Slashdot Mirror
MD Appellate Ct. Sets "New Standard" For Anonymous Posting
A Maryland court of appeals has set what they are calling a new "standard that should be applied to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation." The court overturned an earlier ruling that would have required NewsZap.com to turn over the names of anonymous posters who posted negative remarks about the cleanliness of a Centreville Dunkin' Donuts. "In a defamation case involving anonymous speakers, the ruling said, courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond. The plaintiff must then hand over the exact statements in question, so the court can decide whether the comments are obviously defamatory. Finally, the ruling says, the court must weigh the anonymous poster's right to free speech against the strength of the defamation case and the necessity of disclosing the poster's identity."
that ruling actually makes sense. there is no way that it will be allowed to stand!
The Maryland Supreme Court justices are all gay and have orgies after the last case of the day. I've seen them ship in goats and pigs to add spice to these events.
It's true. They are all perverts and touch themselves in public.
Suing an anonymous poster for defamation is idiotic. Anonymous posts should carry very little weight on the part of the reader since there is no way to authenticate the veracity of the ports.
This should get kicked by the defense attorneys as bogus even before the name is revealed.
Besides, the owner of the Dunkin should just respond that the allegations are untrue any anyone who wants to can come down and see for themselves.
If its possible to hand over details of who posted an anonymous message, then it wasnt 100% anonymous, there must be some sites that dont log any details of anonymous posters, so cant hand anything over
4chan is royally eff'd, eh?
It seems that these First Amendment cases are always about the most trivial and petty things possible. I fully expect the next one to revolve around whether or not yo momma is so fat, and how fat she is.
... it is "the" Maryland Court of Appeals. In other states it would be known as the state supreme court.
A similar situation is that what other states call the "state house of representatives" in Maryland is called the House of Delegates. (Virginia calls its lower house that also.)
Lets face it... corporations ARE going to hammer this until they get their way. At least a court is coming up with some sort of fair way to arbitrate and say 'let the courts decide what is libelous before handing over identities'. That seems more than fair and it gives the anonymous user the opportunity to seek counsel should they feel the need.
It's a libelous world but at least the courts are trying to err on the side of caution.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
... I've slipped into a parallel universe again. Courts making sensible decisions! Next you'll tell me a funny joke about chickens crossing the road or maybe even find a /. meme that hasn't been done to death.
I wouldn't worry too much there is ample scope for this common sense to be screwed up by other courts and rulings.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
If I truly believe that that restaurant is dirty, is it defamation?
I think not. How would anyone know what my standards for cleanliness are and whether I truly believed what I said (or typed in this case)?
Maybe my standards are really high and I saw a piece of paper on the floor and concluded that the restaurant is dirty. Or maybe I wanted to destroy the business and am using the piece of paper as an excuse.
The appeals court decided Brodie was not entitled to learn the identities of the posters because in his complaint he misidentified the forum participants responsible for the critical comments.
How did he misidentify them? Did he guess as to who they were, and guess wrong?
The PDF file itself states:
The Court reviewed the record and determined that Brodie had not identified the appropriate forum participants in his complaint. Because Brodie failed to assert his defamation action against the correct individuals, the Court reversed the trial judgeâ(TM)s order compelling the discovery of the forum participantsâ(TM) identities.
How is it relevant that he misidentified them initially? Or is it simply that identifying someone by a user name is considered misidentification?
I would not want there to be a loophole in this ruling that would make it not apply in other cases.
It feels like everything even a tiny bit negative is suddenly grounds for a lawsuit.
Food critic gives a bad review? Don't make better food, sue the critic, the newspaper, and the corporation that owns it for defamation, even if the fries WERE soggy that day.
It seems like the issue is it's way cheaper to try and suppress negative information (even if it's simply random people's opinions) - and furthermore make it clear that it will be extremely costly to even utter such information, by way of having to defend oneself in court, even for pure opinion-laced statements. Some states, if I recall, have laws and remedies available when companies sue under such circumstances, but many, it seems, do not.
And hell - I've noticed that in some countries, forget opinion - it's getting to the point where even truth is no longer an absolute defense to libel, because truthful statements can still be "defamatory".
"Fame" and "Respect" shouldn't be a right just via the existence of a person or company, it's one of those things that is (or used to be) hard to earn, and easy to lose. What's the point of having a review or sharing thoughts if any negative one leads to a lawsuit?
Here's the problems. First, there's this idea that people who excercise their fifth amendment rights are guilty. Then there's this idea that anonymous speakers are "evil". Nevermind arguments about the 4th amendment, or about privacy and other things -- this all points to a systemic and popular change of opinion in the general public that excercising one's rights is synonymous with abusing them. This is very dangerous -- those rights were enacted to precisely and explicitly to protect innocent people who might otherwise be snared by ambiguous testimony, false witnesses, or procedural mistakes (amongst other flaws in the justice system that hang innocent people).
But that aside, the crux of the matter is, should anonymous speech be entitled the same protections as non-anonymous speech? If you're tempted to answer yes, consider that an "anonymous poster" stating that a pharmaceutical company is engaging in price fixing doesn't carry the same weight as a former accountant of the company in question stating it. Who you are does indeed matter when it comes to credibility. Just a talking point here. Here's the other problem -- people often post anonymously precisely because they have more to lose because of who they are, yet wish to perform a public service by drawing attention to a problem. Anyone remember F*ckedCompany during the dotcom bubble burst? The court fails to address these questions.
And the argument could be made they should not address them. Our court system is based on the concept that everything should be public, unless of course it has anything to do with terrorism, the government, or some government official's nuts in the vice, in which case it's Uber-Super-Double-Top-Secret. This is a problem for people found not guilty because public mentality is that even an accusation means you did something wrong. People's lives are ruined daily by false accusation, false witnesses, etc., because the system declares that everything should be public -- not just those found guilty, but also those found not guilty, or even innocent!
And in a digital age, I don't know that we can afford this anymore. The needs of the many (the public's need to know) is NOT outweighed by the individuals needs (for privacy) any longer, and a foundational aspect of our justice system now needs reform. Specifically, court actions should not be made public until the case is finalized and no longer appealable. Yes, that does mean the public gets less information. In my opinion... Deal with it. If this dynamic were the case, then the collateral damage in involving legal action against anonymous posters would be reduced a hundred-fold. Doing this eliminates the "chilling effect" that these actions provide.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The summary seems to suggest that this is just an appellate decision. The MD Court of Appeals is the state's high court. This is the final word on this case in the state of Maryland.
Oooh oooh I know what you do now- highlight the post and hit Ctrl-C and send it to
Maryland Court of Appeals
Judge Adkins, J., Judge Robert C. Murphy, Judge Barbera JJ
Courts of Appeal Building
361 Rowe Boulevard
Annapolis, MD 21401
to determine if the post is -1, Obviously Defamatory.
All this over a rat nibbling a couple chocolate eclairs. Rat droppings just look like sprinkles. It's nothing to get upset about.
The summary seems to suggest that this is just an appellate decision. The MD Court of Appeals is the state's high court. This is the final word on this case in the state of Maryland.
I guess that's Maryland's fault for calling it "Court of Appeals" rather than "Court of Final Say". Yes, I realise even the highest court is an appellate court, but that goes without saying. It certainly doesn't need to press on the fact.
"... courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond."
The court does not understand what "anonymous" means in the context of online posting. It means, at least in some cases, "You will never know who did it."
Before courts rule or Congress makes new laws, the proposed new ideas should be posted on Slashdot. There are plenty of teenagers who read Slashdot who would be willing to show why the new ideas don't make sense. Most of the new ideas are so ignorant that there's no need for the rest of us to even get involved.
In the case of the Emily Vance versus the Bathroom Wall Writer of the Baltimore Golden Corral, Men's Room, 2nd Stall, sometime between 6:30 PM on January 25th 2009 and 10:45 PM on January 27th 2009, the Court finds that Emily Vance, with whom the Bathroom Writer suggested a short-term relationship might result in a pleasant outcome, did effectively write on said wall in reply, letting the Bathroom Writer know he or she was the subject of a subpoena. The Bathroom Writer, who knowingly and wantonly failed to respond, is hereby subject to the default judgement of $840,000. The next time the Bathroom Writer writes on that wall, Ms. Vance should let him or her know that he or she is liable.
After sex, she smokes a turkey.
If it weren't a state, it wouldn't be able to seat Senators, for example, since the U.S. Constitution says there are "two Senators from each state", and does not apportion any to Commonwealths.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The way things are going, it will (already is?) be illegal to even try and be anonymous.
Eventually, if THEY really want to get you, it will not be for what you said, but for the fact that you probably lied to get set up an "anonymous" account, thus violating some TOS. Any attempt to be AC probably took planning, which (in their mind), is the willful committing of conspiracy, with intent, etc. Toss in unauthorized access of computers, etc. etc. you just get in deeper and deeper.
You will have a list of felonies much worse than the libel, at which point it doesn't really matter if you actually did.
Using TOR, your neighbor's open WiFi, etc, all compound your crimes.
Oh, and it's all to protect the children, so you must be a kiddie porn peddling molester if you think any of those laws are unjust, so we might as well toss those charges on top.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Sometimes one dimensional number systems don't fit your moderation needs.
[FUCK BETA]
What is surprising? The court decided to ... aggrandize its own power. In the absence of an aggressive legislative body, asserting its power to make law, the COURT will make law. That is, unless citizens have a better idea .
The internet routes around censorship and other free-speech issues like this.
It sounds like we're getting to the point where anytime anyone wants to say something critical of a government, corporation, or even another person, we're going to have to use Tor.
http://www.torproject.org/
Subpoena all you want, you'll get nothing.
Right, the lawyers around here will clarify, but there is a principle in law that if the lie is big enough, you aren't liable. Thus, a hamburger shop can say that it has the "Best" burgers and it doesn't have to prove it.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I don't see the word anonymous anywhere in there. I don't see anything close to the concept of anonymity there.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So if I say "Joanne Moran, a teacher at Hazeldale Elementary school in Beaverton, Oregon touches children innappropriately. I know this because one of her students told me." Is it defamation? How does she prove that one of her students did not in fact tell me this? Short of covertly videotaping her 24/7, how do I prove that I'm not defaming her because I'm telling the truth?
It says, "Congress shall make no law [which prohibits or abridges] the freedom of speech..."
Anonymity isn't really the important part here (no...seriously). It's, "What are you allowed to say?"
An anonymous post is still someone exercising their freedom of speech. Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
That's not quite true. What you're addressing is called 'puffery'. There are specific rules that govern puffery in advertising (from what I understand). Companies can use puffery and claim that they are the best and that they are number one, as long as they do so without referencing a given source. So let's say I own said Hamburger shop. According to my understanding of Puffery rules in advertising (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I can say that my hamburgers are the absolute best in X city or X state, as long as I do not say "As voted by X consumers". I can say "YOU the customers", but I can't say "As voted by a majority of customers". Then I have incurred upon myself the implicit obligation of backing up my statement. I can also say that my burgers are far superior to my customers, as long as I don't say by how much. As long as I don't specify and incur an implicit obligation to prove how much, I can say pretty much anything I want within the realms of advertising. Which of course leads to an interesting thought about memes. If a company is using puffery in an advertising campaign and is constrained from making specific claims about their product because they have no backing for it, then they would have to resort to a catchy jingle, phrase, or something to make their advertising stick... hmmm..
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Sounds like a Klingon name to me.
No way would a trust a Klingon to make my donuts.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
My bigger concern is the onus this might put on websites with regards to allowing anonymous posting... might they have to retain logs or force "anonymous" posters to log in with an account and provable credentials?
What happens if a website simply says "sorry, they're anonymous... we don't know who they are and have no way of finding out."
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
Libel (and slander) laws do not infringe on free speech. You are still free to say or print such statements; the laws hold you responsible for the content. Free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for you speech. Think of it as free as in beer; not as in hangover.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
But if your really want to hurt a places rep you can just spam "THEY SUCK AND I RATHER BURN PUBES OFF MY NADS WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS THAN GO BACK THERE" and give them lowest rating on various social rating sites. You are not breaking any laws - just stating an opinion.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
As a society we should be less interested in anonymous rants and more interested in important issues. Consider these statements:
"Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
The top executives of the seven largest American tobacco companies testified in Congress today that they did not believe that cigarettes were addictive, but that they would rather their own children did not smoke.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"If you call now you will get..."
As an American I am used to being mislead, and I must actively try to separate lies, ambiguity, and plausibility from facts. An anonymous post is the -least likely- to get any weight in my decision making process. I dont know why anyone would spend this much time on it, and I cant see how any court could rule against the poster. A better use of our legal system would to make sure reputable new sources cant relay trash.
Anonymity isn't really the important part here (no...seriously). It's, "What are you allowed to say?"
It really is - if you knew that something you said anonymously wasn't really anonymous, you might not say it, so there's a chilling effect with making it too easy to identify 'anonymous' posters.
Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
Good luck arguing that. Libel laws are why you get in trouble for saying 'tom is a felon' to a potential employer - if he isn't actually a felon, then your lie hurt him, and that shouldn't be allowed.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Slashdot user i_ate_god bragged about his deviant prowess on slashdot: "I helped my uncle jack off the horse", he said in a Monday afternoon posting. He made it clear that he was making a political statement for what he views as an oppressed minority: "no one should be arrested for bestiality," he asserted.
As you read this letter, you may feel confused at points. If you do, keep reading. The rationale underlying Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's analects is confusing. Fortunately, as you read the superfluity of examples about how Centreville Dunkin' Donuts has been trying to violate all the rules of decorum, this letter will slowly begin to make sense. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say.
It's our responsibility to get people to sign a petition to limit Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's ability to cause trouble. That's the first step in trying to debate the efficacy of its contemptuous adages, and it's the only way to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. If Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's apparatchiks had even an ounce of integrity they would serve on the side of Truth. Almost everyone will wholeheartedly agree that violence, mayhem, and insanity are the inevitable consequences of Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's contrivances, but Centreville Dunkin' Donuts claims that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. Perhaps it has some sound arguments on its side but if so it's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that it would be wrong to imply that Centreville Dunkin' Donuts is involved in some kind of conspiracy to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future. It would be wrong because its modes of thought are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but each rung on the ladder of fascism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Centreville Dunkin' Donuts to hoodoo us. That is the standard process by which obstreperous televangelists perpetuate myths that glorify factionalism.
Even though it certainly makes far more sense to fight the good fight than to promote a culture of dependency and failure, this does not negate the fact that Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that it insists that it has no choice but to pursue a twofold credo of simplism and collectivism. Its reasoning is that big emotions come from big words. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's subalterns contend that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. This is precisely the non-equation that Centreville Dunkin' Donuts is trying to patch together. What it's missing, as usual, is that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Centreville Dunkin' Donuts is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. In fact, that's exactly what Centreville Dunkin' Donuts does as part of its quest to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people.
I frequently talk about how Centreville Dunkin' Donuts's thralls like having a stamp of assurance from Centreville Dunkin' Donuts that what they're doing is fashionable, or at least acceptable. I would drop the subject except that its bedfellows consider its reports a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of Bulverism. One could truthfully say that aside from a few exceptions, this statement is sincerely valid. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that it claims that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in its slogans. Then again, Centreville Dunkin' Donuts has spent untold hours trying to divert our attention from serious issues. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that its fixation wit
The issue is that it isn't "a" Maryland court of appeals it is "the" Maryland Court of Appeals.
Suppose I want to write an honest negative review of a place, but I know might be sued for the review. I also know it is very likely that I'll be vindicated in court, but only after spending thousands of dollars I don't have and dedicating many, many hours that I don't have. I may well not write the review. I suspect many people would find themselves in this position were these suits to become perceived as commonplace.
In order to comply with the new rules for anonymous posting, public restrooms in Maryland have a new policy.
If someone write something like "for a good time call (410)-xxx-xxxx" and it is later found that this statement may be defamatory (perhaps someone called the number and was not given a good time) the bathroom operators must notify the grafitti artist that he is the subject of a subpeona. This could involve writting "call 800-xxx-xxxx if you thought you had a good time by calling (410)-xxx-xxxx" underneath the text saying "here I sit broken hearted..." The judge then has the option of calling the said number to see if calling the number really does give a good time. If not then the bathroom operators are required to hand over whoever posted the anonymous report on their bathroom page. Note this could involve handing over everyone who used the john between the hours in which the post was added or going through everyone who called the number to see if it really would give a good time.
I don't know if I should be amazed or scared shitless with regards to your editing prowess.
From TFA:
In a defamation case involving anonymous speakers, the ruling said, courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond.
What if I never return to the site and never see the posting? Then what?
qz
IMHO there should be a requirement to defend yourself from slander like in trespassing law.
If someone says something bad about you simply reply saying it isn't so, since the credibility of a fully named, established business is far beyond that of any anonymous poster the commentary gets nullified.
Filing suit when you have failed to make a reasonable attempt to protect your reputation is akin to suing for trespassing while failing to guard your territory.
To put it in another way, if filing suit is more expensive, for both the plaintiff an the public, than simply posting a reply in a BBS specially considering the Streisand effect. Then the suit should be deemed stupid* and be dismissed.
* I don't think that is a valid legal term, but if it isn't it should.
But... the future refused to change.
What I find encouraging is that INI fought for the constitutional rights of its readers. Too many internet companies these days take a neutral position... i.e. cave.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
courts routinely decide first if a case has merit, if so, the various processes (the case) begins.
e.g., as defendant, i needn't respond to frivolous claims or claims not made in good faith, i.e., the court may decide complaint is such and refuse it.
this happened to me when i pleaded Forma Pauperis (a means test to allow one to proceed who has no money to pay court fees, Forma Pauperis is way to clear that hurdle and makes justice available to all)... the court may refuse Forma Pauperis by [seemingly] deciding that my complaint has no merit OR that is not submitted in good faith.
my argument, in part, on appeal was/is: first things first; first one pays the initial complaint submittal fee, THEN we look at the content.
with the court's refusal to grant forma pauperis (IFP) they also send me instruction on how much to pay [by cash] and by when, and, in fact, NEVER decide on my filed for indigent (IFP) condition.
i question them asking: you have said my compliant is not made if good faith and lacks merit; if this is true, why would i pay cash AND waste your time with a complaint you appear to have already decided, AND, is it not true "first things first" and first the fee? then i went on to ARGUE that my claim is NOT made in bad faith nor does lack legal merit.
this is patently unfair. i need legal aide to appeal the SC.
please, anybody out there that can help me? time is almost up.
bring him/her/them to court as John Doe.
(also remember, defamation, etc. is civil law, not criminal.)
the context [specificity] here is essentially "whistle blowing" on a particular Dunkin' Donuts restaurant, no?
courts generally deal in and make judgements on very specific issues or events.
the judiciary, in America, is a separate branch of government and ramifications of such judgements should not deny justice however "small" the claimant.
again, "specificity," define" "seedy."
if it is deemed defamatory and you can show damage... you have a suit.
if the defendant shows his definitions and descriptions are true, that is a valid defense and he prevails.
if it is a "lie" you prevail IF you can PROVE damage.
if the defendant shows his definitions and descriptions are true, that is a valid defense and he prevails.
That's not being debated. The issue here is that by having absolutely no way to connect (legally) to the person who is labeling your restaurant a diseased pit, you really have no way to deal with it. The article is about a Maryland court finding that perhaps the aggrieved party should be able to go to a judge with examples of what's been said and proof that it's false, and let the judge determine if the entity protectting the anonymity of the slanderer should have to give up information like an IP address.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If an anonymous statement holds no weight, then why is journalism filled with "anonymous sources say" and "unnamed government officials state"?
Just because you don't give any weight to anonymous statements doesn't mean the rest of the world ignores them.
You're right, it really is a matter of trust.
In the case of journalism that you mention, the reporter is being trusted, not the anonymous sources directly. That is, we trust that the reporter trusts his anonymous sources.
In the case of a forum, you are getting the information firsthand. It's the equivalent of seeing a handbill on your front porch in the morning, or a call in the middle of the night from someone you don't know. You don't have the intermediary of the 'trusted reporter'.
i forgot to add contact info:
kontrol at comcast,net
Anyone can use anyone else's computer, or anyone else's account. A large percentage of computers running Microsoft Windows are infected and being operated by someone other than the owner of the computer. The idea that someone is supposedly identified by an account name or an IP address has already been considered in cases involving the RIAA, with very negative results. It's a foolish idea that will only continue to bring disrespect to the courts.