Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked To Mom
LegalReader writes "An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting."
It's a hockey term, actually. I imagine roller derby appropriated it because it's basically the same kind of hit. In hockey, though, you can get much better arc on your opponent if you catch them just right.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will.
I could...
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
No, she doesn't. You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.
No, there is an escape - you drop the case. It's not hard. You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.
PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism.
If you make prank phone calls (even blocking caller ID), the phone company can be made to hand over your phone number & details
I don't think this should be the norm (you can't normally get somebody phoning you named), but i don't see why the internet should be any different.
or to meme it up for you:
Libellous comment is libellous
Threatening comment is threatening
Harassing comment is harassing
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
This is the "end" of a chain of lawsuits. The court has already ordered the newspaper to release the guy's IP address, and they did. The court has already ordered Comcast to release the identity of the guy who was using that IP address and they did.
So the court knows who the guy is and the guy is represented by a lawyer. She can go ahead and sue 'John Doe' based on the information the court already possesses if she really thinks she has a case. There is really no reason for the mother to know the guys identity other than to personally harrass him (presumably as this was a debate over a local election the guy lives in her district).
So the deeply disturbing comments appear to be a teasing double-entendre. That Hipcheck16 may get sued over as the boy has a recently elected parent whom will get kudos for Thinking of the children.
My virgin ears (eyes?) I'm forever scarred.
The crust of most dog breads are a bit too ruff for me; I prefer beagles and cream cheese.
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred
is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!