Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Accused Killer Asks For Online Media Users' IDs

Posted by timothy on from the who's-poisoned-which-well dept.

SpaceGhost writes "According to the Houston Chronicle, the attorney for a Texas man charged in the death of a four-year-old 'has asked several local media outlets to provide the names of readers and listeners who commented about his client online,' stating that his client 'was struck by the conclusions people drew about his client and the specificity of some comments that made it appear they came from people with personal knowledge of the case.' Media outlets who have been subpoenaed include The Houston Chronicle, the Conroe Courier, KHOU (Houston area Channel 11, CBS affiliate) and KTRK (Houston area Channel 13, ABC affiliate)."

8 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Informative

    That stupid skank whore in New York got a court to force Google to give up the ID of someone who hurt her feelings and now everyone will use that precedent to do the same.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not. you can EASILY be anonymous and be near the blogging services. it simply takes some IQ and knowlege.

      You can go through proxies, use a throw away email service to get the initial login and make it impossible for them to find a single poster that does not use the same path twice.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or just consistently use Tor and don't post shit that can ID you. I have a political blog like that.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    3. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world can not touch you unless they can prove that at the exact time you expressed your opinion it was not in fact your true opinion but that you lied about it and falsely expressed your opinion in order to slander someone.

      Speaking as a lawyer, I would caution against presuming this is sufficient, to protect yourself against "all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world."

      In my jurisdiction, for instance, 'truth' (by itself) has only been a defence to defmation since 1 January 2006 (and this was, IMHO, a very poorly thought out 'reform'). Prior to that you were required to show more (eg. truth + public interest). In much of the common law word (eg UK) this is still the case. I believe that throughout most of the world, whether the defamatory publication is an honestly held opinion, is not relevant. The question is whether the 'imputation' is defamatory, and whether it is true (and, jurisdicition depending, more than merely true).

      As I understand it, even in the US, the principle in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requiring actual malice to be shown, applies only to public officials. Or do you have any better (more recent) authority which suggests otherwise?

      You might find lawyers more of a threat than you imagine. ;)

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Doug52392 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of the comments in an article about a man who killed a four-year-old on local news websites would most likely be along the lines of "OMG THIS SICK FUCK DOESN'T EVEN DESERVE A TRIAL! JUST SHOOT HIM!"... ... At least that's the trend I notice on local news sites in my area.

    1. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by joocemann · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, in Texas, we call that due process.

      Slashdot mods you 'Funny'.

      Texans mod you "Informative"

    2. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Secondly, just because someone shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence (reasonable doubt), isn't proof of innocence by a long shot."

      Well isn't that convenient? In this country, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

  3. Re:Okay... by e9th · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is an earlier Chronicle article with >300 comments. Decide for yourself how many of them show inside knowledge.