Slashdot Mirror
Anonymity not a "Free Speech" right
EngrBohn writes " A Federal judge has ruled that anonymous "defamation" on the Internet is not covered under Free Speech". This relates to the case of an anonymous user on Yahoo!, who was making claims about Xircom in chat boards, referring to their products as "faulty" and poorly designed. Recently, Raytheon went through a similar situation. (Link is NY Times: Free Login required).
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
A simple script executed by cron would be sweet for that.
LK
OK, How about this: someone sets up a web-based service that offers an e-mail address, with no questions asked. Some services already come close, but most still require basic identification. What if there were a site that didn't even require that? Then, your Yahoo! ID could be faked, and the e-mail address you provide to sign up would be untraceable.
Take it one better; put the server itself virtual-hosted overseas.
I've thought about this very kind of service myself. I have no idea what the legal ramifications are, assuming that getting past some of the technical issues (e.g. preventing spam) are surmountable.
Any comments?
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Do you have the right to call out from the back of a crowded conventional hall "Bullshit you liar!" while a politician is giving a speech?
Then why not the same on the net?
At its best (of course there is latitute for abuse), anonymity works to protect those whom the retribution for expressing an unpopular opinion would otherwise keep silent.
I hope this judgement gets thrown out.
What do you mean "Oppressive regime...."
Who are you talking to? Your fantasy government?
There's no assumption being made.
The government protects us.
If you don't believe this is the case, maybe they're protecting us from you.
Don't laugh. We haven't seen the first set of corporate class action suits against individuals for "defamation of corporations", but there's no reason it couldn't happen. The Beef Industry's failed suit against Oprah Winfrey for "defamation" was perhaps the beginning of what will be an ongoing grab for absolute mind control over US citizens.
Yes, the US is well along on the way down the slippery slope to Corporate Totalitarianism now. It all started when corporations were given the rights of citizens in the late 1800's. If the US corporate elite manage to push the MAI through, it's going to be all downhill from there. Then corporations will have roughly the rights of states.
Haven't heard of the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment)? Maybe that's because you get all your news from the corporations that want to push it through. So much for the "free press".
The only reason I don't think that Microsoft sues anyone on slash dot, is that it would be another blow to their PR. Could you imagine how much less people would think of MS if they sued someone because they said "Microsoft sucks". But please be careful because they probably can sue. But I don't think they would get any real money out of it (another reason why they don't).
Again, becareful because Big Brother is watching!
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
They could try. As my instructor said, "Anyone can sue anyone, at anytime, for anything." I think the person could defend themselves with the fact that what they said is their opinion. If I remember right, you can't be sued for your opinion (most likely because that is true free speech.)
Ok...how about 'online' or 'via the internet' then?
Sheesh! Was that really called for?
Now see, if you were an AC, I'd be way more pissed somehow.
Go Figure.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
Does this mean that if someone is questioned by the police, and is lied to that a friend turned them in, does the friend have grounds for libel? As I understand it, the right of police to lie to suspects in questioning has been upheld (as long as they don't keep it up when they get to court). But does that amount to slanderous speech against others when they lie about what others have said? Anyone know if a case like that has been tried before?
In this case, I cannot understand why its constitutional for the anonymity of the poster to be revoked. I think it is more in the spirit of the constitution to have the right to say what I wish than be subjected a lawsuit when I want to say something insulting about a company or person.
So maybe we shouldn't be looking at this as an issue of anonymity is not protected, and instead as defamation laws suck.
Actually, its ignorance to blindly trust any governing body because rarely do they have your best intrests in mind.
I don't think I should have to be explaining this to you, perhaps you should get out a history book...
one would hope that never happens, that the police take the time to see if it looks like there is reason to belevie that you are cooking meth..
but then meth is so easy to make... but one would hope. not that this doesnt happen all the time.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
>Make the accuser prove there is a crime before restricting free speach.
So, there is a trial/hearing with an un-named defendant who cannot defend himself because he is anonymous?
So, assuming a crime is proven to exist, perpetrated by an anonymous net user, then your identity is revealed by court-order, there needs to then be a 'real' trial? Seems like that puts you at a real disadvantage, as the crime has already been proven, linked to your identity, and now its just a formality to pin it on you.
I am not using bad english - I am using American english (which to some, equates to the same thing)!
I suppose I could've said: This person wants to remain anonymous because he works for Xircom.
or I could've said: This person wants to remain anonymous because s/he works for Xircom.
I didn't - I used "they" - and you still understood what I was saying. The reason I used "they" is because, while the second example is correct ("he"), it is not considered "PC" - the third example looks plain wrong to me ("s/he") - so I avoided the "PC" issue and chose "they".
If the person doesn't work for Xircom - this becomes even a larger free speech issue - I mean, if someone has a problem with a company's product, shouldn't he have a right to say that? Of course, if he was making libelous statements about the company with no proof...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Why is it that anyone who has a strong position on an issue is called a nut? Privacy nuts, gun nuts, animal rights nuts, et al. Why do you feel the need to belittle and affix degrading labels to people?
I think it says alot more about you than it does them.
In the future it will be no more difficult for the knowledgeable to retain anonymity. Even with logging. It isn't important how, but it can be done.
LK
Note: I assume that cr0sh is male. Is it sexist? Well, see above. cr0sh's user profile didn't give me any clues (and that's fine) so cr0sh: if you are a she, sorry, I meant no offense.
ufdraco
(These arguments are only intended to be used in the US)
I believe most of the problems that are comming around with the blantant abridging of rights is the realization that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation.
Freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but it should be my right NOT to disclose my identity. It should be my right to say whatever I want to about my employer without revealing info about who I am. DEFAMATION SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Period. Let the people who listen to me make up thier own judgement about whatever I say, and how credible it is.
This type of problem makes me sick. Where the problem is in this case is that somehow the judge has been convinced that basic human and (here in the states) American rights can be overlooked if they are being used for something that other people may not approve of. No. We can not do that. First, it starts small, but the next thing you know it will be illegal for newspapers to publish editorials because they defame American politicians. In fact, defamation is not a tool to destroy, but to improve! Without criticism and failure, we would not strive to better ourselves. Stockholders might not like it, but those are the breaks.......
Sorry to sidetrack, but the main issue is this: Freedom is freedom. Denial of these rights because of the intent to which they will be used means that this country is not truly free. Saying that Free Speech rights should be denied because they do not cover freedom to do it anonymously or use through defamation makes about as much fscking sense as "All men are created equal. But those indians, they aren't men, they are savage creatures, and deserve no rights." Next it's going to be "Yes, you have the right to bear arms. But, the only arms that part of the bill of rights cover are these rolling pins. Maybe you can knead the attackers to death."
There are times when I am proud to be an American. But in this case, I just feel shame.
>Rumours tend to die fast without someone to take responsibility for them, even on the Net
Ok, but the damage can occur pretty fast also and not be recoverable. Take the case where some AC posts lies about a company where a lot of e-traders prowl and then the stock gets run up until the lie is revealed and then the stock drops down below where it was before.
Sure, the dolts that trade on these rumors and get burned deserve what they get for being stupid. But what about everyone else (including the employees with savings plans/retirement accounts) that get screwed over because their company's reputation is damaged because of this incident?
This AC should (IMO) be no more protected from prosecution then someone who causes a stampede in a crowded theatre (overused analogy, i know). Maybe most people are smarter than to start a panic when someone shouts fire, but there's always a few who aren't (smart enough to not panic) and their actions can affect everyone else.
Just what is "free speech"?
;)
These days the media controls most everything that is publically broadcasted or transmitted over radiowaves and television.
Often large media conglomerates (sp?) determine what is broadcasted and viewed by the general public allowing them to insert all sorts of corporate messages into peoples minds.
When I think of "free speech" as it was initially intended -- when it was originally written in to the constitution, I think it was meant to give a forum to the underdog, and people with differant views and ideals so that truth may be uncovered through a process of discussion and despute.
This, however, is NOT what this ideal stands for anymore, it is used for corporations defending themselves when the public believes they have steped out of line. It is used for all manner of argument whereby (ironically) people loose some degree of freedom.
I think the internet has scared these large organizations and corportations (and the gov'ment) because it has broken down the the control and power that they have held so long.
I believe that these people who "vandalize" and spread "graffitii" are probably the closest, truest representation of the freedom of speach.
If I am completly off the subject of the article, I'm sorry... I didn't read it because I don't want the new york times to have my name
Later.
acidbug
This is consistant with other supreme court rulings that things like fighting words are not protected speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. The point of this is that they see no value in speech that is defimation. This is similar to why we have slander and libel laws, your speech isn't protected in those cases either. I beleve the original precident comes from chapell v. hardwick.
Unfortunately, whether you're telling the truth or not, bad things will often happen to you if you've annoyed someone powerful. That's the thing that is good about anonymity. You can be protected from those who are more powerful (read: have more money for more lawyers) than you. Unfortunately, it seems that all they need to do is accuse you of something in order to have your anonymity removed. After that, it doesn't matter whether you were actually guilty, they know who you are.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Last I checked, "defamation" wasn't legal anyway, with "defamation" being defined as spreading untrue information about someone or something with malicious intent (similar to libel or slander).
Anonymity is, naturally, a right just as any other. But as someone once said, "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." No one has the right to start spreading bad things about someone or something without being able to back it up, and to hide behind anonymity is an abuse of the right to be anonymous. I think the judge might be in the right on this one.
How does it apply to this specific case? Well, there I'm not sure. Can this person back up his (her?) claims about Xircon? If so, then it isn't defamation anyway, and Xircon can't do a thing about it. If not, the person has no right to hide behind anonymity.
> As far as the people working there, they're not being forced to work there.
Wow. You sound as though you've never known somebody who works in the service sector in your life. In short: the premise that people have their choice of occupation is wrong, wrong, wrong. Remember all those people going blind and losing limbs in factories around the turn of the century? Working 90-hr. weeks and so forth? Was anybody "forcing" them to work? Oh, yes, that little fact of survival... Not everyone is as privileged as you. People who wait tables deserve the same protection from occupational hazards as do workers in the steel industry, nuclear power, etc.
While we're at it, to hell with the minimum wage: after all, if $0.25/hr isn't good enough, why don't people just get higher-paying jobs!? No one's forcing them to work in those sweatshops!
Yeeps. I hope you don't vote.
I think we all can see the obvious implications of this--not just ACs on Slashdot, but in the entire Internet as well.
My main concern is that by conventional means, there will not be too many ways to police posts and online speech. As a result I fear that more tactics like Intels chip ID could be placed.
Anything that can be done can be taken, and this is something we might want to stand up for.
-Clump
As I recall, you and I debated for a few rounds on the legitimacy of anonymous posting last time this came up, which I think was around the time that scores appeared, effectively filtering out anonymous posts (since, before moderation, it was AC gets 0, login gets 1). User accounts had only been here for a little while; I had held out for a few months on general principles (though I always signed my posts with my full name and real e-mail address, not even spam-proofed, just not through an account), but I had just recently created my account at the time.
/dev/null ~/.netscape/cookies" is irrelevant: not everyone uses Unix, and more to the pont, he didn't say he doesn't want a cookie file, he said he refuses to log into a site that requires a cookie. The argument that he should use cookies is even worse. The answer is "Sez who?". He said he doesn't want to, and I for one can respect that without necessarily agreeing. Should that eliminate him from SlashDot?
I was and still am very much in favor of the right to post anonymously. I respect those people who feel even more strongly than I about those general principles.
Some object for technical reasons, such as refusing to use cookies, and the argument that you can "ln -s
Even if it were implemented without cookies (or any objectionable technology du jour), some just object to being required to yield any personal information in order to use a site. Why should they have to?
I think you should have the right to have that filtering button that you ask for, because you want it, even though I think you're wrong to want it. See how this works? People have the right to post anonymously, but you have the right not to read what they say, or even see it, since you find it so offensive.
But now, we're talking about whether people have the right to speak anonymously at all, not just whether or not their posts can or should assault your eyeballs. You emphasize the importance of people standing behind their words:
How strongly can you feel about your company, government, or other local opressive body if you're too afraid to say it yourself?
Not everyone has the courage to be John Hancock, but I don't think that makes their opinions completely worthless -- they just get somewhat less respect. You ignore the possibility that the "local opressive body" might really be oppressive, so much so that someone might legitimately fear for his job or his life if he spoke too freely. Should he really not be able to speak unless he is willing to literally risk his life? Protecting the right to anonymous speech weakens the forces of oppression. No, I don't really mean to imply that SlashDot is that important in the scheme of things, but this story is about a Federal Court ruling, so we're talking about stuff with big social consequences.
As for SlashDot, moderation has had an interesting effect: at least some moderators seem to be a little quick on the "Offtopic" and "Troll" triggers, possibly causing some people to censor themselves too much. A certain amount of thread drift is not a bad thing, it's what makes these discussions interesting, and not every expression of a dissenting opinion is a troll. People who care about their cumulative score might want to log out before posting something that is good but may not be well-received, and I think we do want this to be possible -- what fun would this be if we all agreed with each other?
I think this is an example of a good reason for anonymity: It's especially problematic that posts regarding moderation can be moderated, when issues related to SlashDot itself are ones for which completely free discussion is especially important. I think there should be a special area for this in which everything would be anonymous, but with comments automatically tagged indicating whether or not the poster has an account or has ever been a moderator.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I can be anonymous IRL - photocopy some leaflets and leave them around town. If people think the info is hot, they can do the same.
Why should a similar option NOT exist on the net?
A Nony Mouse
This was a 'California county judge', not a federal judge. Let's hope our rather liberal supreme court, if it ever gets that far, sides with the ACs.
Unfortunately, I can see why we don't have the freedom to harm another individual or company with impunity. I think we'll lose this battle.
RE SLASHDOT:
If Malda doesn't know who I am, he can't tell anyone! I say burn those logs hourly!
Actually, there's some pretty good evidence that the rock in question came from Mars. It's obviously a meteorite, for one thing. I'm assuming that that particular detail is not even in question. It's an igneous rock, and those don't form just floating in space. They do form on the larger asteroids, but most of those crystalized 4.5 billion years ago. This rock was formed under the surface of a planet over a long period of time (not that long geologically speaking). The first two facts, when put together, mean that the rock left a planet (I know I haven't shown that the planet wasn't Earth yet) and then fell through the atmosphere down to Earth after a fair stay in space. The process by which this happened is most likely an asteroid or comet strike kicking material up into space. I'm not ruling out a truly awesomely powerful volcanic eruption, although it's not all that likely. You are also free to believe that it's a rock sample that aliens picked up and then threw out while in space to make more room for bizarre experiments. I'm not too convinced on that last one though.
Now the question remains of whether or not this rock actually comes from a planet other than Earth(not saying Mars yet). First thing to consider, in my opinion, is the actual likelyhood of a rock being blasted off Mars into space versus off the planet Earth into space (once it's in interplanetary space, there's no reason to believe it couldn't end up just about anywhere in the solar system). Well, the gravitational field of Mars is a lot weaker than that of the Earth. Mean escape velocity on Earth is 11 kilometers a second, and on Mars it is 5.1 kilometers a second. That means that an asteroid or comet or what have you would have to hit Earth twice as fast as it would have to hit Earth to knock away a chunk like that.
Also, there are a bevy of chemical tests that point to a martian origin. The composition is the same as Mars, the percentages of isotopes are the same as Mars.
The point is, there are lots of good reasons to think that this rock may come from Mars. That may not actually be the case. It could be an Earth rock, or from another planet, but the Mars explanation fits the observed facts better, and isn't particularly unlikely. So what's the problem?
Sure, you can be skeptical about whether or not the rock contains evidence of life from Mars. But you're going to have to show some real credentials as far as minerology, geology, etc. go before most intelligent people will believe you that the rock isn't from Mars.
Of course free speech allows you to express opinions anonymously. I think this is more about the right of the accused person to face his accuser. You can't be brought up on charges by an anonymous accusation, otherwise, it's too easy to lodge complaints about your enemies without a good foundation. However, an anonymous accuser could trigger an investigation, and the investigator could bring the charges, but the evidence of an anonymous accuser should not be considered legal evidence. (This is my understanding of the law, people with law degrees, feel free to correct me!)
As I understand it, libel and slander only occur when lies about another are made public. So -- though I think it's abominable that the police would lie to try to wring a confession out of a suspect, I don't think that they could be sued unless they went to the media and started broadcasting their lies.
But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
There is a very long history of the courts defending the right to anonymous speech; laws which have sought to require people identify themselves in conjunction with otherwise protectable speech (other than commercial speech) have been consistently struck down.
Yet another case of Much Ado About Nothing.
The anonymous author posted a note that he was an employee of Xircom and was privy to happenings within this company. Now he says he is not an employee.
I don't think the differents between anonymity and pseudonymity is all that great. In the 18th century, the use of pseudonyms in political speech was not uncommon. The Federalist Papers were originally attributed to "Publius" are now known to be written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The Anti-Federalist Papers were written under such pseudonyms as "Cato" and "Brutus." In 1769 papers alleging government corrubtion in England were promulgated by one "Junius," now believed to be Sir Phillip Sydney. These pseudonyms were chosen carefully and their allusions to classical Roman politics both reflected the political fashion of the day and reminded readers of the corruption and intrigue of a previous republic. Were they to be submitted without name --anonymously-- thay might not have recieved so much attention. Primary Colors is now known to have been written by Joe Klein. The original author, however, was only known by his pseudonym, "Anonymous." I refer to his usage as Psuedonymity, because Klein adopted his nom de guerre purely for reasons of noteriety. Pure Anonymity implies that one cannot read anything into the identity of the author. In writing as "A view from within" the author adopted a pseudonym. Historically, though, both anonymous and pseudonymous speech has been protected, and much of the case law dealing with such speech concerns authors previously known only as "a concerned citizen" or "citizens against government waste." Woodward identified his source by the pseudonym "Deep Throat," in an effort to protect the informer's anonymity. There really is very little difference.
Note that if you object to production, you cannot be forced to produce anything within the bounds of the objection unless the requesting party moves for an order to compel, and unless the court then rules as a consequence of that motion that production should be required. The law generally does NOT require production without a clear showing of substantial need and undue hardship. I would imagine that the instant case being discussed is exactly such a situation.
Seems to me the ruling isn't about anonymity at all -- that defamation isn't a free speech right is nothing new. That any records that exist can be subpoena'd can be nothing new. The solution -- don't retain subpoena'able records -- isn't anything new either.
i have the CM 28.8 modem, and the friggin thing only has a 16450 UART. made in 1995, yet they couldn't put a 16550 in. it almost always downloads fine, but uploads occasionally puke or crawl.
:/
another gripe: they charge *$60* for a modular adapter replacement. i saw an almost identical part of another brand for a mere $15, but the pin arrangment was different (sure that isn't by chance).
i don't know what this other character claimed about Xircom, but i can verify that they are cheap bastards.
My $0.02: like other top-down control methods, controlling the right to influence others (which is really what tampering with free speech is all about) is best left to the people themselves. Yes, anonymous posters can spread scandalous, libellious drivel - but who listens to them? A few people perhaps, but not many.
Rumours tend to die fast without someone to take responsibility for them, even on the Net. I find unnamed flameboys odious, as do most people who never post anonymously - but I don't worry about them, and I wouldn't interrupt their right to do it. As their method of posting suggests, anonymous posters are literally nobodies, with reputations to match. So let's stop talking about top-down regulations - the bottom-up ones we've grown on the Net are far better.
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
I talked the the isp of the indidual in question. They have a very interesting setup.
They cater to corp types that want access so that they can post, etc. w/o exposing their employers to litigation and so on.
To this end they route all outgoing to one ip address to further mask an indidual machine frome outsiders.
So far, so good.
However, they have a standing policy (as well as their upstream provider) that they carry no responsibily for user posts (icluding IRC, etc) but don't 'condone' it. They won't issue any punitive action, in other words.
I'm not sure how I feel about this either, but I suppose it is a 'sign of the times...'
The net is relatively self-policing, but when folks up the line shirk this duty, where does this leave us?
Mind you this is not an anon reposting service, but a full-service ISP.
Have we lost something here (on the net) with this sort of approach?
More to think about, because as I said, many of use here make a living online that is so tied to the net, that oftentimes no other physical-media equivelent (paper/cdroms/pcbs, etc) exist.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
At least in the U.S.., I have a constitutionally based right to face my accuser(s), and defamation can be a form of accusation. For example, you might accuse me (anonymously) of a crime, knowing full well that the accusation is a lie. When the lie is unmasked, I have every right to pursue both criminal and civil penalties, once I break through the mask of anonymity and figure out who you are.
So, using your analogy: yes, you have the right to call out from the back of the room.
But when you do, you've already stepped over a line which may have significant legal consequences. That politician up there is probably a lawyer who can sue you for slander, and be successful doing so, unless you have clear evidence that they are indeed a liar [or that you had good reason to believe that the person was actually lying] at the time you yelled out.
BTW, I recognize that there's a foggy line: Bll Clinton's evasiveness [Lewinsky, etc.] in front of the grand jury was a poorly executed but ultimately successful attempt to dance on the "technically not perjury, but also not true" side of the fence.
The judge's decision (which I agree with, albeit uncomfortably) says that anonymity is not a protection against being sued for defamation.
Easy rule? Be careful what you say -- and don't say anything you wouldn't stand behind later if your mask of anonymity is rightly taken away.
Unfortunatly, it DOES happen all the time. It's hard to gauge just how bad the situation is since you never hear about the cases where proper care is exercised and nothing happens, but even one such event is too many.
Back on topic: The courts need to think very carefully before ruling that anonymity is not protected. What will happen to anonymous crime tips (surely accusation of criminal activity is more defamitory than accusation of shoddy workmanship)? What about witness protection (which is nothing but a legal pseudonym)?
On the other hand, we live in a culture that loves dirt (in the gossip sense), and often gives negative comments far too much creedance. That's why we have laws about defamation, libel, and slander in the first place. We simply cannot allow anonymity to completely nullify those laws.
What it comes down to is that JUDGES need to use judjement on a case by case basis. Sadly, such judgement seems to be in short supply.
Are you insane?
Even if it is irratating to have people posting wildly off topic messages about porn and getting rich quick, do you really think the government should be regulating this?
It would put them one step closer to regulating ALL free speech and ideas.
Count me out. I guess I should retire to my desert shack with my shot gun and wait for the government to hunt me down for thinking freely.
Perhaps one should view all legal systems as organizations which evolve to require at least one entity is held responsible for every action, regardless of the type of action or the circumstances involved.
The laws of physics, chaos, probability, the realities of the net-- these cannot be held accountable. In any event, they don't have the cash.
Every action has its consequences -- this is a hidden truth in TANSTAAFL that a lot of people miss. In this case, instead of standing up to take personal responsibility for his statements, John Doe is facing the consequences of putting the ability to anonymously express opinions in jeopardy.
I (mostly) agree with your conclusion, but your final argument has a hole in it -- using the same logic, one common person stealing from another common person should be encouraged because a totalitarian state would discourage it. A free society is not defined in the negative (such as anti-totalitarian), but rather in the affirmative. True freedoms are not "freedom from..." but rather "freedom of..."
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
We have grown overly sensitive in our era of bestowed "rights" and by doing so, we've cheapened the fundamentals ones; in our own way we've done what no court or politician ever could have: stripped away the ability to speak our mind, practice our religions, assemble as we please and generally pursue happiness on our own terms.
The person running the anonymous service would be reviled by litigous revenge seekers who will sue him (the provider) for any libelous comments originating from his site. Even if the true identity of the poster is unknown, The site maintainer will be claimed to be negligent for not keeping track of who uses his system.
It's like if you buy a building in the bad part of town and turn a blind eye to who's using it (pimps, drug dealers, gangs, etc.) The police will hold you responsible for what goes on there even if you committed no crimes. Your hypothetical anonymous ISP is the same thing.
And last time I checked, ISPs still do not have common carrier status (like the phone company) and are therefore fully responsible for whatever is done from within their system.
Quasi anonymous remailer services exist, but they keep an anon-realname translation table which they will reveal to law-enforcement as necessary. The only way to be safe is to get a psuedo anon account like hotmail, then use that account to create a yahoo account, then use that to get an account at anonymizer.com then use that to get an account an anonymous remailer site in Chechnya, and go through many countries around the globe. This will make tracking you down require international cooperation (from countries with more important things to worry about than helping US lawyers) and added expense which will dissuade lawyers from expending the time and effort to find you.
This has actually been used as a defense in defamation cases: certain defendants have argued that their public reputation is so poor that no reasonable person would believe anything they say anyway. Reportedly, this has actually worked from time to time.
"Free Speech" - as in "Congress shall make NO law" - meant no prior restraint, but not that there would be no consequences to what you say. In the example given here, it is clearly a case of FRAUD. If someone tells you something known to be untrue in order to induce you to do business with them, that is and always will be fraud - intended to be a punishable offense.
correct, or is actually in a different language.
Sound obeys the laws of space and time. It is required that only one person speak at a time so that one can be heard clearly. (and yes I do read a lot of posts.)
The internet curls space and time into one thing.. bandwidth. Clarity and content is preserved.
The internet however destroys concepts of place and name. Probably a Good Thing(tm).
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Since we can't vote our conscience, since we're obsessed with Clinton/Lewinski (so the media say), then when this this passes through the senate (it has already passed through several hice of representatives), we will all be known to concerned that people would burn the flag, and our official position on it will be that we'd rather have the constitution burn instead of the flag (so will say the media).
Your opinion brought to you by FOX news before you've even been asked.
--Shortest straw pulled for you.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Bear in mind that the first ammendment originally applied only to the _federal_ government. ("Congress shall make no law...") It wasn't until 1925 (Gitlow v New York) that the courts decided that individual states couldn't lock you up to keep you quiet. The legal rationale for this is a _very_ broad interpretation of the the due process clause in the 14th ammendment. Constitutional Interpretation has generally served to _further_ your freedoms, not detract from them. Individual states have to adhere to almost all of the bill of rights now because of constitutional interpretation.
Also, you'll note that the so-called "right to privacy" is not in the constitution (or bill of rights) either. This too is a by-product of constitutional interpretation.
Contrary to what seems to be rather popular belief, freedom of speech has been _greatly_ enhanced in the last centry.
Libel and slander laws were created to enhance liberty as well. The idea of "Let the people who listen to me make up thier own judgement about whatever I say, and how credible it is." is a noble one indeed, but neglects to take into account inherently disproportinate power dichotomies. Say I own a newspaper and a copy of photoshop and have far too much time on my hands. I don't like you, and you've been convicted of some minor drug crimes in the past. I doctor up a photo of you performing henious acts on a five year old and publish it. I have the power, and thus I'm credible and you're not. You lose your job and your house gets torched because of my lies -- under your system you'd have no legal recourse. That's simply not cool.
Granted, if we have laws prohibiting defamatory statements it also means that I'm deprived of the liberty of lying about you, but we -- as members of society -- give up certain privilages to reap the rewards a structured society has to offer. This is Rousseau's Social Contract, -- one of the primary roots of our constitutional system. Certain liberties are exchanged for others.
Your pointing towards the right to bear arms is an apt one. Society says that though preventing me from owning a store of anthrax may be a violation of my liberties, it works to give the rest of the community that whole life, liberty and the persuit of happiness deal.
This country is not absolutely free, nor does it make any pretenses of being so. That would be anarchy, which is what the founders worked very hard to avoid.
While I personally am a firm believer in the Social Contract school of thought, you might want to look into Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ), which seems to be pretty much up your alley.
of contract as publishers of phone books. One publisher got slammed a while ago and
By the way the Amendment IV or VI (I forget) says rights to personal security and request of warrants are required by the constitution.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
He doesn't need a damned thing except a skeptical mind, which he's got. You're the one going all Velikovskiy on this poor rock, blasting it from the surface of Mars and landing it on a polar region -- YOU put up the credentials and (more importantly) the data, or YOU sit in the corner smiling quietly with your hands folded. Cause dem's da rules, see?
As for what I've seen, it would make a nice back story for a summer film about sentient spacegoing rock, but I'm not worried about impressing anybody who's actually started changing the way he thinks about Mars based on it.
Sounds like a pretty negative attitude to me. Yes, the world is going to hell right now. But my point is that we should all get up and do something about it. Wake up! Get informed. Learn what the MAI is about. Learn about what the US government is doing on your behalf in foreign countries. And then, above all, VOTE! VOTE relentlessly and in every election for someone outside the democrat/republican hegemony. VOTE for Ralph Nader and Green/Socialist/Independent candidates on a local level. We are a democracy and we can take power back from the corporations.
"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul" -- Edward Abbey
One thing is for sure-- the decision will either stand or fail on appeal. Either way, which way will the direction of new law go. Will we further lose our ability to remain anonymity? Will new circumvention laws require anonymous remailers to maintain a minimum database of information for all users? Will it be a crime to post anonymously to any forum (not so far fetched when you consider some of the encryption laws in affect)?
Or will we see the reverse. Will there be new, expanded internet version of wire tap laws? Net watch services advertise that they monitor IRC conversations (see http//www.ewatch.com). Certainly most parties have the same expectation of privacy that they would have if using a telephone.
Its not that far a leap considering our past history. In the early '70s their was a wide opinion that telephone conversations were open prey. Many states currently have laws that forbid the recording of a conversation UNLESS BOTH parties consent to the recording. Should all sites and/or participants disclose their intent as to use of information, or would this be a swing to far in the other direction?
Also, would it make a difference if the forum declared itself a news service? If Yahoo, instead of the defendant, had challenged the subpoena based upon the constitutional rights of free press, could they quash the subpoena.
There are people who are in sensitive positions, relative to their employment. Unless they are allowed to voice their opinions anonymously, free speech is effectively denied to them -- or at least, subordinated to some other important concern.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Corporations have rights, too. It's not *just*
for the "underdog"; really, now. Vandalizers are
criminals for abusing other people's property...
Free speech is not mindless, destructive protest
that intrudes on everybody else. It IS about
being able to express opinions in a lawful manner.
is one of the things alledged.
Most tech companies make you sign a
contract on employment that you won't
disclose things like this. doesn't matter
whose computer or time you use.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Next time you want to report your neighbor for child or spousal abuse, or your boss for embezzelment or violations of safety code, lemme know. Why don't you just put a webcam in your house so that people can watch your every move an action. Quite frankly I am personally disgusted by this concept. Just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to hide it. Privacy is a right, and is an extension of the first ammendment. Privacy and anonimity go hand in hand on the 'net, and in life. It is your right to keep your identity private, after all.
You're a real hard ass, aren't you? There are corporate abuses that go beyond the dicks on grill re-using yesterday's grease, and retaliations far more serious than Snake Jones slowly driving by your house at two a.m. cranking "Blitzkrieg".
Add to these the complications of actually having a family, a career, real property, a real live public reputation, and even the heartbreak of seeing your chosen field compromised by greedheads with secret exclusionary marketing tactics -- ayuh, I knew I'd get you there -- and suddenly the long-hidden "third dimension" pops into view with startling suddenness, doesn't it?
Probably not. One of them spent the next ten years sucking Dom out of the Army's tit, and the other eventually returned to the Hill as an elected official by way of repayment. Please don't paint Woodward as a civilian do-gooder with hippie bosses: I just ate a breakfast taco and I'm queasy.
If you weren't a Machead writing for a Mac rag, I'd have a lot more sympathy for your trouble with hate mail.
Off-topic AC bit: a sex partner twice removed works at a news magazine with a decidedly dentist's-waiting-room air, and he reports that after a lukewarm review of the New-New New Apple (All New Damn It), the place was clogged with Machead shit mail for weeks. Finally the Word came down from on high: all incoming Mac-related mail went straight on the goober pile along with orgone accumulators, Federal Reserve Jews and flouride in baby formula.
That was many quarters ago, and he reports nothing has changed except that an early obit for Apple has been filed alongside those for Ronald Reagan and Elton John.
Hope your battle with ignorant, discussion-precluding mail bombing has a similarly pleasant resolution!
You can hijack the hell out of someone's ICQ identity with or without their permission, then (after surrounding the nominal owner with TV cameras and witnesses with watches, or maybe giving him the Hitchcock from _North by Northwest_) have a high old time sending ransom demands in his name.
I heard some rumours about Xs4all considering anonymous internet access. This is after a recent court ruling in which the government tried to get an internet tap. More info on it here
- In Memoriam: Jeroen de Bruin (1972-2004), bye bro
Next. If I wanted to report a neighbour for child/spouse abuse, my boss for embezzlement, or my workmates for setting the apprentice on fire, I will. Why should I be afraid to? Take responsibility for yourself, stand up for what you believe in.
Say I got my boss for embezzlement, what are they going to do? Fire me? So I get them for wrongfull dismissal, or simply get another job. So what?
[small irrelevant snip]
I'm not saying Privacy isn't a right, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hide things, I'm simply saying that you should be responsible for what you do.
If life is this easy, we shouldn't have any trouble stamping out all corruption in the police force. Sorry, but there are people that are in danger of reprisals, that have families and sometimes their own lives to protect. Whistle-blowing is not exactly easy for them.
Anonymity is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it lends cover to nuisance makers. On the other it can save innocent people's lives. On balance, looking in a wider context around the world, I fall on the side of allowing anonymity.
Well, this judgement may apply to the US, and sites therein, but the US does not control the "entire Internet".
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
This is not legal advice. WHile I am an attorney, I am probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. If you need legal advice on this matter, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Those cases address a *prohibition* on *speaking* in the first place. Furthermore, the prohibition is by a government.
That is a far cry from using anonymity to protect oneself from the *consequences* of speech.
Free speech governs the right to make the statement. It does not protect one from the consequences. To look at your second example, while the local government can't block the distribution of the pamphlets, if teh information was defamatory, the employer would still be able to issue supoenas to determine her identity in a defamation action. There is no conflict.
Hawk, Esq.
>Seatbelt and Helmet laws. People endanger only themselves by not using them. As long as they don't threaten
>the well being of other people, why does the government bother with enforcing these laws?
Not true. When someone is seriously injured because they didn't wear a helmet, I'm charged (indirectly) with their medical care, while they live out their life in a persistent vegetative state.
Also, in our paper yesterday, a guy was ejected from his pickup (no seat belt) after an accident. Several people ran over the guy. In that situation, someone could have easily been killed trying to avoid him.
This is a very tricky situation and it all comes down to defining a workable balance between freedoms and inconveniences.
Doesn't the 'source' have something to do with things? In other words if 'The Gotham City Times' prints something, it is generally regarded to be 'true' -
What if I write something on a restroom stall? That has the same credibility?
You don't have a right to lie about others in such a way as to damage their reputation. The First Amendment guarantees your right to say what you wish within the confines of telling the truth.
It's astonishing that there would even be one moment of debate about this.
As to anonymous free speech -- even when it is true speech -- judging from the example of the founders (viz., The Federalist), I don't see how anyone can deny that anonymity is not something that the government can legitimately strip from us. Some nuts might say "If you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?" This is a red herring that does not address my right to be secure and retain privacy in my personal affairs.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Am I the only one who doubts whether a person in such a position really does care about the issue if he's not even convinced he wants to attach his name to his sentiment? How strongly can you feel about your company, government, or other local opressive body if you're too afraid to say it yourself? If you don't want to be known as the man who opened his mouth, maybe you should keep it shut.
I feel the very same way about the Anonymous Cowards here on Slashdot. If you're incapable of logging in, I don't want to read what you have to say. I'm not for disallowing unregistered use, I just want a check-button in my prefs which says "Absolutely never, ever, under any circumstances show me any posts from anonymous contributors [X]". Right now setting a threshold at 1 doesn't cut it; some posts are moderated up because they're "funny" or "insightful". I don't care--I'm not ready to ponder the words of a man who can't be debated, reached for comments, commended, or even identified. Go talk to a tree.
I guess I look at anonymity as a convenience; if it's there you should be able to use it, but what part of "free speech" means "the right to have everyone who might disagree look the other way for a moment?" It's not a right any more than its opposite. Should I appeal to the Supreme Court of my country if I am denied ultimate and relentless _promotion_ of my name with my commentary? Why should we mandate the supression when it happens to be convenient but not the promotion when it's also convenient.
If it's really nasty, and you're thoroughly disgusted, why are you still working there? If you're not confident enough in yourself to make a stand for what you believe, why should I listen?
If a company can verify that the whistleblower was or may have been telling the truth, they try very quietly to root out the whistleblower and punish him quietly. Anything else is bad PR and getting caught punishing the whistleblower, especially if the company has any commercial relationship with the federal government, is likely to be against the law.
What if the company disputes whether my alligations are the truth? What if had posted this information anonymously? What if, what if, what if...?
Besides, in this particular case, its still not certain (or apparent to me at least) that what the anonymous poster said about Xircom is false.
Regardless, he is still loosing his privacy.
Solution: don't criminalize speech. Especially just because its in the intrests of some company.
It seems reasonable to me that the
judge must first find that the statements
made are very likely to meet the legal
definition of defamation before a subpeona
could be issued.
Even then the poster's anonymity should
be protected (judge knows who it is, Xircom
does not) until it is actually proven and
can mount a defense under the guise of
anonymity (as it sounds like this guy is
doing).
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been sued for
defamation and libel (Hi Dave, if your were
less ignorand and could use a computer without
hurting yourself maybe you could read this!)
. Based on the way that that
case was laughed out of court I would say:
Saying "Xircom SUCKS!" does not count. Lying
about being an employee when you are not isn't
libelous in any way. you have to say something
that is harmful and that is provably false. I
haven't seen anything here that can be proven to
be either true or false, so it becomes opinion
and is free speach.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
down with xircom.
ill never buy any product from them.
First, this suit is about public defamation, not whistleblowing in the legal sense, so it doesn't really apply.
Whistleblower protection is intended to permit someone to report illegal activities to authorities without facing retaliation from their employer. I don't think anyone ever envisioned remaining anonymous as part of that protection.
Beyond that, I don't think there is any public good in allowing internet anonymity to shield someone from otherwise complying with the laws and appearing in court. If what you post is serious enough to bring on a lawsuit, you should be ready to appear in court about it. (And don't bring up harassing lawsuits; there are other ways to handle that problem.)
Put simply, if anonymity protects one from lawsuits, then nobody can ever be sued for what they say on the internet. That's wrong.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Well, if I'm not mistaken, there is a specific 'whistleblower' law or something that lets you do just that... rat out your employer for doing something anonymously. Differences are, it has to be true, and you have to do more than just post it anonymously on the net, I think you have to actually go to some government agency and spill it.
Anyone know the specific of this or am I totally confused on this?
It's awkward, but I believe it's correct:
This person wants to remain anonymous because this person works for Xircom.
You could also just reword it:
This person who works for Xircom wants to remain anonymous.
In a junior college business law class that I took in the Fall, defamation doesn't necessarily happen with a false statement. I was taught that it was when that false statement causes a third party to view the "victim" in less favorable light than they would have had they not been told the false/bad statement. So, if nobody is around person A "victim" and B "offender" and person B goes about berating A, then it isn't defamation (slander in case spoken, libel if written.) The offensive "remark" must be "published" but that does not mean that the remark has to appear in written form, spoken is published.
Patrick May
(Haven't been able to get through to create an account)
pmm10@cvip.fresno.com
Corporations exist primarily to limit the legal responsibilities of it's members. Claiming rights for corporations is somewhat obscene. They claim benefits from being non-persons, they should also suffer similar detriments. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What do you have to fear from your citizens?
:)
If we have free speech anyhow, why should we disclose our identities?
Here, I think that people who oppose my right to anonymity, especially fascist evil stupid moronic defamed (do you see where this is leading?) federal judges should all question why people would think anonymity might be necessary: to ensure that their freedoms are protected.
If you oppose this, then you certainly deserve your defamation at the hands of your citizens. If our claims are baseless, refute them, but don't sue us for it. If you can't defend yourself through free speech and honesty, then your position isn't defensible, or you lack the wits to defend it.
Basically, you get what you deserve, so sue me. Please sue me, I want to see this overturned.
I'd give you my e-mail address, but I'm trying to be anonymous here.
Whistlblowing is not defamation. Telling people about the evils of someone else's behavior is not defamation. Telling lies to hurt someone is defamation.
I wish I had a camera ... you're so cute when you're naive.
The Constitution doesn't allow Congress to make a law about Federal Income Tax, but they did. Ever since Federal Rights won over States' Rights, Congress has had the power to make any damn law it pleases. (There are certain things they have to work up to slowly.)
I'm not sure your example is incredible enough. Does your dog wear a skirt?
Yes.
-sam
Whether or not Corporations should have rights is beyond the scope of this argument.
Whether we should remove the publics right of privacy and freedom because of a company "loosing face" is what this dispute is about.
Free speech is a very simple concept, its exactly like it sounds "free" + "speech". If we propose it in the constitution we should not allow laws that deny or change the definition.
That's an oxymoron.
From the article: "The author, writing under the pseudonym 'A View From Within,' claimed to be an engineer at the company."
Now, I'm not sure how Yahoo's message boards work as my experience is pretty well limited to Slashdot, but even as I post here under my pseudonym, I am not anonymous. Were I to say something defamatory in this post, I'm pretty sure that Rob could be served with a subpoena to reveal my user information, which could then be used to subpoena further information from my geocities or the University of Minnesota as to my identity. If I post as an AC, the only thing having a minute chance of appearing anywhere would be my IP in the logs.
If my assumption about the inner workings of the Yahoo message boards is accurate, the poster was not anonymous. I'm just surprised that the rest of the 80 or so commenters didn't pick up on this.
Foul reasoning. You won't worry till it's too late.
I'm all for choice, but why should the ashamed, cowardly, shy or bashful have special priveledge or protection? Choosing not to give your name should be just like choosing to write with purple ink. There's no reason to outlaw it and all the reason to allow it.
Not giving your name is choosing what not to say, the same way one might refrain from spreading unfounded rumors. It's just like not giving out your address with every message you send, for whatever reason you choose, and I respect your right to not say what you don't wan't to say. Your rights don't, however, give you special protection from what other people might say about you.
The "special protection" is what I hear people clamor for here. People say that having your identity exposed and attached to a comment you really did make should be prevented if you don't wish that information to be revealed. Under few of these circumstances are both the author and carrier under any contract to each other to keep parties secret. This is like saying that if someone found out your address later on (from a phonebook, let's say) and then revealed it to your audience, even though you didn't want it to be in your message, that he's violating your rights.
It's not in the interest of any government to allow its citizens privacy. The only privacy you have is the kind you make through encryption, careful inspection of your interaction with society, or good old seclusion.
First up, I never said the government should be regulating this. Incase you didn't read the last line of my original post, read it again, and guess how I feel about goverments.
Next. If I wanted to report a neighbour for child/spouse abuse, my boss for embezzlement, or my workmates for setting the apprentice on fire, I will. Why should I be afraid to? Take responsibility for yourself, stand up for what you believe in.
Say I got my boss for embezzlement, what are they going to do? Fire me? So I get them for wrongfull dismissal, or simply get another job. So what?
I'm not putting a webcam in my house because what I do in my own home is not public domain, it's my own business.
I'm not saying Privacy isn't a right, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hide things, I'm simply saying that you should be responsible for what you do.
Anonymity on the net is like walking Bourke St in a Koala Suit. Nobody knows who you are, and that's fine, but if you start yelling insults at pedestrians, why shouldn't they be able to find out who you are and get you to stop?
I'm pretty sure they came for the Carthagians before they came for the Jews. Just because I support people being able to find out who AC's are, doesn't mean it should be left to the Governments to decide the rules, they're bound to screw it up. I'm worried about how things are already, and I don't like the way things are going, but if done properly (heh!), this could be a good thing.
Society needs to be act responsibly again
This is just plain infuriating. I suppose now, a company will sue you if you send them a letter of complaint as well. Or if you tell your friends not to buy their product for one reason or another. I wonder if this same judge would force a reporter to give up his or her source, just because some big corporation didn't "like" their article. Or, perhaps he'll soon find me in contempt of court, simply because I don't like his decision. "No right to free speech to defame." WTF? I'm sure England felt that same very way after reading the Declaration of Independence.
Now I am totally and utterly depressed. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that. I might get sued.
That was why I argued elsewhere that they should have to show a prima facie case that this was indeed libel. Companies should not be able to break through anonymity just because they are peeved, but they should be able to try to find out who harmed them.
Besides, in this particular case, its still not certain (or apparent to me at least) that what the anonymous poster said about Xircom is false. Regardless, he is still loosing his privacy.
How anonymous was the person originally. Most of these "anonymous" posts are like crank calls, easy enough to trace if you've given someone the incentive to do it.
Solution: don't criminalize speech. Especially just because its in the intrests of some company.
It's not criminal except in very limited circumstances--lying to a court is supposed to be a crime. I really don't want to give liars a free pass.
OK, I gotta question here. Anonymous Guy(AG) has lawyers defending him. The article makes that clear. How did Xircom get together with these people? Did she contact them and say "I'm the lawyer for the guy you're ticked at."? Is she court appointed, and doesn't actually know her client? How does she even prove her client's the guy?
I understand what you are trying to say, but I aam afraid I disagree. There are instances where people prefer to remain anonymous because they are afraid. However, there are instances where people prefer privacy for other reasons.
You mentioned ACs in Slashdot. Just because they didn't log in does not mean what they have to say is immaterial. Some lost passwords and haven't the time to mail, some disable cookies and choose not to log in every time, and some don't feel like it. I put my name on what I do but I feel it is no right of any Government of any country to say who has can remain anonymous. We can't afford to squelch a potentially important communication medium.
Name by comments or not, we should at least be allowed to choose. Not for the sake of a country or by a law, but for anyone that wants to say anything.
-Clump
Is BitSpace the same thing as BullShit?
Yes.
Take your medicine for being such a jackass. If you don't want people poking you in public, then you should learn to go anonymous too.
BIT SPACE . Good god I hate you people sometimes.
-sam
I'm just noting that a previous poster seems to think that we're all in the thrall of major corporations, perhaps because such silly hippie statements are fashionable among the quasi-academic wannabes who seek scapegoats for their utter insecurity.
Corporation(x) does NOT imply controls_world(x).
x is not necessarily evil;it's not necessarily good. It just IS, while it lasts.
Frankly, the media does NOT control my thoughts. Only I do.
True, but you DO have the right to criticize anonymously.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
One of the major problems with the net is the ability for anyone to say anything, and not take any responsibility for it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to post anonymously, but such anonyminity (sp?) shouldn't be complete. If someone wants to find out who you are, why shouldn't they?
Privacy, however, should be allowed, and maybe even enforced.
Sure, you know who I am, and what I said, but since I put all that in the public domain, why do I care? But anything else is my own business.
Politicians suck, why are we letting them run our country? (Australia mainly, but also USA)
What about whistleblowers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of being fired/killed/forced to sleep with the fishes? If I work for Micros~1, and I want to reveal something _really_ nasty, I wouldn't want to put my name in BIG LETTERS at the top of the email! I thought there were laws that protected this type of thing.
Although it doesn't sound like this particular person was whistleblowing, just being a troll, this ruling sets a bad precedent.
Can any people who _are_ lawyers comment?
This person wants to remain anonymous because they work for Xircom - and wish to keep their job (though I wonder why, if the conditions are bad like they say they are - anyone got a link or something to that discussion?).
Now, I imagine Xircom might have a case if the employee used company equipment to post the message or they did it on company time - I think this sort of thing has precedent. But I can understand wanting to remain anonymous if they did it on their own time/equipment (and if they were smart, they did).
I can't think of a "real world" example for comparison here - though I am sure one could find one...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I can't belive that companies will willingly allow people to make negative comments in IRC like places if the people identify themselves.
Companies will take this as far as they can to silence those who speak against them. They'll distort anonymity as far as they can. Maybe telling people your name, mailing address and phone number over IRC will still leave you legally anonymous because it cannot be proven. That can be stretched to include email, news & web postings, the whole internet. They'll take it to the point that we'll need registered PIII like IDs to avoid being anonymous. Since there is no registration of the ID's now, no one can prove online the ID belongs to them, so everyone could be considered anonymous online now (save for some PGP use maybe) and thus could be censored by corporations from making negative comments about them. We might not even be able to say that graphics card X has lacking performance.
This, of course, is an extreme example of what it could become. Lets stop it now before it gets much further.
"Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
I understand it has to be 'published' materials, and I assume there has to be some component of the statement that can be empirically shown to be false? (And also that the person making the statement can be reasonably shown to have known the statement was false? Not sure about that part, but I assume so...)
Is there a spoken defamation component?
Some examples:
"Company XYZ sucks because their product breaks."
Well, maybe I bought 3 widgets from them, and all three broke down. But for most everyone else they work fine. Is XYZ being defamed because I say they suck?
I'm curious as to how precisely this can co-exist with free speech laws. There seems to be a lot of hazy cases. Clearly if I said about my neighbour, "He tortures small animals." And published it in the newspaper it would be a case of defamation, plain and simple... but if I'm talking about my experiences with XYZ's products, and my opinions of their quality... I don't see how this can be defamation, as it is something of a 'subjective' area.
Anyway, if anyone has the exact details, or knows links to the resources which have details I'd be interested to know.
Obasan
The key word is defamation. Weather it comes from an anonymous source or a non-anoymous source should be irrelevant. Defamation never was a protected form of speech just like you can be arrested for yelling "fire" in a theater when there's no fire.This ruling about defamation- not anonymity.
The behavior is about the same. A nameless group or person slinging mud in hopes of influncing the opinion of others is a (usually negative) way. This is pretty sacred 1st amendment stuff. I don't think that the PACs are gonna be too happy about this.
In Sweden, where I live, it's actually illegal to try to find out who has anonymously given information to the media. That's a great law, IMO.
No matter if you're a government official or whatever. (Though I think there's an exception for 'military secrets that would danger the nation' or something like that.) So if I'm a, say, police officer, I can go to the press saying 'Some of the policemen use the tax payers' money to pay whores!'. It would be illegal for the journalist to reveil my name to anyone, and it would be illegal for anyone trying to find out my name.
Of course, if there's no truth in the accusation it might be a crime. But the crime is that of the journalist not checking the story enough. So the publisher goes to jail.
Though it haven't been tested in relation to the EU yet... My guess we won't be able to stick up for this principle.
Don't hate the media, become the media.
What it comes down to is that free speech is not a "postive right," or a right *to* something, but a negative right, the right to prevent government from silencing you.
It has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding the consequences of your speech, or with remaining anoynymous.
hawk, esq.
I decide to go out and make a big deal about it to the media (who probably wouldn't care anyways) but it happens to injure the reputation of the company and it looses shareholders.
This is right on the edge of the definition of this particular law.
Nope, this isn't even close to actionable in the US. Truth is always a complete defense. In the US you aren't likely to get into trouble unless you knew or should have known that you were telling a lie. If you repeat something that turns out to be false, but you reasonably thought was true, you are safe.
I cannot think of a case where defamation would be criminal.
As far as I can tell, you can get a hushmail.com account pretty anonymously. No information needs to be given to activate it, and if you are communicating with other hushmail users, your emails are encrypted, and you retrieve your mail through a secure web based interface.
I wonder if the hushmail server is based here in the US...or somewhere else?
I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they have a chance to find out who has lied about them. Much of this appears to be an attempt to root out local malcontents.
I can't gleam enough from the article to determine what contracts may be in place, but if the poster is truely an employee of the company, and was under an NDA, then making ANY statements about internal company politics, true or otherwise, would be a breach of contract. If it turns out that this person is not an employee of the company, then there is the issue of misrepresentation.
Had an anonymous user not affiliated with the company simply stated his opinions online, then the company would have very little legal ground to stand on.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Seems to me like that fellow does in fact have a right to say whatever idiocy he wants to. However, I'd approach the people maintaining the forum, demonstrate how this person is being abusive, and see if they would be willing to remove his posts or take other appropriate action.
Unfortunately, I think that weathering the slings and arrows of blithering idiots is something we're going to have to learn how to route around. I feel like denying them the right to express their (ignorant, abusive, and inaccurate) opinions would be worse than ignoring them. Peer review (like her on Slashdot) is, I think, ideal. The community moderates itself, and people can opt out of that moderation (by surfing at -1 like I do) if they want to. Nobody is denied the right to speak, but they are also not entitled to be heard.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You know that the government doesn't believe that people can decide for themselves. Consider the following things that have gone into debate:
- Demanding that trigger locks have to be sold on all guns. Can't people decide whether or not they want them without a governing body? People want personal safety, but they want other people to be responsible for it, especially if someone else accidentally gets hurt.
- The Mars rock. What kind of scam are they trying to pull? While they are debating as to whether formations in the rock are remnants of life on red planet, don't they think that anyone in the American public questions the improbability of rock found in Anarctica having come from Mars?
- Airbags. When the first kid was killed by an airbag impact, the big debate was over whether to remake cars with out without them. It took several months before we saw switches, but the initial assumption did not allow for such options.
- Smoke-free Bars. California bars now do not allow smoking, due to a waitress' lobby pressuring the law to pass. I'm not a smoker, but I believe that it is the right of an establishment to choose how they want to run the place. As far as the people working there, they're not being forced to work there.
- Seatbelt and Helmet laws. People endanger only themselves by not using them. As long as they don't threaten the well being of other people, why does the government bother with enforcing these laws?
Our laws are slowly being retooled to try to protect idiots. If an idiot gets hurt by putting faith in an unreliable source of information, that does not mean that we are required to pass a law saying that all information on the net *must* be validated.
I can already see the PIII chip ID getting abused.
Skevin
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they are given the names of those who appear to have lied about them. Many of these suits appear to be attempts to root out local malcontent employees.
The issue I have with the government taking action is that once people start assuming that the government is protecting them, they will forget that the best thing to do is to think for themselves.
Jens Wessling
This is not a crime. No one is guilty. That said, you do not have the right to harm people anonymously.
In the McIntyre case, the court protected the right of a woman to distribute anonymous handbills expressing her opposition to a referendum. In the Talley case, the courts protected the rights of a protestor to distribute anonymous leaflets alleging employment discrimination. Both distribution attempts violated local ordinances banning anonymous communication.
In Talley the court stated that "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
The court has recognized in McIntyre a general right to anonymous speech, finding that "[t]he decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. "
In both of these decisions, the court noted that the highest protections should be given to political speech.
As I recall, Cmdr Taco has assurred us that slashdot doesn't store records of Anonymous Cowards. Whether he would be required to turn over the identities corresponding to named accounts is an open question.
To the dismay of some, the best prophylactic against subpoenas may be to increase the level of political discussion on slashdot. Since accounts could be used to post protected anonymous opinions, it might well infringe on protected free speech rights to reveal the actual owner...
I'm not sure that an anonymous tip is enough evidence to issue a search warrant. It may be enough to consider further investigation (police checking sources, etc.).
I would assume that the police and the judge need to know who generated the tip and how they would know this information. The police would have to have corroborating evidence (ie, police sources who purchased the drugs, etc.) before busting in on you.
Posted by wMaVerick:
If you don't want people poking you in public, then you should learn to go anonymous too.
I think you may be missing the point here - if both protagonists were visible then there wouldn't be so much of a problem.
I truely beleive that people should be responsible for their own actions and words. Someone who is posting anonymously is skipping the responsibility bit.
Pete
...what about when you don't trust the authorities? Or when the authorities are the ones you're blowing the whistle on?
I really don't think Deep Throat would have benefitted from whistleblowing laws.
there's this: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/~iic/4yp/
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I always post as me, use a real email address etc for a very important reason that I think a lot of us have overlooked.
/. you can demote the AC's. Maybe we need a Net-Wide 'license to post' as well.
The net gives the above-average/saavy user great power, greater than say the phone to which the average person uses to connect to it, but in most cases, not as great as say, broadcast tv.
What it does not do is add a level of *personal responsibily* on parity with that power.
I'm going through this right now. I'm being defamed on a 'public forum' on a privately-owned website by someone using an assumed name because this person *thinks* I am someone else.
Now for the most part, we learn to ignore it. In this case the poster is making quite nasty, and patently untrue statements, some even with racial overtones (which I generally ignore as well) to an audience that I write for, and cannot verify the basis of his false claims do to software/platform related issues.
What's more, is that since this individual feels that he is 'protected' by his ISP's 'hands-off'-ish policy, he can continue, despite repeated warnings, with impunity.
Now I ask you: is this what we had in mind, people?
Sure, not quite on the same scale as spreading false financial info...or is it?
As we move ever-forward, many (many) of us make our living totally within the confines of BitSpace.
And word, true or otherwise, travels real fast out here.
Sure, we want to be protected from the spammers, etc.
But for the level of power the net gives the indiviual, we may need another level of checks and balances as well for public posting.
At least here on
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
I agree with the judge here. What would stop your competition from anonymously slandering your company rather than leak internal secrets? They could pose as an employee with inside knowledge. I suppose that anonymous messages should be ranked as is done on slashdot and should be viewed as little more than rumor.
-----------
Resume
Football Sports Contest - Win $500 for having an e
Cost/benefit...
Benefit: freedom to say what you want without facing consequences.
Cost: Sometimes people tell nasty lies
I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Sure malicious slander is unpleasant but when there is no truth to it and nobody will stand by the claims few people with brains will pay any attention. I would never have heard the rumours(?) that Xircom shipped shitty designs if they hadn't been so upset about it. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You can clarify your thinking on this subject by asking "would anonymous posting be encouraged or discouraged by a totalitarian state ?"
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Anonymous criticism has existed since early civilization. I'm surprized the courts are ruling against it, since anonymous criticism has be upheld in the print media. These lawsuits have no other purpose but to to stop dissent.
I guess the lession here is, if you want to make anonymous posts, do it from someone else's PC.
In a world that is Free and Open, who needs Windows and Gates?
Reliable insider sources have informed me that /. causes blindness, impotence, and strange fetishes with penguins and little red daemons.
Karen Silkwood gathered so much evidence she got radiation poisoning from gathering it.
On the one hand, I don't think people should be allows to slander and libel people while hiding behind a mask of anonymity to avoid legal consequences. If this guy posted anonymously, how do we know he isn't working for Xircom's top competitor?
/. posts a message insisting that Win95 is more stable than Linux, does any /. reader actually put any credibility in the message? Does any /. reader actually beleive it was posted by someone other than a MICROS~1 employee?
On the other hand, if an AC on
The day when anonymous political sleaze slingers are worried will be a good day.
If you're a whistleblower then you go to the authorities or media who, in turn, should responsibly deal with the situation and your identity, you don't air your problems in a public forum anonymously. It won't fix the problems and it only stands to hurt the organization that has the problems, at that point your free speech is an act of aggression and not an act of whistleblowing. The only case where there may be no authorities is if it is the government you are blowing the whistle one but you're given explicit protection to speak against them. The Xircom case involves a pseudowhistle blower who lacked any responsibility, you should get in trouble for that.
I think anonymous registries will be a good thing for this reason: what happens when the companies and the government catches on to the information revolution? I'm thinking about what happened a few years ago with all those anti-scientologists on the net. The church of scientology is a big and powerful organization and it legally shut a lot of people down by controlling information. Think of a microsoft of IBM or tobacco company controlling the information. If you want to have your privacy and the ability to slander and defame people and companies there will be serious motivation for those companies and the government to start mastering information and the value of tracking down "anonymous" people will be much higher. The other side of that coin is to have registered anonymity and as soon as you start crossing the line of legality someone can get a subpoena and learn your identity. Of course this is going to cause some serious issues with the civil libs and the privacy nuts who absolutley refuse to be numbered but it's going to happen if people continue to abuse anonymous speech.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
While the anonymous tip is not enough to convict anyone, it seems to be enough for a judge to issue a search warrant. Sad isn't it? But if I wanted to harass you, I could just drop a few tips that you're cooking meth in your garage and you will get your doors kicked down. Drug searches are seldom, "[knock, knock] Excuse me sir, we received work that there may be an illegal meth lab in your garage. Might we trouble you to take a look about? You may call and verify the validity of the warrant if you wish. We will wait." It's more like "POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT! [cement battering ram breaks locked door open] [agents storm the house and have you cuffed before you ever saw any writ or warrant]"
But then, no one has yet ruled anonymous crime tip lines should all be shut down, have they?