so. Is your freedom of speech being abridged by not providing you your own network of radio stations?
The problem there could be that people define "disruptive behavior" in radically different ways. I say, don't make anymore constrictive laws, just don't interfere in my life and I won't interfere in yours.
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.
Your right to freedom of speech gives you the right to defame/libel me without government interference. It does not give you the right to defame/libel me without consequences in civil trial. The government can't censor you, but I can still sue you, without the constitution ever being involved.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge Websters says to deprive or reduce in scope. To punish someone for certain types of speech is to reduce the scope of their available legal speech. As by fining them or otherwise levying against them you have said that their action was illegal or at the very least in the wrong. There is no but he said bad things about me clause. But in return you too have an adequate defense against mud slingers. Sling some mud.
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
Anonymous libel/slander does not equal free speech.
"Anonymous" speech rapidly approaches the only free speech we have.
Tried protesting at a major political event lately? Sorry, but "designated protest zones" do not equal free speech.
Looking into this, I found:
http://news.cnet.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-go-to-jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
Which seems particularly relevant to the case in hand (Assuming this law is still on the books).
What I really wanted to look up was the laws on impersonation. If they do 'catch' you posting on-line as someone else, you could be busted for impersonation as well. From what I found, anyone using another person's identity while committing a crime or eliciting benefit from the name could be liable for impersonation. Your Bob Dylan reference as funny as it is could put you in hot water; Unless of course that is your real name =)
Bye!
IANAL, but FWIW the main thing I'd say to most of your questions is: defamation (including libel or slander) generally means asserting as fact something that is both untrue and harmful to reputation. That's part of the point of defamation laws; presenting harmful speculation as fact is intended to be actionable.
Artistic representation... well, consider this. Some TV shows -- for example, crime dramas -- start out with a disclaimer that the events and people are fictional. They never use real people's names even when stories are "Ripped From the Headlines". And on top of that, they make a point of changing relevant facts. Why? Because somebody is going to conect the dots, and in the worst case they might just have to convince a judge or jury that they weren't making factual claims about any real person.
If you want to state your opinion, make it clear that you're stating your opinion. I'm not sure where the lines are drawn if you make a statement of fact but stick "in my opinion" in front of it; for example, "in my opinion Mr. Smith has HIV" probably needs some pretty specific context to be an honest statement of opinion rather than a veiled statement of fact, and I have no idea whether it would be protected or not. But if something really is a matter of opinion and you state it as your opinion ("I think Mr. Smith is a jerk"), then you should be in the clear as I understand the law...
If you want to discuss hypotheticals, I should think you'd just make it clear you're discussing hypotheticals (i.e. there's a difference between saying "what would the implications be if we found that Mr. Smith had HIV" vs. saying "Mr. Smith has HIV; how does that affect the situation")>
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
There's no way that's constitutional. Or enforceable. What, is Bush going to drive a tank onto Bob's lawn and demand to know who is pretending to be him?
Thankfully, it doesn't matter because I live in a slightly more sane country (not by much).
It's been a long time.
Just curious and all since you brought it up, but how would court/military/gov secrets/etc.. gag orders work in regards to constitutional law?
Does it simply refer to consequences after the fact, or do these gag order actually put the crime on the -act- of the speech?
Bye!
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
and yet people go on endlessly about the difference between theft and copyright infringement here.
In the US, you have a lot more protection when you do things like that than many other countries. What I'm saying pertains to US law. (And of course, IANAL.)
The best way to do so is to state your idea as an opinion. Silly though it may seem, "I think XYZ is a pedophile" is legally distinct from "XYZ is a pedophile." Following that, give your reasoning. Libel in the US means you knew what you were saying was false (sometimes the judge/jury will also call it libel if you have no good reason to believe it was true). "I think XYZ is a pedophile because I saw him pull his van up and talk to little children" is infinitely more defensible than even "I think XYZ is a pedophile" was. Of course if you're making any of that up you'll be worse off than you started, but your question was one about having a legitimate discussion about legitimate beliefs.
Libel also requires that your comments be maliciously intended. A discussion format itself is going to put you in a better legal situation than simply one-line trolls about how evil somebody is. It's going to be fairly hard to convince most people that you and some other people going back and forth about what you think and what you saw to make you think it is all an elaborate setup to libel somebody.
Assuming you're not a participant in the case and are under no sort of gag order, there should be no difference if you discuss one pre- or post-trial. I'd probably tread lightly on people found not guilty though; I don't know if a court making a finding of fact gets you in more hot water if you rail against it. The OJ situation wasn't a great one to bring up in this regard; he was found not guilty, yes, but also liable for their deaths. It was basically a split decision.
Of course, the bottom line in the US is this: Anybody has the right to sue you for anything. If it doesn't pass some basic sniff tests or the statute of limitations has expired, it might be thrown out immediately -- but it still means that the suit was filed, there's a record and you probably had to pay for a few hours of a lawyers' time to make the motions. Being victorious legally doesn't mean you haven't also been ruined financially. So, I think the best advice is that you need to be sure what you're doing is worth the potential headaches. In most cases it's probably not.
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?
No because that has to do with insufficient availability of positive assets and not the removal of assets for the gain of another.
Positive assets being if I had the money I could do it. Removal of assets and therefore interference/abridgement being interference by the FCC and a fine. People don't have to tune to my channel if they don't want to.
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?
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/
Free speech will never be 100% free. You can get punched in the nose for saying stuff like that to certain people.
Freedom is an illusion, rights double so! Someone sold you a bill of goods that free speech should be 100% free, as people are held to be responsible for what they say due to modern law. Are you saying people should be irresponsible and say things that aren't true about other people and not be sued for it? If so, what if someone said untrue things about you and most people believed it? Gossip, rumors, and untruths make up our media, newspapers, news shows, blogs, forums, and even Slashdot. Kick them when their up, kick them when their down, people love dirty laundry.
People don't even have a free will, they have a self will instead. You think you have a choice what country you are born in, or if you can leave that country and join another and give up citizenship? In the USA you cannot, and we got people who want to live and work here so bad they sneak into our nation and work off the books and are undocumented workers because the country they were born into is so bad and corrupt and the economy is so rotten, that they risk their lives to make it here to the USA.
You can say anything you want to say, but you'd better face the consequences of saying it as people will hold you accountable for saying such things.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
or abridging the freedom of speech
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they do not wish to. Harassment either verbal or physical is a form of trespass and does not fall under speech. As an internet forum is neither a physical place or a reasonably inescapable venue there can be no trespass and therefore no crime can be committed with regards to speech. At least that's how I view it. The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we. IANAL YMMV and other acronyms I'm sure that may apply.
Silly trolls. The US Constitution only applies to the Federal Gov't. It isn't positive law like seatbelt laws or drunk driving laws. It describes the operating framework for governance, not how the little people should behave.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
Actually, you are free to harm anyone you want. Of course, we're free to string you up for the attempt or actually succeeding.
The law doesn't stop you from doing anything. It can only reward or punish you for your actions.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
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.
The broader term is defamation.
When it was originally developed the distinction between the form probably made more sense. Because there was no other, more practical way to mechanically record and reproduce the spoken word, libelous material was naturally easier to distribute than slander.
Several hundred years later, not so much.
I've long thought the same. I mean, the standard argument is that written jerkiness will be more persistent than in you just spout off in a bar out loud, because an arbitrary number of people can read a book over an extended period of time, but only a certain number of people can hear you shout something in a bar.
But, I think that if I got on national TV and said that Hatta killed a kitten for fun, a hell of a lot more people would hear the claim than if I posted it on some online forum full of trolls that I've never heard of before. And, the idea that writing involves more thought is no longer true. A prepared, rehearsed speech obviously involves more consideration than an IRC message, but IRC is written and therefore presumed to be a bigger deal. Think about how much more thought goes into a YouTube vdeo, versus a written comment on that video.
The state of Slander/Libel law in America makes little more sense than our IP law at this point. Sad but true.
And really, no reasonable person would consider a forum troll as a reliable source of information. ever. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a clear fucking line dividing a reasonable person from a retard that shouldn't be allowed near the Internet. therefore, proper libel in some crappy forum should be nearly completely impossible unless you really generate lots of corroborating evidence, support yourself with intentionally false references, and be convincing in your effort to claim that you are posting under a real name, and have a real relationship with the person being libeled, and a reason to state your claims in a forum, rather than reporting to Police or something. Libel in an online forum should require months of full time to work before any reasonable person would consider the claims credible.
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.
Why do you think they dueled so often?
We should bring back dueling. Who cares what two consenting adults are doing with each other? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That seems like a slippery slope to me; not to mention somewhat confusing and illogical. So it is illegal/unconstitutional to prevent speech, but it's legal/constitutional to punish you after you say it?
[examplestatement]ubernostrum is a sex offender.[/examplestatement] That was legal to say, yet you can sue me for saying it? Doesn't that just make it illegal to say?
Perhaps another way... I can rape someone as long as I can prove that it didn't negatively affect them? Are we punishing the action or the consequence?
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
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.
Criminally, OJ was found not guilty. In Civil court he was found liable. Huge difference.
Actual cases I've seen that mirror that decision include one where a teen cut through a fence, broke through a door, cut off a lock, then climbed a silo & fell to his death. The silo owner was cleared of criminal negligence (criminal) but found liable for the death (civil). Once you figure out how to prevent that ruling, get back to me on civil suits having any meaning.
In criminal cases, it's the state against the accused. In civil cases, it's the poor, suffering victims against the evil SOB that did them wrong. Besides, it's only money after all, it's not like it's someone's life at stake. Jurors react very differently in the 2 types of cases and jury selection is a different art in the 2 types of trials.
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!
In fact, in Australia we formally abolished the distinction several years ago for that exact reason.
Read Pynchon.
by Anonymous Coward February 12,
My name is "XYZ".
are you sure about that?
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!
Hey, no cliff hangers! You haven't finished the story. You didn't say why it never ended up in court? They didn't follow through with the threat? You talked your way out of it? What?
"If you have an observation/opinion/speculation..."
If you're speculating, not claiming to actually know something is true that you know is false, it's not slander/libel. If a reasonable person wouldn't think it was true based on your comments, it's not slander/libel. OJ is a public figure, which makes it even harder to slander/libel him. Basically, it is expected that random strangers will be spouting BS about him.
So if I say "OJ did it", it's not libel for at least 2 reasons:
1. nobody is likely to be convinced by my claim, because I don't claim to know anything more about the case than anyone else.
2. I really think it's true, and there's no reason it should be clear to me that it is false.
Note that case 2 is far more liberal in the US than other countries; in most of Europe, you need a good reason to think your statement is true to avoid libel.
In the case at hand, they guy isn't a public figure, so the assumption is that people saying he's a kidnapper/rapist actually know something.
So, you should not accuse people of being kidnapper-rapists in a tone and context that makes it appear you are serious, and where it is likely to convince others, if you don't actually have reason to think it is true. Which, regardless of the legal subtleties, comes pretty squarely under the heading of "Don't be a dick."
What?
Did you even read my post?
I knew I should have used sarcasm tags...
I'm saying reasonable people can disagree about what the words mean. "interpreting" the law doesn't mean changing it away from something it obviously means, it means figuring out and agreeing on what it actually means.
"If you follow the words as to their original meanings for that era."
If I follow the words as to what I think their original meaning for that era was, or if you do?
You appear to assume what you think the law means is what it actually means in some objective sense. If some other guy (whether he is a lawyer or not) thinks the same thing, how shall we decide who's interpretation is correct?
Which is all a pretty abstract philosophical point. As for the case at hand, some would argue that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from any consequences of your speech. You can say whatever you want but there may be cost and consequences that result, notably liability from knowingly making false statements injurious to others.
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?
You might be found to be responsible for the original slander, but you haven't libeled anyone becasue you didn't write anything.
On the other hand, the person that DID write down your words may or may not be responsible for defamation, depending on how they did it and how it was propagated. The second person is, to some degree, taking responsibility for accurately reporting you words. And then reporting that it was you that said them, and for NOT implying anything about the degree of truth behind the words.
Think about how most news reporters are careful to talk about "accused murderers", even when the person has confessed, but has not been convicted. The accusation would be a slander, if untrue. Spreading it around like it was true would be defamation and/or slander as well. But the reporter is simply repeating, relatively faithfully, what a Prosecutor has said, without implying it is actually true. If done right, it isn't a problem.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
The Judge is a Computer Aided Design?
The Judge is a gene which encodes several enzymes involved in pyrimidine biosynthesis?
The Judge is a simple-station that is part of the TransMilenio mass-transit system of Bogotá, Colombia?
I live outside the US, where we speak English and I've never heard a person described as a "cad". This seems to be a localised term, even if its localised to the entire US its still localised. An explanation I think would be in order, even after that link I'm still uncertain exactly what a "cad" is when used in reference to a person.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Stupidity and frear of the majority is not an excuse for the majority to destroy their free and civil society
But, yet, people are people, and "fear and over-reaction" are what people do when they feel ambiguously threatened. If you can't understand that, stop philosophizing.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Well, since you asked;
The domains eventually expired out of my ownership. Some of them have been bought by domain farms, and best of all some of them are STILL, one year+ later, unregistered.
I originally posted the letter online, so that my acquaintances, who are lawyers, could read it. They passed it on to their friends, who passed it on to their friends, etc...
The original post I had put up had about one or 2 dozen hits on it before they sent that letter. Since that time, over 10,000+ people have viewed the letter. More than a few of them are in my area, and undoubtedly knew of the company.
I didnt have any intention of responding to the pinhead who wrote that letter, or the lawyer who took their money to write it. And that was the last I ever heard from either of them in regard to it. And now, its framed on the wall for my amusement in my bedroom.
But the best part, is now when searching for their company name Caton Commercial, the returns in google show the courthouse website listing their current cases as 2nd or third, and that letter they sent as 4th or 5th. So it ended up like all 'Streisand Effect' type situations. They drew more attention to their... ummm... lets just say 'character' by their actions, then if they had done nothing at all.
More than once, Ive heard this comapny called the 'laughing stock' of the town since that time, and I imagine it is in no small part to them sending that letter, and its subsequent publication for all to read.
This is too good!
You seem to be hung up on a misunderstanding: rape is a crime, and is handled by a criminal process whereby a government official prosecutes you and, if convicted, you receive a sentence from the government as punishment. Defamation (which includes libel, slander, etc.), on the other hand (in this type of case, and in the US), is not a crime. The government does not prosecute people for it, and does not punish people for it. It's a tort, and is handled by a civil process; effectively, the government-run court acts as a sort of mediator/enforcer in a disagreement between individuals or corporations. A tort (the word comes to us from the French for "wrong") is something you shouldn't have done (whether deliberately or accidentally) and which caused some actual harm to a person or actual damage to someone's property (although, importantly, not a breach of contract -- that's handled by a separate area of law), and the result of a successful lawsuit over a tort is payment of damages or some other form of restitution.
Which brings me back once again to the key difference: defamation laws do not restrict or prevent or outlaw any type of speech. They simply provide people with a way to be compensated for harm done to them.
In the case of defamation, generally it is asserted that a person's reputation has been harmed by a particular statement, and the standard of proof for the harm varies with the type of statement. Some statements -- for example, false assertions that someone has committed a serious crime -- are (in most US states) automatically considered harmful enough to be defamation, but other statements require a description of the alleged harm and proof that the harm actually occurred as a result of the statement. Also, (again, in the US) a defamation suit must generally prove that the statements either were made with intent to cause harm, or were made with negligent disregard for their truth (this provision and several others in US defamation law, by the way, exist precisely because of the First Amendment, in order to prevent defamation suits from having an improperly chilling effect on the genuine expression of opinion).
So this isn't really a candidate for a slippery slope argument; the body of law around defamation is literally thousands of years old, and has been refined and clarified over that time to ensure that it's fair and equitable to both sides, with a history of court rulings balancing the need to redress harm against the need to protect free speech. Unfortunately, it's just not something the average person ever really learns about...
If I put a libelous statement on a Kindle, and then read it aloud, is it then slander?
Then that means we never were free to begin with, and never will be, because there ARE undefined limits to our rights. We are all free, to do the king's bidding.
"Am I guilty of libel now that my statements have been committed to paper?" I'm not sure, but whoever wrote it down on paper is guilty of copyright infringement! How dare they transpose the message to a different medium without your permission!
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acad
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.
And things like the Bill of Rights are not laws, but simply written down to let the government know what things are not theirs to take or hamper. Those rights exist outside their jurisdiction and are not subject to laws that are written to suppress the liberties granted by something higher than the folks in D.C. :) And the Constitution is written to inform the government that they exist at the courtesy of the people, not the other way around. Jefferson made that abundantly clear....
Everything else is gravy.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
While IANAL we were literally just talking about this in a law class that I'm taking.
Stating that someone famous did something on a message board is much different than stating that someone who is rather obscure did something.
Furthermore, libel and slander require that the victim prove that what was said had some sort of negative effect on them. If, for example, I say, "Johnny Depp is gay," it wouldn't suddenly be believed that that is the case (although some people would believe that to begin with).
Also, when dealing with slander and libel, one has the rights to the damages that this information caused them. If it were said that I had been convicted of a crime when I had merely been arrested of said crime, I could sue the entity that said that for whatever damages that brought upon, including the loss of a job.
Slander is a case where the statements are made in a NON-permanent medium, namely spoken in person or over the phone. Anything that is generally accepted to be recorded (TV/Radio/Internet/Newspaper) is libel.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Actually 'cad' as an invective is far more British than American. I don't think I've ever heard it used by an American except sarcastically.
Of course I always think of this sketch by British comedian Harry Enfield when the subject of caddishness is raised.
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
My name is "XYZ", you insensitive clod.
Quick, someone subpoena Slashdot and get the identity of this AC! He wasn't careful enough to state that Dhalka226's cloddinal insensitivity was his opinion.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
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
If I put a libelous statement on a Kindle, and then read it aloud, is it then slander?
No, copyright infringement. :-)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It's hard to keep secrets from your hand anyway.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
I hope that the prison rape enthusiasts who post comments on here will learn their lesson from this story.
Yeah too bad this one doesn't even seem to be read anymore after the civil war. Freedom and equality for all people good, Increase in federal control bad.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I mean no one is going to walk up to those people and be like "I don't want to do business with you because I saw someone say you did bad stuff on Topix.com".
I mean there is a point for libel laws. You don't want someone saying you did horrible things and ripped off a bunch of customers, when you didn't and than being unable to do business because of it.
Libel certainly can be harmful. But people on /b honestly aren't going to harm anyone. If they would have just said "they are just a bunch kids in their parents basement" like they truly were then honestly we wouldn't be talking about it.
They are the ones who are defaming themselves. Before this slashdot post I never even knew who these people were and I had never heard about this case.
Now everyone knows about them!
The very first response on to that google search is: "someone who is morally reprehensible; "you dirty dog""
On the first page you also see: "...a man habituated to immoral conduct", "A low-bred, presuming person; a mean, vulgar fellow, a seducer"
Seeing as how all of the definitions are pretty well defined as computer/technology related, some enzyme thing, proper nouns, and character insults, and in the original context the author was stating that a person was a cad, is it really that hard to figure out which definition applys?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Also important to note is that harm must actually occur from your purported defamation. Without harm, a defamation suit falls on its face. Here are some defenses that show up:
So long as you're not acting like a giant dick and spreading malicious rumors about someone, you're pretty safe online.
People tend to forget that common sense is usually a pretty damn good indicator of how you should behave. The law (especially common law) tends to reflect such common sense, as it was always guided by the common sense of judges on the bench. Common sense tells you not to act like an asshole. So don't act like one.
To expound on the OJ matter, in criminal cases you have to show about 80-99% assurance of guilt (there is debate as to what "beyond a reasonable doubt" actually means).
In civil cases, the winner is the one who can show >50% assurance he is the party in the right.
So if there is a 51% probability that OJ committed murder he will be cleared of criminal charges but be civilly liable, all other things being equal (same facts adduced, etc.).
Note that these are two different tribunals. A defendant does not have one court case that is simultaneously criminal and civil.
The civil was initiated by the family of Ron Goldman. The criminal was initiated by the State.
Unless you're the opposite hand, of course.
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.
How can there be an absolute law in the Constitution if the framers themselves (you know, the guys who wrote the Constitution) never even agreed on what the words they chose inherently meant?
See, e.g., the big debates between Madison and Hamilton.
Presumably nuclear weapons and anthrax are constitutional under the Second Amendment, right? And murder (since it is a form of hate speech) is constitutional under the First Amendment, too, right?
Really? Where have you been since the 13th century?
It's even sillier considering the fact that the law doesn't actually say that. According to Black's Law Dictionary, which is the definitive reference on these matters, slander can also be written -- not just spoken. Unfortunately, common dictionaries often contradict Black's Law Dictionary, and since Black's Law Dictionary is not freely available on the internet, I don't expect anyone to seriously believe me unless/until they checked it out for themselves.
Yes I did read your post, and pointed out your fallacies in my post.
If you don't understand my post, you might have mental retardation or lack critical thinking skills to comprehend it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.