MD Appellate Ct. Sets "New Standard" For Anonymous Posting

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MD Appellate Ct. Sets "New Standard" For Anonymous Posting

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday March 2, 2009 @05:11AM from the or-you-could-just-clean-the-place-up dept.

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."

9 of 260 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

wow... by YouWantFriesWithThat · 2009-03-02 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

that ruling actually makes sense. there is no way that it will be allowed to stand!
1. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-02 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, it does not. An anonymous statement holds no weight and thus cannot be defamatory. At least, not enough to rise to the level of court intervention. These types of cases should be thrown out (without wasting all this effort) and our government's resources put to better use. And Dunkin' Donuts needs to grow a pair.
2. Re:wow... by Chyeld · 2009-03-02 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'd agree with you, but well, you posted as an AC and thus have no weight in this discussion. Too bad.
3. Re:wow... by TubeSteak · 2009-03-02 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, it does not. An anonymous statement holds no weight and thus cannot be defamatory.
  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.
  Ultimately it is an issue of trust.
  Most people are willing to trust an anonymous statement if it is not extreme and seems to mesh with their pre-existing world view.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
4. Re:wow... by Samschnooks · 2009-03-02 05:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's right! That's why I lie and create an assumed name to post under. Now, I have much more credibility and weight than an AC!
5. Re:wow... by Chyeld · 2009-03-02 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You and an AC have equal credibility, thus my indirect point. The OP indicated that somehow an AC comment means less (i.e. has no weight) when in reality, hardly anyone ever takes into account who said something, just what was said.
  The Maryland decision is a good one. It provides the courts the ability to weigh the comments themselves before deciding to revoke someone's anonymity. The 'warning' part doesn't really matter. The part that matters, to me, is the fact that before disclosure is required, the courts are actually looking at the claim rather than simply accepting on face value from the plaintiff that the statements are defamatory.
6. Re:wow... by mrchaotica · 2009-03-02 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The part that matters, to me, is the fact that before disclosure is required, the courts are actually looking at the claim rather than simply accepting on face value from the plaintiff that the statements are defamatory.
  But on the other hand, how can the claim be evaluated without the anonymous writer being there to defend it? I worry that this could turn into "pre-trying" the defendant before he's identified -- after all, if you've already decided that the statement is defamatory enough to identify the writer, then you're right on the edge of deciding that the writer is guilty, too. It would suck if the court improperly decided to identify the writer, and then he didn't get a fair trial due to the lingering presumption of guilt.
  (No, I don't have a solution for this.)
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:This is really dumb... by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-03-02 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

What I got from the article was a tacit admission that people would inevitably try to abuse the system to supress legitimate voicing of concern, analagous to the legal cheap shot of invoking the DMCA to supress complaints or discussions of product defects, for example.
Re:Cleanliness of a donut shop? Really? by Hatta · 2009-03-02 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is because of the erosion of our rights. There was a time when first amendment lawsuits involved people like Larry Flynt, saying things like "If the first amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you, because I'm the worst." These days, the cases that set precedent tend not to involve the worst scumbags, but normal people. Today you can easily see that if there's any question that the constitution will protect us in trivial and petty cases, there's NO chance it will protect us when it's important.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!