Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Supreme Court: Comcast Must Identify Anonymous Internet Commenter
An anonymous reader writes: In 2011, an anonymous person on the internet posted a comment to the Freeport Journal Standard newspaper's website implying that a local political candidate was a pedophile. The candidate, Bill Hadley, took offense to this, and tried to get Comcast to tell him who the commenter was. Comcast refused, so Hadley took it to the courts. The Illinois Supreme Court has now ruled (PDF) that Comcast must divulge the commenter's identity. "Illinois' opinion was based in large part on a pair of earlier, lower-court decisions in the state, which held that the anonymity of someone who makes comments in response to online news stories isn't guaranteed if their opinions are potentially defamatory, according to Don Craven, an attorney for the Illinois Press Association."
When he finds out the commenter was an 11 year old middle-schooler on his lunch break in the library, and not the great political adversary that he's making it out to be.
Not only that, but it's exceedingly difficult to make an example out of an 11 year old, to other 11 year olds, and not looking like an out of touch politician who's been expertly trolled by someone one fifth his age. This seems like a huge waste of resources, politically and judicially.
I don't think he will be disappointed. I think the purpose of the lawsuit is to send a message to Mr. Hadley's future political opponents to be careful what they say about him. In other words, this is intended to have a chilling effect on political speech.
The comment in question falls under political speech. The commenter is commenting on a political candidate, after all.
I don't think so. Politically motivated, perhaps, but implying someone is a paedophile isn't the same thing as disagreeing with his political views.
Calling a candidate a pedophile hardly differs from the bipartisan mudslinging that takes place in most elections anyway.
That's a poor argument. I'd sooner say everyone should stop with the senseless mudslinging and talk about political issues again. Then again, in 'murika it's all about entrenched "views" that merely serve to pick sides in the perpetual shouting match you call "politics" but everyone else has long since lost interest in, since both sides appear to want exactly the same thing: Shout at the other side some more.
That's hardly "political discourse". It's just shouting.
IMO, the Supreme Court has exceeded it's authority in this case.
And that's poor grammar.
Defamation, along with obscenity and inciting panic or violence, have never been free speech. Slander and libel are civil crimes that you can be sued for in court, and it's been that way since day one. To facilitate enforcement of defamation laws, the court has decided it's acceptable to try and de-anonymize the poster in question.
Just because the words are about a political candidate, does not make it political speech. This case is not the same as speaking unpopular political views and opinions - that WOULD be protected speech. It's the difference between supporting Nazi idealism (free speech) and accusing someone of being a Nazi (not free speech).
=Smidge=
I am a firm believer in free speech. The cure for bad speech (as the accusation apparently was) is not less bad speech but more good speech.
Fine, but doesn't there have to be consequences when someone just makes shit up about someone else? Especially when it's something that is such a powderkeg in current climate? We don't consider it reasonable that people prove a negative, so you're already on the backfoot if someone decides to start a rumour. With Twitter and Wikipedia, it's very easy for a rumour to get repeated so much it feels like the truth.
For this kind of smear, in this kind of context? No, no "more speech" isn't the solution, it actually makes it worse to issue denials as it makes the original allegation more prominent, and makes a large percentage of the population think it might be true because "there's no smoke without fire."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I've been thinking about the cost of anonymity. I think it's an often necessary element of political speech, but it's not free. It requires a sacrifice on the part of the person who chooses anonymity.
There is a reason society is suspicious of people who cover their faces.
A blanket expectation of anonymity in all things is unreasonable if you want to participate fully in society. If everyone were completely anonymous, I believe that would likely be an impediment to free speech. Because at some point, credibility is required.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There is nothing that an anonymous person can say about someone that I will take seriously without evidence. So, if an anonymous person says that candidate X is a pedophile, but offers no evidence, I will take it as the ranting of a liar, and candidate X has not been harmed in any way, beyond registering as a person who has angered some random anonymous coward. On the other hand, if candidate X takes it upon himself to waste the court's time with crap which endangers the anonymity of legitimately fearful critics of policy everywhere, I suddenly believe candidate X is an ass, unelectable, and possibly even a pedophile.
Without anonymity, you can't have free speech.
Sure you can. Free speech protects the speaker from prosecution based on beliefs or opinions, but does not free the speaker from accountability.
That's nice in theory, but in the real world but the only protection people have against prosecution for what they said is anonymity. Try offending a mob boss, saying something your local police department really doesn't like, printing cartoons of a prophet, etc, and see if your government's protections for free speech save you from being persecuted for what you said.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Plus as they said above, its not like the ISP keeps 4 year old logs"
And if they did, wouldn't it be against the law? Perhaps forbidden tree etc?
IANAL but I imagine the moment something was file in court, the ISP was required to retain all those records until final disposition.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Bullshit. Trolls are an important part of why anonimity is needed. They pull out and open up the issues. They show us our emotions, and what we react to. Without them we lose a big part of our ability to derive truth.