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."
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.
If you reveal your identity to someone in order to post a comment, then you really shouldn't expect to be beyond the reach of the law. You need to be logged in to post a Yelp review, so *obviously* you're not *really* anonymous.
But seriously, the line between free speech and defamation isn't really that hard to navigate. You can be pretty offensive without libeling anyone.
"This advisor is a worthless waste of space. He is personally obnoxious, morally repugnant, mentally negligible and physically repulsive. Merely by breathing he pollutes the good clean air of his city; in a just world, he would have been aborted and his mother done penance for conceiving him." - This is completely fair comment, protected speech. Nobody can sue you for posting this.
"This advisor told me I could still file a XD-426 two days late and it would still be accepted" - now that is an alleged statement of fact, not an opinion, and you damn' well better be able to back it up.
The First Amendment protects your right to express an opinion. But IMHO, it does not protect your ability to express that opinion anonymously.
IANAL, and YMMV. Perhaps the courts find legal reasons to conceal some parts of a person's identity in certain situations (e.g., to keep them from harm) but a person accused, slandered, or libeled must be provided the ability to confront the witness against them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"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."
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.