Posting AC - a Thing of the Past?

c0lo writes to point out an article from the Indystar. From the article: "A Marion County judge has ruled, for the first time in Indiana, that news media outlets can be ordered by the court to reveal identifying information about posters to their online forums."

Comments

For what reason?

[mosb1000]

The only reason a court would be gathering such information is to stifle free speech.

Re:For what reason?

[countertrolling]

Then you have no problem with peoples' identities being sought out. The "qualifier" is bullshit.

Re:For what reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to free speech says absolutely nothing about the right to anonymous free speech. At also says nothing about there not being consequences to your free speech, only that the government won't stop you from saying it.

Re:For what reason?

[Beetle B.]

Oh, let's dispense with the silly sensationalism.

Free speech was never meant to defend acts of libel.

If reasonable acts of libel took place, and the site knows the IP address of the posters, then it is ridiculous to use the shield law. That's like saying that I can set up a newspaper where I don't disclose the identity of any of my journalists, and where they can freely malign any individual through it while appealing to the shield law. That is ridiculous.

What wasn't clear from a cursory reading is whether the news outlets will be required to store the information. That's a bit overstepping, if it's the case. It's like saying that if I have a bulletin board in my supermarket, then I should be required to get the identity of anyone who posts there.

While not germane to the point of the story, I've not seen one instance of a news site allowing comments improving the quality of the site, or the discourse.

Not once.

Open comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.

Re:For what reason?

[Miseph]

You may think that qualifier is "bullshit" but it's a well-established and widely accepted one. We have drawn the line where free speech ends at the commission of a crime or threat of harm for a very long time, and doing so is considered appropriate even by the vast majority of card-carrying members of the ACLU.

You're welcome to disagree, but pretending that this is an irrational or unprecedented distinction is just silly.

Re:For what reason?

[westlake]

The only reason a court would be gathering such information is to stifle free speech.

Free speech is not the freedom to libel and slander the innocent. Free speech is not the freedom to make threats with impunity.

The anonymous speaker can be legitimately exposed.

Re:For what reason?

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem with that is that people have had their lives pretty much ruined by people posting slanderous allegations against them online. The most recent one I heard of was a guy who had to move because word got around that he was a child molester. Some woman took it into her head that he was one. She created multiple accounts on online forums and then started "exchanging" information about his record as a child molester. Each one of her accounts "didn't know" about some of the stuff that another one did. She even had one account that started out "skeptical".

Re:For what reason?

[countertrolling]

There's also the grand proposition of reprogramming society not to respond positively to hearsay. That's your "one size fits all". It's all about conditioned response and behavior modification, with specific keywords to set off the alarm, no matter the context. Real, honest to god psy-ops at work. Piece of cake. There's a small stink about the military trying it out on some congressmen in Afghanistan. I have to laugh when I consider how well it's working on genpop when they all recite almost word for word what they hear on the TV.

I find these charges hard to believe

Then don't believe them

Re:For what reason?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Open comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.

Um, why are you a member of Slashdot then?

Re:For what reason?

[DanTheStone]

Why does that need to be a crime? I could understand being charged with your complicity in the trampling deaths (say, some degree of negligent manslaughter), but why should yelling fire itself be criminal? That just sets up the government to decide other things are also illegal to say.

Perhaps the key is

[The MAZZTer]

To ensure this information is never stored in the first place.

Recap

[Compaqt]

1. People under tyranny
2. Write pamphlets anonymously
3. Make a new country
4. GOTO 1
5. "Goto considered harmful"

Re:I am ironically....

[h00manist]

And if they don't have the identifying data, are the journalists then sued for aiding and abetting unaccountable subservive activities?

Re:I am ironically....

[pavon]

Defending your privacy against people with sufficient resources is a lost cause. I care about defending against people who don't have a court order or an army of snoops. Like the people interviewing me for a job.

Brrr!!

[ThatsNotPudding]

Anyone else feel a sudden, overwhelming chill of Fascism in the air?