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."
ISPs generally throw out authentication logs after some period of time (a month to a year) unless they have a good reason to keep them. Unless Comcast is holding onto those logs, it has no way to determine who was using that IP way back in 2011.
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.
moox. for a new generation.
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.
On December 29, an individual using the name Fuboy posted the following comment: Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has of Empire [Elementary School in Freeport, Illinois] from his front door.
So of course an anonymous comment is no reason to believe someone is a pedophile, unless corroborated by further evidence.
But still, when I hear of defamation lawsuits like this, I always think back to Oscar Wilde.
He sued for defamation when someone outed him as homosexual. He lost and legal fees bankrupted him. And because sodomy was a crime, he was thrown in jail.
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=
Free Speech does not equate to guaranteed anonymity.
There have been convictions for internet obscenity. Bush (or Ashcroft? I don't know who to attribute this to) set up an "Obscenity Prosecution Task Force" in 2005 and successfully prosecuted several pornographers.
"Just because the words are about a political candidate, does not make it political speech." Actually it is. Public figures have a far higher standard for defamation for a reason - stopping abuses.
Free Speech does not equate to guaranteed anonymity.
Without anonymity, you can't have free speech.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you pointed out that the politician being defamed was a Republican, you'd have been modded up. You know how it rolls around here, free speech is the inalienable right to say things people like.
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.
Not technically, no, but the way things work in practical reality if the customer isn't the commenter it's someone else in that household and the customer will very likely be able to point the finger at them. The only problem might be if they're running open WiFi, otherwise all the methods you describe involve way too much effort and/or technical chops for a random person to put into just making a comment like this. When option A is 95% likely and option B is 5% likely, B might happen but that's not the way to bet.
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. The key exception would be protection of whistleblowers, press, and their sources. Slander does not fall into those veins.
My logic does not say that. You cited an example of criminal prosecution for expressing an opinion. That is not free speech.
There is a reason society is suspicious of people who cover their faces.
Yes, absolutely. I am one of those people, I rant about ACs all the time here on Slashdot — but my question is why should anyone take you seriously, and if they have a good answer, that's great. Usually they don't, if I'm bothering to ask the question.
But really, it's society's responsibility not to take anonymous people seriously when they make unfounded allegations, and to either follow up on them responsibly, or not at all. That is the solution to the down sides of people being permitted to make anonymous statements. Just be discerning.
Obviously, the people who are shouting at us loudest lose if we are discerning, so it's not in their best interest to promote that. Hence the self-perpetuating shitstorm that is the modern media.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"You cited an example of criminal prosecution for expressing an opinion. That is not free speech."
What's the allowed accountability for free speech, then, and who is allowed to set what accountability is valid within free speech and what's not?
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.
Anonymity was popular with the Ku Klux Klan. That's why anti-Klan laws often have a prohibition on being masked in public.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
My logic does not say that. You cited an example of criminal prosecution for expressing an opinion. That is not free speech.
Funny, that logic is why SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that anonymous speech must be protected, and various civil liberties groups push to protect it.
I'll agree that slander and libel shouldn't be protected, but suggest that unsealing the identities of the anonymous person(s) should only be possible after proving the case--the court may only order that what might be necessary to have to identify the person be preserved and a good faith effort made to offer them the opportunity to come forward to defend themselves. (And, in a case like this, possibly answer the question of why, if their claims are true, they chose to make them known this way instead of, for example, an anonymous tip to the local anonymous tipline?)
Please mod parent up.
Except what is "reasonable" is considered a "fact", and its not law enforcement thats supposed to decide what the facts are. It is judges that determine what are and are not "facts."
"His name was James Damore."
Pope, every now and then you come up with something that's intelligent *and* well-reasoned; this is definitely one of those times. Very astute.
You are a piece of shit and should be executed.
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
My logic does not say that. You cited an example of criminal prosecution for expressing an opinion. That is not free speech.
"Illinois Supreme Court: Comcast Must Identify Anonymous Internet Commenter"
So, uh... Do you suppose this case went all the way to the ILSC because Bill Hadley wants to send him a sternly-worded rebuttal?
If everyone were completely anonymous, I believe that would likely be an impediment to free speech. Because at some point, credibility is required.
Which is why historically -- and today -- people use pseudonyms, which can be more durable (and thus accrue reputation and credibility), but still not necessarily tied to a real-world identity.
Anonymity is not "an impediment to free speech." Complete anonymity can make it difficult to evaluate the quality of the speech, but it does not impede speech. Pseudonyms can solve that problem in many cases.
We want the ability to stay anonymous, however if someone else abuses such rights, we want them to be punished.
Speak for yourself. I just want freedom of speech (for which anonymity is a key protection). When it crosses the line into physical action, then I'll consider the use of force.
This is 2015. We have the Internet. You'd think people would learn to take ACs with a sack of salt.
If he was using TOR, or a VPN or anything, they're Out of luck anyways. Plus as they said above, its not like the ISP keeps 4 year old logs..
"If he was using TOR, or a VPN or anything, they're Out of luck 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?
That's no distinction, everything said is opinion. Press more than anyone claim their opinions are fact, so if opinion is punished should start with them. Now if you want to punish lying, the courts are going to be booked with politicians for the rest of our lifetimes so the law still wouldn't apply.
People often don't know paper manufacturers do such things, or that some printer manufacturers put little spy dots on stuff you print (using your highly expensive ink to do so without your consent). Lack of publicity doesn't mean acceptance.
You say "Without anonymity, you can't have free speech."
Really? On what logic is that true?
HTH, HAND
You might just as well put a white pointed hood over your face if you lack the courage to identify yourself,
Please provide a link to a scan of your driver's license.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Accountability comes in many forms. From the opinions of others of you, to being sued for liable, and many shades in between. Free speech doesn't entitle you to say anything you want and expect no reaction or consequences.
An example is when a comment sparks a boycott, or gets you fired from your job. Free speech does not protect you from those outcomes.
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. . . .
I never stated if this particular case warrant exposure, just pointing out the differences. Opinions and slander are two different things. Anonymity is not what is being protected IMHO as much as requiring a group or entity to give up anonymity with no legal basis such as libel.
Don't confuse legal tools for prosecution and whistleblowing with free speech. Two different things. Free Speech is a constitutional right, the others laws related to the judicial process.
Free Speech does not equate to guaranteed anonymity.
Without anonymity, you can't have free speech.
Not all speech if free. This was libel - potentially anyway, we don't know if the statement is false. It's up to the accuser to demonstrate the veracity of his/her statement of face the consequences of trying to defame someone. Anonymity isn't a shield for things like this.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Identifying a person as the speaker is not a criminal prosecution.
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.
Simply calling someone - even a politician - a pedophile is *not* "political speech", it's slander/libel - unless you can back it up with proof.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"lying", or the political twists of truth, does not equal slander. In legal space, publicly stating that a person is a pedophile can be in violation of slander laws, be it politically motivated or not.
If you want to have a debate about burden of proof required to expose someone, then fine, but that was not my point nor did I defend the actions or ruling.
Identifying a person as the speaker is not a criminal prosecution.
And I repeat - Do you suppose Hadley just wants a new penpal?
liar
The word you want here is 'troll', actually, the internet is lousy with them, and they're abusing/destroying anonymity for everyone who has a legitimate need for it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
> They are nothing but actors.
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
William Shakespeare's "As You Like it", Act II, Schene 2. The rest of the poem is also fascinating. To refuse to be an "actor" is to refuse to be human.
He should own it! Wear a pedobear shirt to court.
Just because Bill Hadley is a kiddie diddler the world has the right to know what politicians do behind closed doors..
Hadley's opinions or motivations make no difference regarding my point.
A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I never stated if this particular case warrant exposure, just pointing out the differences. Opinions and slander are two different things. Anonymity is not what is being protected IMHO as much as requiring a group or entity to give up anonymity with no legal basis such as libel.
Which is precisely why I suggested requiring that the statements be proved slander/libel (they're not the same thing) before removing anonymity. Doing so when it's only potentially defamatory, as it is in this case, is at utter best merely a chilling effect.
To be honest, about the only good reason I could see doing it at that point is if the only thing that could possibly make it not defamatory is it being true because I'm not sure if somebody who is anonymous can effectively make that particular defense.
It's a two-edged weapon.
- With anonymity you can speak while having a low risk of being harassed.
- With anonymity you will not have the same level of credibility, and you need to build your case more thoroughly.
So if some anonymous troll refers to someone as a pedophile it's not credible and most people will and shall ignore that.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
when I took Comcast's side on anything. I was wrong. This kind of shit needs to stop. Every shitty anonymous comment on the internet isn't even close to the same thing that defamation/libel laws were written for.
So if some anonymous troll refers to someone as a pedophile it's not credible and most people will and shall ignore that.
Yes, that is what a reasonable person would do. When someone is so defensive that they have to attack unfounded, anonymous accusations, that's more telling than the accusation itself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can't Godwin a conversation about World War 2, it only applies when someone is forcing an analogy. Same with Bush.
If that's so obvious why wasn't it written in the Constitution?
You've got that backwards. Things which were considered obvious weren't written into the constitution. Today, we would be a lot more explicit when writing the second amendment for example — whatever you think their intentions were then, we'd make them much more clear now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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=
Nope. According to Times v. Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... it is not a civil offense to make false, defamatory statements about public officials unless you do it with malice, which means that you either knew that it was false or disregarded whether it was true or false. (The Times printed false statements in the advertisement at issue in Times v. Sullivan.) Anyone running for office is a public figure.
People accuse public figures of being Nazis all the time. In the Wall Street Journal comments section, which requires people to use their full names, people accuse Obama and others of being socialists, and sometimes Communists and Nazis. One ongoing debate is over whether Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist, as J. Edgar Hoover and one recent right-wing book said he was. Davis was the unnamed mentor that Obama mentioned in his autobiography.
The rule in civil damages is no harm, no foul. That's the next hurdle. In order to get damages in court, you have to prove that the action caused you damages. John Henry Faulk won a libel suit against Aware, the blacklisting group, because they called him a Communist when he wasn't, and he lost income as a result of being blacklisted.
I haven't seen any evidence that Bill Hadley was harmed by being likened to a pedophile. Hadley is going to try to find someone who will testify that he actually believed the anonymous pedophile accusation, and did something damaging to Hadley as a result.
One of the defenses in a libel case like that would be the "political hyperbole" defense, that nobody took it seriously. That's like the parody defense in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (where Hustler published a parody of a liquor ad which quoted Falwell of saying that his first time was with his mother in the outhouse).
Did you hear the news?
Bill Hadley, of Illinois, is a pedophile!
-We should all discuss this endlessly...
Free Speech does not equate to guaranteed anonymity.
We have a pretty solid tradition of equating free speech with anonymity in the U.S.
The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Much of the political debate at the creation of the U.S. was published anonymously. People routinely used pseudonyms in published articles.
And they didn't have ISP logs back then.
You say "Without anonymity, you can't have free speech."
Really? On what logic is that true? By what historical example is that based? Most (if not all) of the American Revolutionary pamphleteers I have studied proudly signed their names to their work. The Colonial newspaper editorialists signed their names. Without demonstrating the strength of their convictions by courageously identifying themselves, (we mutually pledge our lives fortunes and sacred honor) free speech isn't worth much. You might just as well put a white pointed hood over your face if you lack the courage to identify yourself, and if you do that, your words offer little to any discourse.
You and I must have studied different American Revolutionary pamphleteers. The Federalist Papers were anonymous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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,
And yet, you don't make up the entire populace and are showing a real ignorance of the way psychology and people work. There's a reason why "if there's smoke, there must be fire" exists, and why Coke and budweiser spend bazillions on marketing: it leaves you with an impression of their brand, even if you don't think frogs can talk and know it's bullshit.
I believe in privacy, and that internet anonymity is and has been a very important tool for those wanting to say unpopular things or bring information to light. However, it's also ripe for ruining and negatively impacting someone's life. You can not only leave a public note anonymously in the town square for everyone to see, you can make it look like multiple people are saying the same thing.
"Accountability comes in many forms. From the opinions of others of you, [when a comment sparks a boycott, or gets you fired from your job] to being sued for liable, and many shades in between."
So your answer to "what's allowed accountability for free speech" is, it seems, any kind of public penalty and any kind of civil liability, but not criminal prosecution. Is it all that? Are you aware that under your limits it becomes "kosher" to be killed by a mob that happens to disagree with your opinions?
The second question still gets unanswered. Is it OK to suffer civil prosecution but not criminal prosecution just because Mr D from 63 says so, or is there any higher authority that, preferably in written, states what's proper accountability for excessive use of free speech and what's not?
Accountability does not necessarily mean one will suffer a penalty. Look up the definition.
Is it OK to suffer civil prosecution for expressing an opinion? I guess many would answer differently depending on the expressed opinion. So, it really doesn't matter and is not relevant to my specific point.
These are the times that try men's souls.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
That is a reflection of your common sense more than anything, something the world at large lacks. While the candidate's name may not have been tainted for your eyes there are waaaay too many people who will take an anonymous and baseless claim as gospel. I agree with you that this shouldn't affect him. But I agree with him that since it does the perpetrator should be identified, and the court is the way to do that.
Or the defensive person knows how unreasonable and impressionable people are.
Granted the guy has totally went off the deep end and Striesand Effect-ed himself, but have you ever read the comments section on a local newspaper or TV station's website (or read /. at -1)? It's amazing we still have electricity and running water given those geniuses.
I agree that is what a reasonable person would do, but I would charge that most people aren't reasonable.
That's a poor argument. I'd sooner say everyone should stop with the senseless mudslinging and talk about political issues again.
Removing first amendment rights so that we all behave nicer to each other during elections seems hardly a good justification.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Defamation, along with obscenity and inciting panic or violence, have never been free speech.
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What if this anonymous speaker turns out to be the staff of his political opposition? Certainly election law comes into play. Does that change anything for you?
Get rid of the Wi-Fi security and claim that it must have been someone else who connected to his WiFi and posted the comment. A coworker of mine says he does that - he leaves his WiFi wide open so he can download pirated software and movies. He says if the authorities ever show up he'll claim it must have been someone else doing that.
You, you, you Hitler you!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This is because people do not understand the differences between freedom and liberty. I am free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so. You are free to speak, to say anything you want. There are somethings you are not at liberty to say. You can blame anyone you want for this but this is the way it has always been interpreted by the courts. If you want someone to blame then I would suggest starting there or accepting that the words are not always defined as what you want them to be.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
That and, well, the Constitution was a list of things the government could do. It is now interpreted as a list of things they can not do. There is a difference.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
ok, but many (but not all) courts have upheld anonymous speech as being part of the free speech the constitution protects. talley v california 1960 is the landmark. mcintyre v ohio (1995) is the best known. Doe v Cahill, Dendrite,and 2theMart are cases that apply this to discovery. I have not yet read the Illinois case to see if it gets the balance right. Generally, courts are saying the plaintiff has to show they have a case before they can get at the data, because otherwise people bring bogus cases just to mine the data to silence their enemies.
- arbitrary aardvark
Agree. There are ways to protect anonymity using free speech rights as a basis, as well as other basis like whistleblower protection. But anonymity itself is not a right.
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.
That's you, but thats not the majority, and I bet most mothers would believe the posting, even if it was retracted. The harm has been done.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Not all speech if free. This was libel - potentially anyway, we don't know if the statement is false.
Well, IANAL and neither is Wikipedia, but it says:
"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth, which is usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"."
Assuming that this is correct, in order to prove libel, they have to prove harm. My understanding (haven't passed the bar since this comment began, mind you) is that if no reasonable person would believe the allegations, then no harm has occurred. They should have to prove harm before they can go after the identity of the party, which is necessary to drag them into court to establish intent. However, the ILSC has ruled that they don't actually need to prove harm to show defamation in their state:
Paragraph 30 To state a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must present facts showing
the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff, the defendant made an
unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, and the publication
caused damages. Id. A defamatory statement is one that harms a personâ(TM)s
reputation because it lowers the person in the eyes of others or deters others from
associating with her or him. Tuite v. Corbitt, 224 Ill. 2d 490, 501 (2006). A
statement is defamatory per se if its harm is obvious and apparent on its face. Id. In
Illinois, there are five categories of statements that are considered defamatory
per se, only one of which is relevant here: words imputing the commission of a
crime. Id.
So in IL, if you say someone committed a crime, it doesn't matter if anyone believed you -- it's defamation. That's why the word "harm" only appears twice in the entire decision... both times in paragraph 30.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What if this anonymous speaker turns out to be the staff of his political opposition? Certainly election law comes into play. Does that change anything for you?
... abridging the freedom of speech"), pretty much exactly what dnaumov described (even if not quite as gruesome of an outcome likely), and...
Not in the least, for two reasons:
1) That still means that we have someone prosecuted for exercising their first amendment rights (the FEC doesn't get a pass on "Congress shall make no law
2) Rational adults should accord anonymous internet trolls the level of credibility they deserve - ie, none in the absence of proof.
I don't think that will work well, for procedural reasons.
Requiring that potentially identifying data be preserved is reasonable. However, conducting a civil trial requires that the defendant be informed of the proceeding, which is impossible if the defendant can't be identified. I have absolutely no faith in "good faith" efforts. I've seen published lists of money due to certain people, with the unclaimed money remaining with whoever has it. The organization with the money is required to make a good faith effort to identify the person involved. I was on one of those lists, showing that a "good faith" effort did not extend to checking the telephone directories. The University of Minnesota was also on that list, despite being a very well-known and easily findable institution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Obviously anybody under a certain age was born after the Nazis and therefore it's actually an accusation that they are a ruthless authoritarian rather than what it might seem on its face to those without a sense of humour.
I think there's room to make a distinction between general insult "nazi" aka fascist as you describe, and actual, literal White supremacist anti-jew swastika-wearing "Hitler did nothing wrong" capital-N Nazi. Those people do exist, you know...
=Smidge=
People accuse public figures of being Nazis all the time.
Are you referring to fascist dictator "nazi" or literal badge-wearing capital-N Nazi? There's a difference. I'd argue that one is a general coarse criticism while the other is a very specific accusation that might pass judicial muster as defamatory.
One of the defenses in a libel case like that would be the "political hyperbole" defense, that nobody took it seriously.
That's the real crux here. Comments accusing Obama of being socialist/communist/Nazi (fascist or literal) generally are not taken seriously, since anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see these people don't even know what those words mean.
But that does not, IMHO, constitute "political speech." I don't approve of people suing over hurt feelings either, but those kinds of comments don't really deserve 1st amendment protection.
=Smidge=