Slashdot Mirror
Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer (bloomberg.com)
mi writes: California State Appeals Court ruled this week that Yelp can't shield the identify of an anonymous reviewer who posted allegedly defamatory statements about a tax preparer. "The three-judge appeals panel in Santa Ana agreed with Yelp that it could protect the First Amendment rights of its anonymous reviewer but it still had to turn over the information," reports Bloomberg. "The panel reasoned that the accountant had made a showing that the review was defamatory in that it went beyond expressing an opinion and allegedly included false statements."
anonymous comments can no longer be considered truly anonymous. Got it.
So many Russian posts....
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Suppose you have someone who starts making up negative things about you and posting them on a website. This happens *all the time* IRL.
A small business can lose massive amounts of money because an employee's ex-boyfriend leaves lies online about the business, for example. That's not protected speech under the First Amendment--it may even be a violation of a restraining order. This can lead to people losing their jobs, to businesses shutting down, to additional stress on victims of domestic violence, and to customers being helped by people who are less good at the job, for example.
That's an extreme example but not a very unusual one.
Reviewers who leave their opinions and factual statements about their experience with a business need to be protected under the First Amendment. But someone who just checks the anonymous box to make up lies deserves to be unmasked.
According to TFA:
The online review said the tax preparer had prepared a sloppy return for double the money he initially quoted.
Seriously? "Sloppy" is already an opinion, so that's going to get removed from the claim. Now we're just left with he-said-vs-she-said for the quoted price. Good luck proving that the reviewer didn't believe the original quote. If he stands up on court and says "Yes, I asked about X, and he said 'about $Y', but then he charged me $2Y dollars." then the tax preparer immediately loses his case, and he's going to get counter-sued for a lot more than $2Y (think: court costs + tort claim).
What do they want? Free speech or anonymity? Free speech can exist in either case but shit falls out when people know who you are after saying something in public. Perhaps we are talking about amendment 1.5...the one that guarantees us anonymity?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
It's chilly in here.
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Freedom OF Speech, no Freedom FROM Speech.
I think they should hand it over. I would not be surprised if this was an employee using tactics to sell packages to the Tax Preparer... wouldn't that be a twist.
So, says Yelp's lawyers:
Select an allegedly false statement, and swear under oath that this particular statement is false.
If that statement is found true, you will be found guilty of perjury and contempt of court and imprisoned for not less than six months. Furthermore the person whose identity you compelled revealed shall be entitled to sue for damages. So will Yelp.
Until then, it is up to you to prove the statements false, not just claim they are to expose someone.
Thank you.
AC (IANAL)
Just because you are allowed to say it, does not mean you can hide behind anonymity to protect your sorry self from the backlash of what you said.
Sure, you have the right to you opinion. Just claim it as yours, and yours, and face the response. If you have somehow broken the law in the expression, then accept it!
Don't be a coward.
But a good one. Paid, commercial grade, no logs. We live in neo-Athens. It is a litigious society and losers who cannot stand up to criticism sue for defamation all the time. If you want to protect your free speech, you need a VPN.
Hello. The article is about "Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer". The article is not about Trump. Nor is it about Trump Jr. And it's not about Wikileaks or Russia. Again, it is about "Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer"
What are the courts going to do if they find a name called Seimore Butz pointing to an obvious burner email registered to some no-name email provider?
Do they really think the person who did this did so using their real name and personal email?
Trolling 101, use burner emails!
Anonymity has an important role, especially in totalitarian regimes.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
But leaking is patriotic as it shows us why the rest of the world is so pissed at us.
Somebody that fills their basement with Taxis?
At the same time, people's right to confront and cross examine their accusers, to defend themselves from unfair allegations and actions based on ulterior motives with anonymous accusers.
How to resolve the conflict?
Do it case by case. Do not talk in generalities. Go to the court, and show that "this anonymous accusation by this person is defamatory". If the court agrees with it the accuser should lose anonymity. If the court thinks it is a powerful entity trying to squelch speech using money and power, the court can dismiss the request.
Three judges have looked at the specifics of the case and agreed the accuser should lose anonymity. As long as this order applies to just this accusation, we should be ok with this.
What would happen if the investigation shows Yelp fosters an environment where wild accusations are rewarded, wilder the better, damn the truthfulness? Should Yelp too be held responsible for amplifying defamatory speech? Or does it deserve protections? Who ensures that Yelp does not promote defamatory speech at the cost of veracity for its own commercial interests?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Once Identified, the victim can turn around and show proof of his comments and smack down this asshole...
Hello. The article is about "Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer". The article is not about Trump. Nor is it about Trump Jr. And it's not about Wikileaks or Russia. Again, it is about "Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer"
Since when did what the article is about have any bearing on the discussion?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Do people actually still use Yelp?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
If Yelp can be forced to reveal the review, then it ain't really anonymous ..
'Real parties in interest, Gregory M. Montagna and Montagna & Associates, INC.'
for anonymous posting NOT being anonymous. Isn't that false advertising, fraud, conspiracy to defraud poster, collecting information that de-anonymizes posts.......
We're on Slashdot! So please; no rhetorical questions!
Perhaps we are talking about amendment 1.5...the one that guarantees white people anonymity?
FTFY. (We see how Repugs have issues with black people exercising their First Amendment rights.)