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)
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.
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.