Canadian Judge Orders Disclosure of Anonymous Posters 250
debrain writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that Google and a newspaper called The Coast must disclose all information they have about the identity of individuals who posted anonymous comments online about top firefighters in Halifax. The story in question is titled 'Black firefighters file human rights complaint,' and there are some heated opinions in the comments."
Ann O'Nymous... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Who in their right mind ... (Score:2, Flamebait)
The best way to post comments in any heated debate is semi-anonymously, using a disposable e-mail address and a public Internet connection (or better yet, TOR). This is fairly effective at discouraging this sort of ridiculousness.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, use a disposable email address from a company without a legal presence in the country you're posting in. Preferably some country at odds with them.
A Canadian judge will not likely be able to compel a Libian ISP to disclose your identity. :)
Such Informed Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
What's hard to understand? If you write or broadcast something libelous or slanderous you risk a lawsuit.
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If you don't want to be identified the onus is on you to hide yourself, not on whoever runs a web site.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you rueger for your insightful comment. I look forward to many more of your anonymous comments in the future. However, in this instance perhaps you would like to take your irony pill before posting.
Thank you
Re: (Score:2)
The Globe and Mail has done nothing but slide downhill for the last year and slowly becoming a Toronto Star Lite. So don't be surprised that the comments reflect that. As well, you can write slander/libel in Canada generally but not all the time. But then again our free speech laws aren't really very free either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If society forms opinions of individuals based on pseudonymous commentary by people named "Poopybear4556" then society has a serious problem. I'd argue that anonymous (or pseudonymous) speech is far less damaging than identifiable speech, precisely because we don't know who's saying it and whether they are credible or not.
If I called you in the middle of the night, identified myself as DorkFace08, and told you your momm
Hard when it's truly anonymous. (Score:2)
If a website doesn't record IPs of posters, and doesn't keep logs of who posts anonymously, it'd be rather hard to be able to comply with this. Hopefully they can do a "best that we can" response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but all website access IP's are logged somewhere. Either on the server, the router, or the ISP.
Huh? Why would an ISP log website visits? That's an awful lot of data you are talking about and even if they were inclined to collect it they'd probably run afoul of wiretapping and/or privacy laws in most western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, there are no laws preventing a server or service owner from keeping records of other people using their equipment. Now, giving that info up to authorities without a warrant might be bad, but keeping the info sure is not.
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking 4 octets per visit here
Actually it would be a bit more than that. For the data to be meaningful you would also need to log the time (1x4 bytes), the port numbers (2x2 bytes), URL (variable size, let's call it 100 bytes of text to account for sites that pass variables in the URL), etc.
Secondly, there are no laws preventing a server or service owner from keeping records of other people using their equipment.
New York State Penal Law, Section 250.05, Eavesdropping:
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Most sites track IPs for analysis, advertising, or troll-banning reasons. If I were writing a blog, forum, or discussion tool that was intended to have anonymous posts, I would never store the IP [except for the above reasons]. In light of anonymous things needing to be turned over to the police, I'd simply not collect it as part of my published privacy policy and data retention policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada vs US (Score:4, Informative)
As Dean Steacy, chief investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission said: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
http://volokh.com/files/warmantranscript.pdf [volokh.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well said!
And he can say that because he's the chief investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
What freedom of speech we have here in America is paid for dearly. Canada pretty much retained the British definitions and conditions. They've made their bed.
Isn't the very idea of free speech that... (Score:2, Insightful)
...you don't have to be anonymous to say what you want since the government won't come after you no matter what. Individuals might hate you, though, but that shouldn't stop you now should it?
It's only when you don't have free speech that you need to be anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada pretty much retained the British definitions and conditions. They've made their bed.
Well, where do you suppose all the British Loyalists went after we kicked them and the Redcoats out of our country? Of course Canada hasn't caught up completely to the mother country. AFAIK they have less cameras than people, can still own firearms and haven't lost their right to remain silent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a fair amount of Canada that traces its hearitage not to England, but France. And not just the Quebecois. The Maritimes are infested with some interesting nationalities also.
And then there's the indigenous populations, who are regularly ignored there as well as here, on both coasts and up North.
Re: (Score:2)
As an American, I can say it too because I have that right.
I'd just be wrong ;)
Re:Canada vs US (Score:4, Insightful)
There are lots of other provisions and protections in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also have hate crime laws. Its different than the US, its not perfect...but to paint canada with a broad brush of 'you're fascists' is ridiculous. Our country's founders had the motto of 'peace, order, and good government.'. Slightly different motivations than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- although most of the time they correlate.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -- Noam Chomsky (I hate the guy's views on most things, but he's dead-on here)
Crappy Summary and Links (Score:4, Insightful)
The linked article is pretty bad and the original story had the comments in question removed. I did a little Googling and the upshot is, it looks like some people made allegedly libelous comments, so the people they defamed are suing and the identities were ordered to be revealed by a judge. So, I don't really see how this is any different than a normal libel case in the US. Freedom of speech has never been an unlimited right. It ends when it infringes upon other individual rights and libel and slander laws are pretty common examples of this.
This is the most comprehensive article [metronews.ca] I found on the topic, but even it does not list any examples of the allegedly libelous comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it doesn't list examples. In Canada, you can be sued for republishing defamatory comments.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so how will they undo the equally real damage caused if these people sue for libel and the posters sucessfully defend their comments? Have a possibly valid claim against someone shouldn't entitle you to broad use of judicial process to harm them.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so how will they undo the equally real damage caused if these people sue for libel and the posters sucessfully defend their comments?
Why by filing a counter-suit, of course. Did you miss the last 50 years of legal wrangling somehow?
"Anonymous" on the internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Posting anonymously on the internet is much like yelling something from the middle of a crowd. Most of the time no one cares who yells it. Even if they do, chances are they may not be able to track down the person who did the yelling. But if you're going to go out and shout things, you should be prepared for consequences (like the guy next to you decking you), even if there's a sign at the perimeter of the crowd saying "All shouting is anonymous."
If someone cares enough to track you down for posting something stupid online, and you've made it POSSIBLE to track you down (instead of using a disposable e-mail and an internet connection that doesn't link back to your name), then maybe you deserve to pay some price for your comments. Especially if there's no legal protection behind the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
The real crime here... (Score:5, Funny)
Erlyer this month to kids stabe a nother kid all because he would not give up his cell phone while waiting for a bus on Alderny. One of the young teens was arrested and now his mother and brother are crying fowl
Holy jumping Jesus! I know it's Canada, but seriously folks...!
Re: (Score:2)
Forget anonymity. (Score:2)
It's strange to me how people will say "free speech is incredibly important" and then say "you should not be accountable for your words". If words are important (and I believe they are) why shouldn't you be accountable for them? If you shouldn't be, why hold anyone accountable for anything? You can utterly destroy someone by spreading rumors about them.
Words are much more powerful than guns or bombs or weapons of mass destruction (that's why free speech is so important). But free speech is not cowardly s
It turns out ... (Score:3, Funny)
Can we add the tag "goodluckwiththat" (Score:2)
Its not that this thing happened in Canada or whatever that gets me. I get their law is different. My thought is asking GOOGLE to hand over identifying information about users who posted on a website not controlled by Google. Um, hello?
Maybe there is something in the article, but I am too lazy to pull it up, and instead am going to blast unannonimously for all the world to hear.
Comments were racial discrimination in nature? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm deeply saddened to read of this incident involving the firefighter. Based on my experiences and observations some 15 years ago from living in the area, there is a deep history of racial tensions and racial segregation among 'whites' and 'blacks' in the area as a whole. Africville, which is now know as Preston/North Preston, generally seen as a community of repressed 'blacks' dating back to the 1900s. Wikipedia has a summary, but if I correctly recall there is a museum in the Halifax area dedicated to explaining the history of the segregation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africville,_Nova_Scotia [wikipedia.org]
In addition, I lived in the Coal Harbour area of Halifx/Dartmouth and left some 15 years ago. I was witness to the first (of now several) riots that broke out at Cole Harbour High School. The first riot was certainly racially motivated, and the later ones from CBC accounts were as well.
Here are some links:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/25/coleharbour-violence.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/26/coleharbour-suspensions.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/03/25/coleharbour-violence.html [www.cbc.ca]
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you get THOSE people and hold THEM to account, you self-righteous prig!
Because he's a Canadian judge, and those people are American? It's one thing to not read the summary, but it's the FIRST WORD of the title. Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
Or maybe I'm just getting in the way of your self-righteous tirade, where facts are irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
No, not yet. But we're patient. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. Some of us are ready to steamroll that border on a moments notice!
(I kid... but you left the door open and I had to walk through)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Silly Americans ....
The first time you tried to steamroll the border we burned your little White House down.
The last time you seriously threatened to steamroll the border we sent you Celine Dion .....as you can tell the lessons on invading Canada only get harsher :D
Re: (Score:2)
Silly Americans ....
The first time you tried to steamroll the border we burned your little White House down.
Psh. That because you were still under the King's thumb, it was his navy that came in and sacked DC. Although now days, there's really no need to invade America Jr. USAF already patrols the non-joining borders around Canada, and with all the work programs/trade between the two countries the only thing actually separating us would be the respective governments.
Pithy, but incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Canadian militia units served only either in Canada itself or attached to British units in the Michigan territories. And, while those militias performed admirably (the Battle of Queenston Heights, for example), they certainly didn't burn down the White House.
It should also be noted that the burning of the capitol was not exactly an auspicious occasion for the British. A tornado killed thirty of them (the only casualties of the event), they bled much-needed men and ships from other active campaigns (which they lost), and all they accomplished was eradicating anti-war sentiment in the US (which still ran high). And, adding insult to injury, the building still stands; something that cannot be said for the Parliament building in Ontario whose destruction the British were trying to avenge in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
No, you are actually the 57th state. Didn't you listen to our President when he was running for office? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No Canada is the made up of 13 states. Duh!
(My apologies to my Canadian girlfriend)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the great joys of a system that attempts to minimize prior restraint is that you *can* go up and slug someone for insulting you. There may be consequences afterwards, depending on the situation, but nobody is stopping you from the old fashioned honor approach to handling things.
This is good, as there shouldn't need to be courts involved until after you have personally deemed it a big enough issue to get yourself fully involved. If some coward could run hide behind a judge every time he was unhappy,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada, legal precedent shows that slugging someone, even if "they deserve it" is worth about $20k. (That's about $20k US.)
I am not a lawyer, but I do have one on retainer.
Re: (Score:2)
But we could always sue for emotional damages! It's verbal abuse!
Re: (Score:2)
From what part of Europe?
Things seem to vary quite a bit. In Spain a judge ruled that calling your boss "son of a bitch" isn't a good enough reason for firing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or "Is Mr. X a moron?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about you, but I think it is a bit suspicious that Mr. X has never publicly denied being a moron.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I think it is a bit suspicious that Mr. X has never publicly denied being a moron.
Nonsense. He's not nearly as much of a moron as he used to be. At least, that's what his illegitimate love child says in tonight's exclusive interview.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, in here in the US you can't sue someone for racist or sexist statements. That's why the KKK, Neo Nazis, etc., are still able to function in plain sight. If someone were to cause physical harm, then that's a hate crime and subject to law enforcement, but holding rallies and spewing racist comments is completely legal. That's the thing that surprised my wife the most, I think.
Then again, maybe I'm a moron who doesn't understand Free Speech laws as well as I should. 8^P
Re: (Score:2)
They're also generally more polite (except French), and less materialistic (except Brits and Italians). At least, that's my observation, and may be considered insulting to Americans, or even a nationality-based form of racism. 8^P
And before anyone mods me down, please realize that I'm trying to be satirical, and don't actually mean what I just said. 8^P
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
If you had read the summary, you'd have noticed we're talking about a Canadian judge. Canadian law about hate speech is very different from the US.
Your references to Cheney and such do not apply, you self-righteous pig.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For those that didn't get it - references specific to American human rights violators were used metaphorically, being examples I am most familiar with. As this particular judge's attitude is something that shows up frequently in those who dispense so-called justice all around the world, feel free to substitute whichever local corporate and political dirtbags you feel appropriate. Also - since the actions of the people I listed affected the global community as a whole, perhaps the question of jurisdiction
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure his "cover" is more than adequate for any objective viewer. Canadian identity hypersensitivity simply makes you unable to believe it.
Some principles are universal. The fact that the United States has notable examples in recent history of both implementation and denial of those principles provides convenient reference material. I'm sure anyone sufficiently motivated by "Canada or die!" can come up with comparable domestic references.
Oh, yeah, Welcome to the U.S. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian law about hate speech is very different from the US.
Out of curiosity, why should speech cease to be free just because it's hateful? Isn't it more logical to draw the line at threats?:
"I hate niggers." <-- free speech
"I hate niggers, let's go kill one." <-- not free speech
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically how it works in Canada, though the threats have to be more than just some internet randomness.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
That's not basically how it works in Canada. Read about Sec. 13 of the Human Rights Act, which reads:
" 13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking."
If you look at the convictions under this section, what is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" is understood broadly.
I don't know the details of the Halifax case reported here (don't really care right now to read them), but I would bet that Sec. 13 is being invoked as they are talking about postings on internet boards.
Re: (Score:2)
Reply (Score:4, Funny)
Hello Frank,
Thank you for your comments, I should point out that as a Canadian Judge I cannot hold those people accountable. I should expect you to receive your extradition notice shortly however.
- Robertson
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What "actions" have these posters done? Expressed an opinion? Given the racial nature of the story, I imagine those comments were quite disgusting and racist. I do not support them. But similarly, the notion that every instance of anonymous speech must be ferreted out, and the 'perpetrators' held to 'account' is just wrong.
I think the rest of your comment makes you sound like a bit of a nut, but within that frenzied rant you hit a moment of actual coherant fluid thought. Not that I don't agree with the whole statement you are making, just drifting off from the issue at hand really.
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this;
If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any
Re: (Score:2)
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this; If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any punishable law under the guise of anonymity on the internet. This is of course impracticle, so throw that idea out of the window.
Actually, I believe that's exactly what he intends: that a person on the internet has no right to privacy if they are believed to have committed a crime.
That said, I know in the US the courts are not required to prosecute every potential crime, so it would hardly be impractical. Just take the cases as they come.
It's a "Norwich Order", and it's exraordinary (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't know who to sue yet, you can apply for a court order to discover the name of the person to be served.
To get it you have to convince the court you have a case, and require the information, at which time the court may chose to issue an order to a third party (eg, a newspaper) to identify the person.
It's far more common to be told to file the suit against "John Doe", after which the court will conclude you're serious and order the person's name disclosed.
See Halsbury's Laws of Canada under "Norwich Orders" or google for the recent "York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises" case
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
What "actions" have these posters done? Expressed an opinion? Given the racial nature of the story, I imagine those comments were quite disgusting and racist. I do not support them. But similarly, the notion that every instance of anonymous speech must be ferreted out, and the 'perpetrators' held to 'account' is just wrong.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
(there, summed it up for you)
Re: (Score:2)
stupid quote. Use "Free speech, if it is anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear".
That actually explains why we have to allow people to say things that we don't like, rather than being merely a statement of the value which Voltair placed on free speech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are two issues here: the nature of what was said and how it was said. With regards to the first issue, hate speech is not legal in Canada. Americans seem shocked by this, but you are accountable for hateful things that you say in Canada. In my mind, limits to free speech are important when that speech crosses the line into hatefulness. I see no reason why people shouldn't be held to account for damages that they willfully cause through verbal abuse.
The second issue (the one that is less well establish
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unrealistic to think you can allow all speech.
In the US you can't engage in obscene speech acts, you can't say something likely to lead to "imminent lawless action," nor can you engage in libel or slander.
The Canadians may have drawn a different line than us, but there are genuine social interests that outweigh certain types of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
But as long as we are 'holding people to account', let's go all the way. Grab the CEOs of MPAA and RIAA and talk to them about the erosion of the public domain. Talk to Cheney about torture and the warcrimes tribunal. Let's get Albright, Kissinger, Bzhezinsky and talk about imperialism. And don't forget the fine folks from Arthur Anderson and Enron. The list goes on. Why don't you get THOSE people and hold THEM to account, you self-righteous prig!
C'mon dude, you had a really great post until this last paragraph. I think you made the point about free and anonymous speech quite well without this rant....
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
A) Canada has a thing called "Hate Crimes" where if you spread ideas that condone or incite hate against a particular people or race you can get into trouble. Regardless if you believe in the the law or not, it is currently in effect, thus the Judge is well within his rights to court order the name of those individuals. I didn't read the comments on the website, but I can imagine what they are like.
B) The Coast is a newspaper that exists in Halifax, Canada. Very much under the jurisdiction of Canada. Google also does business in Canada, thus also subject to the laws therein.
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions. The question is can they be tried. Considering Canada and the USA have a long standing extradition treaty, Canada would certainly be within its rights to demand that those US citizens be extradited to Canada for trial. The US of course would likely be within its rights to refuse, at which time they would likely be tried in absentia and convicted, and a outstanding warrent issued for their arrest should they ever enter Canada. Essentially banning them from ever entering the country. If they ever land in a plane in Canada, they would likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Considering what was probably said in the comments, it is questionable if the US would make this a treaty issue.
Lately due to the crazy lady from the USA (Ann Coulter) the validity of Canada's hate crimes laws have come under question. I think people should be clear, we do have free speech in Canada, it is just tempered (as it is in the USA as well people tend to forget, just not as much). So you can say and believe pretty much anything you damn please, however if what you say is deemed so reprehensible a Judge may be called in to determine if it meets the criteria set out in the hate crime laws. These criteria as I am aware of them are pretty steep, you really have to go out there to go across the line so to speak.
It is a slippery slope I will give you that, however I also believe that someone has to be accountable for their actions, and that includes what they say in public. You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
99% of the time comments like these would A) never make it to posted, or B) be removed by the website, however given that this is a news paper they may have felt obligated to share the posts as part of free speech. Which calls into question how much responsibility does the news paper have in this matter? It could be that they did not meet their obligations and that partial fault falls to them.
Wow this was a pretty long post for discussing comments I didn't even read!
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
That's a new defintion of 'can'. I suppose I 'can' stick a toasting fork in your head too - woohoo for freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I CAN also murder you. It is a possibility. However upon doing so I should be prepared for the repercussions. Such as jail time.
There is ALWAYS choice. You may not like it, which in this case is the whole point. It is a deterrent. Which I am pretty sure is the case with most laws.
Law are in place to moderate the actions of people to what is deemed "acceptable" behavior, as determined by judges, assigned by a chosen government who is elected. It is pretty simple: if saying certain things is not deemed "accep
Re: (Score:2)
I see it differently. Freedom of speech is the freedom from government intervention preventing you from expressing your opinion. It has nothing to do with other private citizens. Thus, it is freedom from legal consequences (in most cases, see harassment, fighting words, slander, etc), not from social or personal consequences.
Put another way, you are free to say offensive things, not free from people being offended by what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.
If what you say is accurate, I'm honesty more concerned that you can be tried in absentia in Canada than I am with this discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions.
Was the crime actually committed in Canada?
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone mention "every instance of anonymous speech"?
I think people should be able to say whatever they want anonymously. But I don't think there's any "right" to your identity not being discovered if you're spewing hatred. You can be as big an asshole as you want, but don't cry if your identity is disclosed, preferably by one of your peers or someone who knows how to resolve an IP address or email header.
There's a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh. RTFA much? Even the writeup?
Or even the title. Or even the FIRST WORD of the title.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, other than the loaded language and cheap ad-hominem, yes. Vitriol should be protected speech, within reasonable limits. The definition of "reasonable" is what's at the heart of the issue, and moves around a bit. Still, the operant principle is anonymity is protected unless you have DAMN good reason not to. "Good reason" rising to the level of criminal indictment for actual crimes, not political censorship (let alone ass-hurt of any group of people, no matter how prominent or influential).
I don't know
Re: (Score:2)
In the US we understand that the words of an anonymous coward are just words, and only have the power that you, the pussy, give to them. And as such, there can be no damage to reputation by the rantings of an anonymous coward on a message board.
Do you live in different US than I do?
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, probably because I was born and raised in America, I wouldn't give up the freedoms I have in exchange for more collective social infrastructure. But, others may make a different legitimate decision or conclude that one can have the best of all possible worlds.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more interestingly, many people in Canada fail to realise how great our privacy laws are, and how fortunate we are not to be living in the United States.
Personally, probably because I was born and raised in Canada, I wouldn't give up my right to privacy in exchange for the US idea of freedom, in which theory is very different from practise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The comments were posted under several names: "LessTalkMoreAction", "The truth", and "scandalous2010". The posts were removed by the paper.
Re:Judge needs education regardin teh intra-web-tu (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically if someone exercises their right to free speech and anonymously posts lies about you on the internet they are a TROLL. If someone exercises their right to free speach and anonymously posts an unfortunate truth about you on the internet you will just have to live with it. It's not something that anyone needs to sue over.
If I were to anonymously, repeatedly, and convincingly (perhaps I'm a REALLY GOOD TROLL) outright state that you are a rapist and the only reason you are not in jail is because of some technicality, what recourse do you have? If it is persistent enough that it makes it to the point where you have trouble getting job interviews and acquaintances are reluctant to invite you anywhere, haven't you been genuinely harmed (assuming that it isn't true)?
I agree with you that it's easy to overreact and suing for a handful of comments (I haven't read any of them) is overboard. But that doesn't mean legal action is never valid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically. . , when the Fox News talking heads are arrested and locked away for libel, then Americans can talk.
Or should only millionaires be allowed to Troll?
Basically, anonymous posting is necessary in the same kinds of ways as anonymous voting.
-FL
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate lies in print, even on web-pages is Libel.
libel /labl/ Show Spelled [lahy-buhl] Show IPA noun, verb,-beled, -beling or (especially British) -belled, -belling.
-noun
1.Law.
a.defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.the act or crime of publishing it.
c.a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly mis
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate lies in print, even on web-pages is Libel.
Well now, that's your opinion, isn't it? Everything else you wrote was dictionary-form accurate, but if web-pages and print were commonly agreed to be identical forms in a legal sense, then this story wouldn't have made it to Slashdot.
The reason stories of this nature are interesting is that their outcomes are currently up in the air and the rules (and fate) of the internet is still being decided.
I certainly hope that anonymity is maintained on the web, because the people who decide these things are corrup
Re: (Score:2)
Just because people are Ass Hats doesn't mean that outright lying and defamation of character isn't a crime. It is. I am quite aware of the fact that people troll, just to start arguement for the sake of arguement, but at some point, those who are being defamed, even by trolls, have a right to fight to keep lies from being printed about them. Since the posts were comments made about a on-line news site, and the news sites are printing their articles in a public written forum, any posters are also then co
Re: (Score:2)
If you troll hard enough that you commit slander or hate speech you are subject to the relevant laws. IP addresses are logged and can be subpoenaed. I'd have no problem with bringing trolls to account for polluting the forums.
Re: (Score:2)
If I post that your mother intimately cosorts with farm animals and it isn't true then I am a TROLL.
That's not trolling, that's slander (libel if it's written) unless it's true, and if it is you better have some proof. If I say your mother is ugly and you're a moron and your dad is a loser, THAT'S trolling. One is actionable, the other is not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't really off topic and should not be modded as such. Someone needs to mod it back up. If you will remember, when Spartacus and his rag tag slave army was defeated by the Roman army, the general demanded that Spartacus be turned over. Spartacus said, "I am Spartacus." whereupon everyone else also yelled the same thing. I think that is an appropriate allusion here. Who posted these anonymous emails? Get it yet? Surely this is not too deep for /.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely this is not too deep for /.
The slashdot pool is quite shallow in spots.