Yale Students' Lawsuit Unmasks Anonymous Trolls

Azhar said:
and free speech doesn't exist on private internet forums.
Click to expand...

I see this a lot, but this is a misleading statement. We do in fact have the same free-speech protection on internet forums that the first amendment ensures. That is, we will not be charged by our goverment with a crime for what we say/type, just as we are protected in "real life".

Why people get confused and think that not having the right to post on any message board without being banned/having a post deleted/whatever means that the first amendment protections don't exist in a private place always confuses me.
 
While forum trolls are tacky to say the least, you open up a system where people are allowed to post in an anonymous fashion you should be open up to the idea some will do so with stuff you don't particularly like. Don't like the anonymous? Make people register with full names. I'm sorry to take the side of the trolls here but this is no damn different than the MPAA/RIAA demanding ISPs turn over records to every IP address they send their way.
 
ferzerp said:
I see this a lot, but this is a misleading statement. We do in fact have the same free-speech protection on internet forums that the first amendment ensures. That is, we will not be charged by our goverment with a crime for what we say/type, just as we are protected in "real life".

Why people get confused and think that not having the right to post on any message board without being banned/having a post deleted/whatever means that the first amendment protections don't exist in a private place always confuses me.
Click to expand...

Why don't we ask the forum owners.

Hey Steve, would you ban me if I threatened your life and said that I knew where you lived, and would you turn me into authorities if you deem my threats potentially real? (Lets assume you're not made of pure muscles and can probably squash me into a pulp before I can get 10 feet from you).
 
Azhar said:
Fuck liberty when it comes to safety. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I would much rather they expose people who makes threatening comments on a school forum than to watch my children get shot.
Click to expand...

This would be what I was referring to in my original post.

Azhar said:
It's called probable cause. If a network admin or security thinks the statement is a prequel to violence, they have every rights and a duty to make sure it isn't. Liberty has nothing to do with it, and free speech doesn't exist on private internet forums.
Click to expand...

Nice 180.

But you make a solid point about forums... The first amendment says that the government can't restrict your free speech, but internet forums aren't run by the government.
I have a feeling we're getting off topic; this discussion has nothing to do with free speech as the comments made about the young ladies fall way outside the borders of protected speech.
 
SexTreX said:
This would be what I was referring to in my original post.



Nice 180.

But you make a solid point about forums... The first amendment says that the government can't restrict your free speech, but internet forums aren't run by the government.
I have a feeling we're getting off topic; this discussion has nothing to do with free speech as the comments made about the young ladies fall way outside the borders of protected speech.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a 180. There's no absolute rule for everything. If a person or country is in grave danger, we have to set aside freedom to ensure the danger doesn't come to past. That's called martial law.

My reference to "fuck liberty" was towards someone else who said freedom of speech applies no matter what the trolls said, whether he was making threats or promises. It's like saying someone has the rights to yell fire in a crowded theater, thanks to liberty and the freedom of speech.

However when it comes to internet forums, liberty doesn't apply. You follow the rules of the forum or you face the consequence. There's no 180 to it.
 
ferzerp said:
I see this a lot, but this is a misleading statement. We do in fact have the same free-speech protection on internet forums that the first amendment ensures. That is, we will not be charged by our goverment with a crime for what we say/type, just as we are protected in "real life".

Why people get confused and think that not having the right to post on any message board without being banned/having a post deleted/whatever means that the first amendment protections don't exist in a private place always confuses me.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to go with Azhar here.

The Bill Of Rights said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

If you come to a forum and post something the owner doesn't like, he can delete your comment and/or give you the banhammer. Sure, he's actively censoring what you want to say, but he's not the government in any way shape or form.

However, if you post something that breaks the law, the admin has the responsibility to take it down or report you.

At least, that's my take.
 
Azhar said:
It wasn't a 180. There's no absolute rule for everything. If a person or country is in grave danger, we have to set aside freedom to ensure the danger doesn't come to past. That's called martial law..
Click to expand...

"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Ben Franklin

Granted this quote doesn't apply to online forums, however it does apply to your statement. Your comments seem to be similar to those that the Bush administration uses to bypass the constitution all in the name of "The War On Terror"

Ok sorry for getting a little political there.
 
sfsuphysics said:
"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Ben Franklin

Granted this quote doesn't apply to online forums, however it does apply to your statement. Your comments seem to be similar to those that the Bush administration uses to bypass the constitution all in the name of "The War On Terror"

Ok sorry for getting a little political there.
Click to expand...

Bush doesn't have a monopoly on martial law. Martial law has always existed in one form or another in just about every war the United States participated in. I'm sure that applies to all countries as well.
 
Azhar said:
...However when it comes to internet forums, liberty doesn't apply....
Click to expand...

Right, unless its a forum owned by the government (which I don't know any), in which case they are bound by the first amendment to protect your free speech (which, as mentioned several times before, is in no way absolute).

In any case, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page now Azhar. :D
 
Azhar said:
Bush doesn't have a monopoly on martial law. Martial law has always existed in one form or another in just about every war the United States participated in. I'm sure that applies to all countries as well.
Click to expand...

There's very little that scares me more than martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus that often goes with it. :eek:
 
Azhar said:
My reference to "fuck liberty" was towards someone else who said freedom of speech applies no matter what the trolls said, whether he was making threats or promises. It's like saying someone has the rights to yell fire in a crowded theater, thanks to liberty and the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

I was not saying that freedom of speech applied. I was saying that this sets a dangerous precedent that would allow those violations to happen more easily in the future.
 
bholstege said:
I was not saying that freedom of speech applied. I was saying that this sets a dangerous precedent that would allow those violations to happen more easily in the future.
Click to expand...

That's true, but that's why the judicial system and appeals court exist. Every law or precedent ever made can be reversed if you can provide a good argument for it.
 
You are all misunderstanding me.

The free speech amendment says the government won't restrict what you say.

On a private messageboard, the government won't restrict what you say, so it still applies.

Nowhere did I claim you will be allowed to post whatever you feel like on a messageboard. We're back to my whole point about no one caring for accuracy.

The 1st amendment means one thing. It still applies. People take it to mean another thing, and so claim it doesn't apply.

Similarly, I post what it really means, and say that it applying does not except you from being banned/whatever. People don't bother reading, and retort with, "but you can be banned! you are wrong!" Sorry, you didn't bother reading my post.
 
From the story:

"... costing them prestigious jobs, infecting their relationships with friends and family,... "

Spell Check, anyone?
 
Why would you need a spell check? infecting is spelled correctly and is arguably appropriately used as well.
 
Bullshit! If you are threatened, harrassed, or mocked publicly in any way by a troll, the troll should get nailed to the wall!

Trolls = cowards that don't have the balls to say something to peoples faces!

Die Trolls! DIE!!
 
ferzerp said:
You are all misunderstanding me.

The free speech amendment says the government won't restrict what you say.

On a private messageboard, the government won't restrict what you say, so it still applies.

Nowhere did I claim you will be allowed to post whatever you feel like on a messageboard. We're back to my whole point about no one caring for accuracy.

The 1st amendment means one thing. It still applies. People take it to mean another thing, and so claim it doesn't apply.

Similarly, I post what it really means, and say that it applying does not except you from being banned/whatever. People don't bother reading, and retort with, "but you can be banned! you are wrong!" Sorry, you didn't bother reading my post.
Click to expand...

You're right, my mistake. The first amendment does apply to any kind of speech (with obvious exceptions such as threats, obcenity, etc.) However, it is irrelavant in this arguement, seeing as
A) Our right to free speech doesn't apply to threats or defamitory remarks (see 'obvious exceptions' above), and
B) Government restricting free speech isn't the issue here anyways

Its quite a stretch to imagine our free speech being infringed by any precident set up due to this case.

JDAdams said:
Bwa ha ha! You will never guess my true name, nor my initials! Oh snap.
Click to expand...

i lol'd
 
Interesting comment by from someone in the link in that story:

This article is amazingly one sided. Although if you read through the court documents, you don't see much of the other side explicitly spelled out. The inference however is quite damning against the 2 women.

Anyone who has wandered the internet knows that you don't argue with trolls. Mainly because there is no winning the argument. This whole situation was purportedly "stumbled upon" by one of the 2 women. (read... she was googling her own name in an ego stroking moment) Finding it on a rather small message board she read through all of the postings and then started to reply and "defend" her honor against what was initially ONE person. Anyone familiar with the internet can shortly see how this played out. She started name calling back, then making threats. More trolls jumped to the argument agreeing with the initial poster. Jane Doe #1 couldn't do this alone so she brought in her best friend to the argument to help her (Jane Doe #2). Suddenly where the was once only one person to rail against, there was now two! Like sharks smelling blood it actually drew more curious onlookers as the post count grew and it kept sitting at the top of the forums. Then Doe #1 decided to start making threats against the moderators of the forums... the forum owner... etc etc. for what was being posted by other people on their forums. They complained constantly with take-down notices. Until the mods told them to shut up and quit messaging. (it should be noted that Doe #1+2 had initially tried to sue the forum owner in with all of the anon posters.. suit failed and was thrown out very quickly.)

Then Does started to attempt more legal action in the real world. The internets fought back and the whole mess leaked into the real world. Photos showed up online. Mail was sent to professors and employers. You get the picture. The internet is an amazing plethora of information that can be used for good or evil.

The suit began in full swing and insane motions were thrown back and forth. This article is correct... this may never be solved completely. But I just wanted to point out, the girls were not blameless in this as the article attempts to paint. The original poster was very obviously a former associate of Doe #1. (read - jilted Ex?) Doe probably knew exactly who this was... she just couldn't prove it.

This whole thing was children fighting in a sandbox. The sad part was that the 2 girls were in law school and yet had still not grown up. Sometime stoicism is the better part of valor. Had Doe never answered the original poster in the forums, this would not exist. He would have looked like every other fruit-nut on the internet yelling to the void about a faceless person who had once wronged him. When Doe answered his insults with her own, she gave that person a face. And as it turned out, it wasn't a pretty one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top