Newspaper Must Identify Anonymous Posters to Website

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A judge in Indiana has ruled that media outlets have to reveal the identities of the people that post in their online forums.:eek:

In rulings this week and last week, Marion Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid became the first judge in Indiana to rule on whether the state journalism shield law protects media outlets from being forced to disclose names of anonymous posters on their websites or other identifying information about those posters.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, like they know who the people are. And unless they are forced to track down people via IP, good luck...
 
personally i dont see the big deal here with people having to take responsibility for their actions, but alas, that seems un-american for many
 
Wow.. so you can now be sued in Indiana for "defamation of character" if you call someone a noob online while playing Halo/any pvp game ever? :eek:
 
satsunada said:
Wow.. so you can now be sued in Indiana for "defamation of character" if you call someone a noob online while playing Halo/any pvp game ever? :eek:
Click to expand...

Nice logical leap there man. :p

Libel is and has been illegal everywhere for a long time now. Whoever is suing these anonymous posters for it will still have to prove in court that the person committed libel. The only thing this ruling says, is that newspapers can't extend shield protection to people who post in its public comments section.
 
Trolling a newspaper forum isn't really what I'd call protected journalism. It would have been pretty lame to see those protections used to protect idiot trolls.
 
Oldie said:
Nice logical leap there man. :p

Libel is and has been illegal everywhere for a long time now. Whoever is suing these anonymous posters for it will still have to prove in court that the person committed libel. The only thing this ruling says, is that newspapers can't extend shield protection to people who post in its public comments section.
Click to expand...

True. However public online anonymous comments are what makes the internet function. A good number of them are hostile on any given day.

Either way, something to think about. Oh.. and Indiana Law says calling someone "being unfit to conduct one's business" is libel. So "noob" might fit that :p
 
Again, libel laws have not changed in any way shape or form with this ruling. If calling someone a smacktard on a forum before the ruling, it wouldn't be any more illegal now. If you want anonymity on the internet, or anywhere else, you're going to need to take steps to ensure it yourself.

Libel is not simply calling someone else a name, or posting a negative opinion of someone else. It's a very carefully defined legal term.
 
If there is a troll problem, then close down the comments for awhile. The internet is about the last place you can actually say what you feel without getting in trouble anymore, and sometimes news stories bring out more emotions than other things especially when they're close to home. Just one more person trying to setup policing of the internet.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Could we cease equating our knowledge of the law (yes, many things on the internet are currently illegal) with justice, and have a debate about whether libel/slander laws *should* apply to non-commercial speech on the internet?

It seems to me that we've gotten by just fine without them, by virtue of the justice system being unable to understand the internet, for two decades.
 
A good rule of life is not to say things that would get your ass beat if you said it to their face.
 
Squalish said:
Could we cease equating our knowledge of the law (yes, many things on the internet are currently illegal) with justice, and have a debate about whether libel/slander laws *should* apply to non-commercial speech on the internet?

It seems to me that we've gotten by just fine without them, by virtue of the justice system being unable to understand the internet, for two decades.
Click to expand...

Actually I think a case could be made that these laws are more important on the internet then in many other forums since if nothing else that a few anonymous trolls can have a much greater impact on a person or business then they could offline.
 
Oldie said:
Again, libel laws have not changed in any way shape or form with this ruling. If calling someone a smacktard on a forum before the ruling, it wouldn't be any more illegal now. If you want anonymity on the internet, or anywhere else, you're going to need to take steps to ensure it yourself.

Libel is not simply calling someone else a name, or posting a negative opinion of someone else. It's a very carefully defined legal term.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Oldie its more complicated than that. Sure the libel laws themselves should protect opinion (anonymous or not) but just like we see with the DMCA being used to stifle innovation in the console modding arena and the RIAA using IP addresses to shake down settlements from "some" innocent people. The threat of lawsuit and the associated costs of defending yourself can be used to stifle opinion. :(
 
Oldie said:
Libel is not simply calling someone else a name, or posting a negative opinion of someone else. It's a very carefully defined legal term.
Click to expand...

I'd have to challenge your concept of 'very carefully defined legal term'. I remember the case WAYY back when about a petstore owner suing folks over unfavorable reviews in a mailing list. The guy shouldn't have had a leg to stand on if simply posting a negative opinion wasn't considered libel.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/10/03/1239211/Google-sued-as-PetsWarehouse-Lawsuit-Continues
 
What exactly did the people about to be named via their IP addys say? I live in Indiana so this concerns me.
 
Eisenblut said:
A good rule of life is not to say things that would get your ass beat if you said it to their face.
Click to expand...

If you let me call you some awful names, in return, I will PM you my home address :p

Yea, it's true, people can be pretty rude. I think quite a few internet trolls act that way in real life too. I come across some pretty big asses almost on a daily basis.
 
kattana said:
personally i dont see the big deal here with people having to take responsibility for their actions, but alas, that seems un-american for many
Click to expand...

Says the poster who doesn't use his real name.
 
wfalcon said:
I'd have to challenge your concept of 'very carefully defined legal term'. I remember the case WAYY back when about a petstore owner suing folks over unfavorable reviews in a mailing list. The guy shouldn't have had a leg to stand on if simply posting a negative opinion wasn't considered libel.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/10/03/1239211/Google-sued-as-PetsWarehouse-Lawsuit-Continues
Click to expand...

Having people settle out of fear is hardly the same as having a judge rule against you.
 
This seems akin to seeing someone littering on the ground, you asking them to pick it up and stop being a lazy slob. Only to have them ask you to tell them your name, address and other private information so they can sue you.
 
"This is not an assault on the shield law," Betz said. "In fact, it is well within the bounds of the traditional terms of the shield law. I don't think the media should be interested . . . in protecting the identities of cyberbullies. I don't think these people are advancing any cause of democracy or purposeful free speech.
Click to expand...

That right there is the scariest paragraph I've ever seen...

So now we get to pick what is and isn't purposeful free speech? The best retort to such activity usually comes from the forum itself. Apparently they need a better moderator.
 
jwalk6 said:
That right there is the scariest paragraph I've ever seen...

So now we get to pick what is and isn't purposeful free speech? The best retort to such activity usually comes from the forum itself. Apparently they need a better moderator.
Click to expand...

The courts have always made rulings on what should be considered legitimate free speech and what should be considered non-protected speech. That said, this case has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. It only has to do with whether or not the owner of a website that allows public posting can be compelled to reveal, if they have any, identifying information of the individual who posted the content in question. Once they are sued, THEN a judge will make a determination as to whether or not the statements meet the legal definition of libel. Even if the judge decides it is, it's a civil claim only, it's not as if anyone will be facing jail time over it, and if they used some kind of publicly accessible internet connection, or maybe even if they have multiple individuals in the household, there's no way to tell who to sue in the first place.

The bottom line is that if you want to be "anonymous" on the internet, you're going to have to take steps to ensure it on your own. Posting from your home connection is the same as mailing a threatening letter to someone and putting your return address on it. If your threats are illegal...you're a moron for allowing yourself to be identified.
 
Darth Millennial said:
Unfortunately Oldie its more complicated than that. Sure the libel laws themselves should protect opinion (anonymous or not) but just like we see with the DMCA being used to stifle innovation in the console modding arena and the RIAA using IP addresses to shake down settlements from "some" innocent people. The threat of lawsuit and the associated costs of defending yourself can be used to stifle opinion. :(
Click to expand...

+1

Anonymity needs to be protected, especially in our over litigious society.
 
Acoustique said:
So if you dont blindly praise things your a troll?
Click to expand...

laisez faire conversation. Fun.

Unless of course, you link their failings to something in the "public discourse" like gay rights, wars, budget crisis, etc. So I can't call someone a "loser" or "noob" but I can say "You suck because gay people might get rights" or "You lost because the budget was out of whack" or slightly alter things like "Die in a fire caused by global warming" etc. :p

At least that's what I've gleamed from the Westboro case anyway.

Then again, that'll help these guys in their defense. It looks like it was a topic of public discourse for that area. Won't stop them from being sued though.. which sucks.
 
Eisenblut said:
A good rule of life is not to say things that would get your ass beat if you said it to their face.
Click to expand...

Too bad most people are chicken and love to talk crap in the safety of their home thinking they are all tuff and crap.
 
BladeVenom said:
+1

Anonymity needs to be protected, especially in our over litigious society.
Click to expand...

I agree, so protect your anonymity. Don't expect some random website owner to put his butt on the line with some gigantic legal machine just to preserve your "right" to anonymity, just because you decided to post something retarded on the internet. Why should he/she spend the thousands of dollars required when they could just hand over your info, which they have every right to do?

Also, where on earth do you get the idea that you have a "right" to anonymity? Could you please point out for me where it says you have that in the constitution?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Even if there were a right to anonymity, the US Constitution only applies to the relationship between the citizen and the government, not between two citizens. As a private individual, I am 100% incapable of violating your civil liberties.

I think it's great that the news organizations were attempting to defend against the order to hand over their customers information, and that may bode well for them in the public opinion, but they were certainly not legally obligated to fight it at all. It was "their" information, not yours.
 
I dunno but I thought anonymity was protected under the 4th amendment. If they have a warrant, sure.. but I know I can't just demand someone's name and social security number by walking down the street. If you are collecting information on me without my consent, is that not stalking?

Meh.. I'm just positing the other side of the argument.. and i'm kinda curious. :p
 
What was searched for and what was seized? And again, that protects you from government search and seizure, not from another individual. At this point, it's not illegal to record the IP of visitors to your website, so no wrong was done on the part of the newspapers.

In fact you're not even explicitly guaranteed a right to privacy in the Constitution, it's more of a grouping of supreme court decisions based on interpretations of the Constitution, most heavily the 9th amendment.

All of that aside, when you go to a website from an internet account registered to your name that only you use, it's nearly the same thing as walking up and saying "Hi, my name is ______". It's information you volunteered, even if you didn't know you were doing so. Assuming any of the connections in this case are used by multiple individuals, the plaintiff will first have to prove that it was the individual they're accusing who actually made the post. At least that's my understanding, I'm not a lawyer.

I mean, I'm not really aware of how this guy was allegedly defamed, but imagine there's a news article about you, and some yahoo on there starts a rumor that catches on saying you're a pedofile...and suddenly with zero proof, all kinds of people assume you're some kind of monster and you lose your job/friendly relationships/etc...people throw bricks at your house and demand you move away from their neighborhood.... Wouldn't you like to know the identity of the guy who accused you, so you can get some compensation out of him? I seriously doubt this was a simple name calling, I'm betting this guys reputation was somehow damaged by false information. Speech is a powerful thing, and if we use it in an irresponsible manner, way may end up paying some consequences.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top