Judge Orders Troll Exposure

[Babbylonian]

My main issue with the idea of this lawsuit is that, to thinking people at least, anonymity cuts both ways. While an anonymous person might feel free to say things s/he wouldn't otherwise, it doesn't take a degree in the science of rockets to figure out that anonymity makes the content a lot less reliable and less effective in swaying opinions (unless of course it's a famous anonymous person/group). In other words, the actual damages of being anonymously libeled or slandered would seem to be minimal unless the words received a wide public airing...and to my mind, the comments below a news story on any site wouldn't count as such.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the judge's decision and support the right of a court to pierce Internet anonymity. I just think that the case itself should be a loser.

 

[Policenaut]

On what grounds?

The right to free speech is not the right to anonymity.

Expectation of privacy might apply, but it's easy enough to make a case that it's not a reasonable expectation that your comments are private if you had to disclose identifying information to register to make comments. [ETA: Aside from the fact that it's not at all reasonable to expect participation in any sort of forum as being of a private nature.]

This is not simply a case of them asking for your registration info. Any dummy can fill out registration info inaccurately and just use a throw away email address to get the activation link. They want your ip address and will force the isp to hand over your full name and address. This is generally not info people expect or want to be exposed just from posting comments on a website.

 

[drkitten]

This is not simply a case of them asking for your registration info. Any dummy can fill out registration info inaccurately and just use a throw away email address to get the activation link. They want your ip address and will force the isp to hand over your full name and address. This is generally not info people expect or want to be exposed just from posting comments on a website.

Then those people shouldn't have posted defamatory comments on a website. Slander and libel are illegal, and have been for centuries. The courts are well within their power to issue subpoenas for records that will help in the investigation of an illegal action.... or even a potentially illegal action, if the court feels that there's a good case to be made.

 

[drkitten]

My main issue with the idea of this lawsuit is that, to thinking people at least, anonymity cuts both ways. While an anonymous person might feel free to say things s/he wouldn't otherwise, it doesn't take a degree in the science of rockets to figure out that anonymity makes the content a lot less reliable and less effective in swaying opinions (unless of course it's a famous anonymous person/group). In other words, the actual damages of being anonymously libeled or slandered would seem to be minimal unless the words received a wide public airing...and to my mind, the comments below a news story on any site wouldn't count as such.

That's a question of damages. If we agree that the comments are false and defamatory, then the case should be a winner. The plaintiff should be able to recover the amount of damages he suffered.

If the actual damages are small, then he recovers little.

 

[drkitten]

Ok,here's some grist for your mill. Let's say I live in nation ruled by a dictator. I could be killed for criticism. I find a way to post about conditions in my country commenting on western blog and forums and news articles. Why should I be required to give my real name?

Because a court compels it. It's called "rule of law."

If you're foolish enough to post something like this in your own country, then you're subject to local law -- i.e. the dictator's whim.

If you're posting in the United States, however, the dictator has to be able to show a US court that the postings were illegal under US standards, or the court will tell the dictator to get stuffed.

ETA: Sometimes I'm responding to defenders of my country's dear leader.

Surly isn't illegal per se. The court won't compel the ISP to release your information if you're simply "surly."

I may even be accused by other people of lying or exaggerating.

Lying and exaggerating aren't illegal per se.

I might be unfairly accused of 'trolling'.

Trolling isn't illegal per se.

Am I not allowed to post without full disclosure?

Not when your posts are illegal per se, for example, if they are libellous.

 

[Babbylonian]

That's a question of damages. If we agree that the comments are false and defamatory, then the case should be a winner. The plaintiff should be able to recover the amount of damages he suffered.

If the actual damages are small, then he recovers little.

Agreed. When I said that I think the case should be a "loser," I meant that in terms of accomplishing little to nothing. I have no doubt that a lot of cases for libel/slander could be made and won based on Internet postings, but the costs of doing so (such as making that libel/slander not only a part of the legal/public record but potential fodder for slow news days) would outweigh the potential benefits.

 

[drkitten]

I agree I suspect however that someone has tried to argue that because the comments are made on a newspaper site they should be treated the same way as a journalists sources would be - otherwise it doesn't make sense for a court to decide that information about the posters does not fall under the shield laws.

I suspect not, actually. If the information fell under the shield laws, then that would mean that the website itself was legally responsible for the libel. Shield laws mean that journalist's don't need to disclose their sources for reportage; they don't mean that journalists can peddle slander without recourse.

 

[fuelair]

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with free speech as no one is saying that people can't exercise whatever right to free speech they have in that state. From my understanding of the article all that the judge has done is decided that the law that protects a journalist from being forced to reveal their sources doesn't apply to comments made online by non-journalists just because it is on a newspaper's site. Seems quite sensible to me!

Well pointed out. Also, your opinion is free to be put out for all and sundry but not if you state it as fact. If you state anything as fact that might be used to imprison, endanger, cause loss of recompense, etc. and it is not fact, you can be sued - and usually should be if it can be demonstrated you had no evidence for it (i.e. stating as fact what is merely your opinion.)

Nothing in this should be taken as evidence that I am not supportive of anything that will break the republicker/teabaggers forever. (Though, if they were like a number of those recently brought to light re: gay marriage recognition and other individual rights issues - old time republicans with honor and humanity - in the Wyoming legislature, I would be much less likely to feel like that.)

 

[Fnord]

Another lame attempt to legislate civil discourse.

 

[Chucky]

I think there's a difference between trolling someone, possibly liebel/slander, saying things like, "Okay Mr. Chucky. Nice point. Now, go away and think about why your mom didn't love you.", and a person posting about how things really are in country X.

That's not the point. Where do we determine that a real name is used? Where is the line drawn where we remove anonymity? Can you prove slander in a post, or when it is simply alleged - even falsely - when is one required to use their real name? Do we start censoring only because one might be crossing the line?

One may feel slandered by a post but what if a court of law determines that they were not. But what if the alleged slanderer is harmed by the accusation. What about domestic whistle-blowing where those in power use such a requirement to shut their accusers down? It isn't always very black and white.

 

[Chucky]

In a dictatorship like you mention they would probably just get your name in a less than legal fashion. In a civilized nation there is not chance of being killed for your views, but we have laws protecting people from being slandered.

So in a dictatorship i suggest using electronic methods to hide your identity. In a developed country, your accountable for what you say by the laws created by said country.

One would have to be careful in hiding their identity. What if they can successfully get such messages outside of their country but then hit a brick wall in the US with a requirement that they disclose their full identity before posting? A dupe of some tyrannical government might falsely cry slander and bring the courts in to simply try and bring down the accuser.

 

[drkitten]

That's not the point. Where do we determine that a real name is used? Where is the line drawn where we remove anonymity?

When the person who made a post can be identified to the point where he or she can be compelled to appear as the defendant in a court case and held accountable for their allegedly illegal actions and the damages they caused.

I.e. the line is ultimately drawn where there is no more anonymity. You can't use anonymity to shield yourself from the legal consequences of your actions.

Can you prove slander in a post,

Easily. The statement made in the post is false, and defames me.

If a judge agrees with that assessment, he will issue whatever subpoenas are necessary to identify the author of that post and bring him/her to justice.

Do we start censoring only because one might be crossing the line?

No one's being censored.

One may feel slandered by a post but what if a court of law determines that they were not. But what if the alleged slanderer is harmed by the accusation.

That's grounds for a counter-suit. Nothing new there; the law has dealt with these questions for centuries.

 

[drkitten]

One would have to be careful in hiding their identity.

And you should have thought of that before you started libelling someone on the internet.

What if they can successfully get such messages outside of their country but then hit a brick wall in the US with a requirement that they disclose their full identity before posting?

Then they can't post.

A dupe of some tyrannical government might falsely cry slander and bring the courts in to simply try and bring down the accuser.

They can try. The courts are generally pretty good at spotting such dupes, but they can try.

 

[rjh01]

Be careful what you say here. You could be sued for libel by the same process.

 

[Policenaut]

Surly isn't illegal per se. The court won't compel the ISP to release your information if you're simply "surly."

Did you read the article or the second post in this thread (my post)? The guy in the article wants the court to basically declare any criticism of him illegal.

"The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit Miller filed last year. He is seeking to broaden the list of defendants in his case to include people who criticized him anonymously last year on websites run by The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Business Journal and WRTV (Channel 6)."

I guess we'll see what the court actually rules.

 

[commandlinegamer]

IIRC, the convention for comments in printed media, viz. newspapers' letters to the editor is that completely anonymous missives are not printed but if the sender requests it, their letter may appear with underneath something along the lines of "Name and address" supplied.

 

[drkitten]

Be careful what you say here. You could be sued for libel by the same process.

And if anyone can persuade a judge to subpoena the JREF for my contact information, they're welcome to. They'll need, first, to show that they've got a reasonable chance of winning, and Randi has very good lawyers, because he's been threatened with unreasonable legal threats for years.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Be careful what you say here. You could be sued for libel by the same process.

Some of us already went through that with CornGod George.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit Miller filed last year. He is seeking to broaden the list of defendants in his case to include people who criticized him anonymously last year on websites run by The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Business Journal and WRTV (Channel 6).

Maybe this is just a poor summary by the author, but why is Mr. Miller seeking to include those who merely criticized him? Are we at the point where all public criticism is, by default, defamation?

 

[Chucky]

And you should have thought of that before you started libelling someone on the internet.



Then they can't post.



They can try. The courts are generally pretty good at spotting such dupes, but they can try.

I'm mostly commenting on C Felix's assertion that if you are going to criticize that you should not be able to hide behind a user name. I'm trying to point out that simply because one criticizes there are sometimes good reasons for anonymity. Actually I brought up the point about slander and even there it could be in the eye of the beholder, such as mentioning crimes someone had indulged in. In my hypothetical the whistleblower would likely face a court in their country if exposed, one that might engage in cruel and unusual punishment if we expose peole simply on the basis of trolling or criticizing. Must I now reveal my identity because I critiqued C Felix's idea?