Slashdot Mirror
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."
Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.
"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.
Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3557668.html?menu=
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Rules of the sense of humor:
1. Very subjective.
2. Know your audience.
3. Use responsibly.
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this. (And most probably, also very immature)
Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
You have it a little backwards in my opinion. Dangerous dogs can be controlled by their keepers, that should not be legislated. Pesticides are necessary to avoid the spread of malaria and other rather unpleasant diseases, they should not be legislated against. Marijuana is the only one that is sure to cause greater societal suffering as can you imagine the number of driving related deaths caused if it became legal? Never mind the wider societal damage caused through throngs of stoners being less than productive members of society. If someones life is so terrible that they _require_ a substance to ease the pain then they need psychological help not the legalization of a drug that provides a temporary solution.
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
No it wasn't. There is nothing about the First Amendment protecting *anonymous* speech.
Remember that when the amendment was written, it was not uncommon for governments to jail individuals for speaking against them, simply because they could. What the forefathers were saying was, "It won't be against the law to speak out against the government in America. Say whatever you want about your elected officials, we won't throw you in jail or prosecute you in any way." This was written SPECIFICALLY for the guys standing up on soapboxes, shaking their fists in the town square. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would deliver the back of his hand to any punk trying to hide behind the First Amendment to bully a child anonymously.
So you won't mind me moving my pet grizzly bear that I've trained to be as aggressive as possible into the backyard next to yours then?
He's harmless, really, an absolute teddy bear and I *promise* he wont knock down your fence and tear you limb from limb as soon as you walk out the back of your house. He absolutely respects your high minded property rights being an animal and all.
Generally when dogs like that "cross the border from one persons property to the next" they maul some poor kid, another animal, etc. There are many animals banned from inside city limits, why should certain breeds of dogs which statistically are now the most dangerous animals to humans on the entire planet be exempt?
I'll do a deal though, you get to keep your savage dog in the city if I get to keep my grizzly bear as well.
> Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those
> nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border
> from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.
Score 4 insightful? Give me a break!
Where the hell do you think those chemicals end up? They get into the entire ecosystem and thus get into *everyone's* property. *That's* why there are limits on using pesticides and calls to reduce that even further.
Oh yes, and to that anonymous coward:
> from her website, she's generally anti-freedom
>
> opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
> opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
> opposes freedom to use marijuana
She probably also opposes the freedom to kill people? Ghastly!
I disagree. Anonymous speech is fine to a point and something we should protect but only if it's convenient. When you start attacking someone's child, I think it falls into a different realm. Frankly, I think anonymous speech is in most cases cowardly, and is seldom necessary. In the case of whistleblowing, it can be valuable and necessary, but for the most part it serves no purpose and is definitely not covered by the first amendment. The "speech" part, yes. The anonymous part, no. And the commenter is still subject to libel/slander law, or the prohibitions of threats or inciting of violence, etc.
I don't know what "deeply disturbing" amounts to, but it's likely it can associated with fear for the safety of the minor in question. If it amounts to some kind of threat or accusation of illegal activity, identifying the commenter might be called for. But not knowing the actual content, I cannot judge whether it's appropriate in this context.
This is certainly not a cut-and-dried free speech issue.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.