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."
Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse? I find it hard to believe that this kid is well adjusted considering his mommy is willing to go to court to unmask his tormentors.
It appears that his mom still dresses him.
http://electlisastone.com/images/stone_family.jpg
fristy poss?
One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful. The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch. Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US. Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?
Nobody deserves anonymous abuse unless it is a matter of serious public concern. Assuming that your statement is correct, if the kid is already a "mommas boy" then online bullying would only make things worse. And in your post you have clearly identified yourself as a supporter of online bullying of the less socially able ("deserved"). Consider what this says about you, because it isn't very nice.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
For what it's worth, "hip check" is a roller derby term.
From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID. Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over. A perfectly valid question. It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general. Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.
But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.
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
Due to your reply to the parent poster I'll through some abuse over to you just for kicks.
I have photos of Kupferniqk's Grandma masturbating Kupferniqk whilst his mother pokes herself wet. Kupferniqk then blows his load up his Grandma's arse with a stinking mixture of blood and cum!
I'd comment, but then she'll get ME too.
yes cool.
On the internet isn't going to end well...
goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.
On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.
MOMMA
now sue me!
pff
all i want to do is eat meat and have sex like a rabbit.
You really should click more...
Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"
The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.
Stone said the comments crossed the line.
"I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that," she said. "There was no joke, there was no punch line."
Stephen Tyma, an attorney representing Stone, said First Amendment protections were designed to shield anonymity in political debate, but not in what he characterized as sexual insinuations about children.
Looks like a fit case for an apology by 'hipcheck' - if he did _not_ know the child was a minor
If he _did_ know Stone's son was a minor, knowingly making lewd insinuations to a child is illegal and he deserves a visit from that process server.
I'd personally say that that this is a door that should neither be fully opened nor fully closed by law in and of itself; but rather, decided on a case-by-case basis with other, more established legal precedents and laws being the deciding factors.
In this case, TFA doesn't get into the specific nature of the comments made; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details, but we still don't have the fullest possible context to this story. There could be additional comments that were libelous, or simply hateful and abusive. In the US (your jurisdiction may vary) there is a certain additional protection in these situations afforded to persons who are not public figures. (In other words, if the article or story being commented on was ABOUT the teen in question, the level of protection is lesser; on the other hand, if the teen in question was not the subject of the piece, then the level of protection granted is somewhat greater.)
In short, the internet is not, nor should it be, an open-ended platform to abuse people for no reason other than a desire to abuse. By the same token, where there is a clear public interest in commentary concerning public figures that may or may not be deemed "abusive" to the supporters of those figures, the protections for anonymous commenters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law.
All that said, if the nature of the comments could be boiled down to "Hey don't attack my mom" followed by "you're an idiot", then if I were the judge, I'd have to err on the side of protecting free speech and privacy rights. If we have the full context here, this is not a question that deserves to have a federal case made of it.
...and other overly litigious organizations.
It may seem like this is off topic but look at how organizations like this operate.
If a legal precedent comes along that allows people to get a judicial hearing to strip the anonymity of people without a proper criminal or civil trial then these organizations and people will be able to get the identity of anybody that criticizes them.
And as we've seen with Scientology once they know who you are they can harass you into shutting up.
This is not a good thing.
Posting anonymously for several damn good reasons.
The fact that this is a politician stifling anonymous speech makes this decision even more egregious.
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Is it fair to say that the internet would be quite a bit more polite if you had to publicly stand by your statements just as if you were standing on your soap-box in the town square?
It appears to me that one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy. I understand the need for anonymity in certain situations. I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Where does the middle-ground lie between anonymity and personal responsibility? For now it appears that is determined, case-by-case, in the courts. Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, the web will remain troll-ridden. If that's a victory for free-speech, it's not a very satisfying one.
Her son got into a flame war with a guy on the internet so of course a lawsuit has to happen and someone has to be given money because some how that will make everything ok.
It's needless to say this guy should not have to reveal his name. It's stories like this that really make me sick of it all.
As far as I know, hepcheck16 made a joke about this lady's son being gay and screwing old men he meets on the internet. This lady then overreacted, decided to pretend she was fighting for some cause greater than herself, and here we are today.
For more info: http://randazza.wordpress.com/
Lewd? I see no lewd insinuations at all in the above quote. Read it carefully, and avoid projecting your own lewdness on to the sentence.
Yes, it can make a reference to sex. As it can to underage drinking, running away from mom, sedition, playing with legos, and a whole lot of other things. The poster only set up an entrapment for your lewd mind, and succeeded.
I think one has to be seriously oversexed or repressed to see a sexual reference where there is none.
Which, perhaps, tells us plenty about the situation here in the US today. Many people will actively look for "lewdness" under every rock, because that's where their repressed minds go.
If he would actually be anonymous, you would not be able to "unmask" (what in unprofessional term) him!
That's the freakin' definition of the term!!
He was perhaps "masked". But his real identity was still known to the site. Which means the commenter was pretty stupid in the first place.
Also this explains, why they can know who his mom is, when he's supposed to be "anonymous". (Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward. :P)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Daily Herald comments from 6 April:
And another:
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
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.
buster-bluth dept.
Just to be clear, no one is accusing Jed Stone of inviting Glenn Beck over to his house for a sexual liason, and no one is accusing Glenn Beck of inviting Jed Stone to his house for a sexual liason -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't they deny these liasons?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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!
The Founding Fathers never for one moment imagined that the Constitution would be used as a charter to allow bullying, or to allow corporations for force feed you with advertisements and unwanted phone calls. One reason the UK does not have a written constitution is that generations of legislators have worried about generic laws being overtaken by social change, or misused. They have always regarded it as essential that Parliament should be able to make laws as required to deal with new situations.
In fact "freedom of speech" is limited by laws of libel and slander, by laws relating to official secrecy, by local laws relating to the treatment of minors, and by the power of media owners. I'm not saying the US is wrong and the UK is right; the UK has far too little protection of the individual, and both countries have legal systems intended to benefit the rich and disadvantage the poor. But simplistric referring to the US Constitution is to deny or ignore what actually happens in the real world.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I think too many people abuse Anonymous. It's become the norm on the internet. It turns rational adults into little children. They know they can say anything with impunity. No risk of repercussion. It's made the internet an adolescent playground with no adult supervision.
I think they should remove any expectation of Privacy/Anonymity, and only allow special exceptions (whistle blowers, media sources, etc, as a protected class of information).
Although this post is causing quite a stir around issues of anonymity, how bout the main geek factor here? Doing business with the 800 pound gorilla of ISP's is simply another way of throwing away your rights. They cover their arses with AUP's & TOS's and really couldn't care less about their customers individual rights or the Constitutional protections of American citizens. Seems like it may be time to start utilizing guerrilla tactics in regards to all public posts made.
--
*this post made with stolen wifi and the computer used was destroyed afterward*
I'm not saying that he is the anonymous poster, but I think the public would feel better if Glenn can please tell us that he did not do this.
Maybe she just wants to beat him up? Haven't you ever wanted to hit someone on the internet for being stupid, but you couldn't because you didn't know where he lives? Maybe that's just what the internet needs. Someone to go around beating people up for being stupid.
You're next! I'll get all you slimy coward names! MWAHAHA!
By the way, have you noticed how everything seems to fall on a Cook County Circuit judge lately?
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
> 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!
Because the only reason to invite someone to your house, or to go to their house is sex.
legally, there never was any greater expectation of privacy on the internet, but you stick a box on a webform that says, "post anonymously" and everyone thinks it means something.
If there was no expectation of privacy, the court wouldn't be ordering the release of this info, no?
there's no expectation of privacy in a convenience store either, but if the police want the surveillance video, the management can insist on a court order. (but they don't have to.)
From the October 5th 2009 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE: "Gary Stone (the lawyer husband of Trustee Linda Stone), 1924 Beverly Lane, shared a letter from his son, Jordan, a college student, stating that it is a sad day in politics when the method of engaging a challenging voice is to alienate it and drive it from the system it seeks to improve." This was a debate on adopting a recall method for elected officials in Buffalo Grove but could easily fit into the discussion here. Perhaps Jordan can have a chat with Mom and his younger brother Jed regarding the methods they're using to alienate and attack a challenging voice. I'm certain Linda Stone's desire to know the identity of HipCheck16 has very little to do with what was written to her son, and has an awful lot to do with HipCheck16's questioning of her qualifications and merits all throughout the election. If I lived in Buffalo Grove, I too would wonder what a PTO Mom and Reunion coordinator who didn't understand the Village budget could accomplish as a Trustee. And if that same person happened to spearhead a fear campaign against Pit Bulls and have a trial lawyer husband, I might post my comments anonymously just to avoid the fallout.
that's a specious argument - "there are many more things in the world that are more dangerous than X" doesn't make X any less dangerous than it actually is
US society is being changed into a ridiculous parody of itself in which offense=crime....while REAL crimes, like passing bills no senator/congressman has read, in an impromptu special session on a weekend, seizure of lands and goods by federal 'troops' on behalf of corporate interests and 30% interest rates, are netting the people who commit them federal protections and tax-dollar-bail-outs.
Most of the 'officials' that make up your government truly believe that their political power should be used to do whatever they want to do at any given moment - because it's their moral imperative and responsibility to enforce 'the moral choice' on everyone, regardless whether 'everyone' shares their opinion on what is morally correct or not.
Ridiculous...and offensive. And since offense now = crime, I want them all prosecuted post-haste.
Did you RTFA?
To sum it up, the kid started talking trash to a perfect stranger, challenging him to a face-to-face (debate) confrontation. The stranger didn't escalate it by making threats, he simply twisted the kid's threatening bravado on its head and insinuating that he may be "soft", thus taking the wind out of his tough-guy sails. It also could be taken as a lesson in internet safety. If the kid was serious about this "I'll take you, face-to-face (in a debate or otherwise)" nonsense, that's really getting into dangerous territory.
If that's all the farther it got, let's call the waaaambulance. The adult made no threats, the kid was making (by all accounts) what could be considered threatening comments. He couldn't take nearly as much as he dished-out, and he deserves whatever shame he got in his attempt to call-out someone.
In case you all can't tell, I am NOT a fan of this double standard that minors should be able to take all the swings they want at adults with all the strength they can muster, and anytime an adult slaps back, it's suddenly some form of grievous assault.
I also wonder if the forum on which all this transpired had rules against minors posting. Many do. It would definitely add an entertaining new element to the story if the idiot mother does sue, and it comes out her sonny boy lied on the profile. That would be all kinds of fraud and computer trespass as we all learned from the Lori Drew case, that kid could wind up in prison!
That line of yours gave me a chuckle when I read the following one!
You've "backed it up" for me with that first quote!
However, when I prefaced my opinion with, "It appears to me," it proved more literal than I initially intended. Everywhere I go: roadways, airports, stores, restaurants, sporting events, etc -- I see a lack of common courtesy. You mentioned that you are aware of "abuse that people give out in public". When I look around, I not only see abuse, but rudeness, impatience, and a general lack of common courtesy as well.
To be fair, there are those of us who still like to extend a complement, allow someone to merge, say "please" and "thank you", etc; but it does seem to be more and more "out of fashion", for lack of a better term.
Given the progressive mantra of, "Intolerance must not be tolerated!", I feel we have become too tolerant of the abuse that you see in public, as well as the lack of common courtesy I see in public. So, perhaps in our determined efforts to be tolerant (for the sake of tolerance?), we have only ourselves to blame...
...an lllinois court will apply a three part test to determine whether or not Doe's statements reasonably implies the existence of a provably false fact. Hopewell v. Vitullo. 299 Ill.App.3d 513, 518-19 (1998). Cohn. Decl., Exh. W. First the court will "consider whether the language of the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning, while bearing in mind that the first amendment protects overly loose, figurative, rhetorical, or hyperbolic language, which negates the impression that the statement actually presents facts." Id. Second, the court will consider "whether the general tenor of the context in which the statement appears negated the impression that the statement has factual content." Id.Third, the court will consider "whether the statement is susceptible of being objectively verified as true or false." Id
This is from a Motion to Quash submitted by EFF, against the CEO of an Illinois company who, as plaintiff in a libel suit, was trying to "unmask" one of their anonymous critics on a Yahoo! message board . EFF ultimately prevailed, and the John Doe remained anonymous. See http://www.eff.org/cases/e-van-cullens-v-john-doe
I believe, however (again, IANAL), that if any of the tests pass, then the underlying libel suit is "obviously without merit" and does not entitle the plaintiff to unmask the defendant.
This is a joke...
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred
Your MOM Online.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
In my view the local newspaper is hardly resisting the plaintiff, they could have done a better job.
If it was posted on a blog instead of newspaper website, plaintiffs would have to drag Google or WordPress to court. I guess that would be much harder than dragging the friendly small local newspaper to court.
See blogger resisting search somewhere in Asia... it is still simmering there though.