Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

AOL Loses Privacy Appeal 22

Posted by timothy from the vee-vant-to-see-your-records dept.
robkill writes "The Virgina Supreme Court ruled against AOL in its appeal, on First Amendment grounds, to throw out a subpeona by Nam Tai Electronics seeking the identity of an anonymous AOL user who posted 'false and defamatory' messages on a message board. Details can be found in the News.com article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL Loses Privacy Appeal More

AOL Loses Privacy Appeal

Comments Filter:

  • Obviously IANAL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2002 @01:11PM (#4600228) Homepage
    The article doesn't mention exactly where, other than in a newsgroup, the subject was saying derrogatory things about Nam Tai, but when ARE you allowed to bash a company? Slashdot is, effectively, a newsgroup...we bash MS all the time here, along with tens of other companies. When does free speech cross that (hazy, at best) line into libel?

    This sounds pretty preposterous to me...free speech ought to be free, if a company's product and good name can't stand up to people criticizing it, they probably shouldn't be in business. Having said that, I'm going to go back into my utopian cave now...

    --trb

    • Re:Obviously IANAL (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 )
      The problem here is that people, for the most part, trust other people. Given the absence of first-hand information, we're likely to believe what other people tell us. How many times have you related as true something that you only heard indirectly from someone else? And how many times have you later turned out to be wrong?

      Libel is a realization that when you get enough people together in a public forum, they will all reinforce the negative aspects of something. Slashdot is a pretty great example of this. It starts with a post that vaguely paints MS in a negative light. A bunch of people jump on the bandwagon about how terrible MS is. To further their cases, they produce a bunch of misleading, confusing, or simply false examples as "proof." Other readers see 50 people saying the same thing and are strongly inclined to believe it. The next time a vaguely anti-MS post comes up, those other readers themselves start posting the misleading information as truth.

      Libel laws are a good thing, at least in principle, because they make sure that people in positions of authority (like the press) make at least an extremely basic information to back up their claims. The /. readership is, by and large, pretty smart, and if we get duped into believe horseshit just because a lot of people are saying it, what do you think would happen if reporters did the same thing all the time?

      (Obviously, "libel" still happens, but think how bad it would be if you couldn't sue people over it.)

      • what do you think would happen if reporters did the same thing all the time?

        Reporters DO do the same thing all the time. When was the last time you read the biased press?
        • There's a substantial difference between unavoidable bias and wild accusations. You're free to believe that everything the press writes is utter horseshit, but unless you care to provide a reason for feeling that way, I'm inclined to believe you're the one who's full of shit.

          Or do you really think you could be utterly unbiased and absolutely objective as a reporter?

  • I wonder what the comments were that caused Nam Tai to sue AOL for the identity of their user. Unless anyone gave away information that was confidential to the company and that could affect their stock prices or proprietary designs i don't see why they could be sued for speaking freely on the net. i remember slashdot running a story some time ago about microsoft doing something like this...i can't remember if they got away with it though. does anyone have any more information or a legal opinion on wheather or not this is actually legal for companies to do.
    • I too would be interested in seeing the coments made, but it seems to me that Nam Tai was within its rights. We have a freedom of speech, but we have a duty to make sure what we say/wright is accurate. I think anyone here would be angry if some person, annonymous or otherwise, posted untrue comments about them. If I posted a comment on /. or in a local newspaper that Company X is defrauding stock holders I need to have evidence to back that statement up or else they may sue me for liable as is the case here.

      I don't blame AOL for fighting the case though. I am not an AOL customer, but it does make me feel better that they are not handing out the names of annonymous posters to every company who asks, just because the comments are unfriendly to them.

      • as we're reminded all the way through college by our profs. right before a paper is due ... don't believe anything and everything you find on the internet, just because it's there. in the same way, if you post comments about a company defrauding its customers without posting your background information on the claim, those reading it should know better than to believe you. that's always been the case -- yes, we're hurt when someone lies. but when they don't provide much info, shouldn't we also be responsible for looking into the issue? the main reason we can at all sue people for outrageous claims is that if done correctly, you can convince people and get a mob going in no time. witch hunts? burning at the stake? passionate messages may overrule any insight people have into your lies. but really ... is that not the listener's fault?

    • Libel laws (Score:3, Informative)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
      Nam Tai is within their legal rights to go after the person if (IANAL and this is not reading from a book, but it's somewhat close to the right requirements):

      a) Factually incorrect information is knowingly or negliently posted by the person (public figures like politicians need to be shown to have knowingly done something, whereas your ordinary person or journalist only needs to be neglient).

      b) That information causes material damages to the victim.

      I do not think it is necessary for the person to intend to cause material damages to the victim.

      • Close, but backwards. The person making the claim can be a public figure or a private individual -- the law is the same regardless. The person or company who the claim is about, however, has less rights if that person or company is in the public eye.

        Libel also does not require proof of damages, at least in the U.S. You're probably thinking of slander.

        If I'm remembering my communications law class, for libel, you must show that:

        1. The statement is false.

        2. The person/company suing must show that the person making the claim was negligent, i.e. that a reasonable person taking reasonable care should have been able to determine that the statement was false, and that the person failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid making a false statement.

        3. If the person/company maligned was a public figure, a person running for office, or any company or group in the public eye, they must further show that the person making the claim knew the statement was false at the time the statement was made.

        4. The statement must be a statement of fact, not an opinion.

        You will note that #2 makes it very difficult for a company to win a libel suit against an individual unless that person works or worked for the company. Since most companies answer "no comment" to any inquiries about touchy subjects, no amount of external research could uncover that most statements about them are false.

    • Unless anyone gave away information that was confidential to the company and that could affect their stock prices or proprietary designs i don't see why they could be sued for speaking freely on the net.

      Because the First Amendment has seven exceptions, and libel/slander is one of them. Just as you can't invoke free speech to urge someone to a criminal act (the Rosenberg exception) or to cause a panic (fire in a crowded theatre), you can't invoke the first amendment to distribute unfounded and damaging information about a person or another entity.

  • I am so confused. (Score:3, Funny)

    by fava ( 513118 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2002 @01:43PM (#4600411)
    Am I supposed to like AOL now? I thought they are one of the bad guys, but now they are behaving like a good guy. Next thing you know Microsoft will do the right thing and my whole secure little world will be compleatly upside down.

    I nead a drink.
    • -Metalic drummer voice-

      AOL Gooud!
      Microsoft Baaad!
    • AoL is still evil but they don't have to be on the wrong side of EVERY issue.

      Way back Universitys were effectivly saying students couldn't use Linux.. Oh they could if they had a second computer.
      This was wrong it cut off educational opratunitys.
      Much more recently the same happened to Windows NT based systems leaving Unix like systems as the only servers studens could use.
      Just as wrong for Windows as it is for Linux. Students need the chance to study the technology they want to use profesionally.

      AoL is the bad guy but they won't be on the wrong side of every issue and we won't be on the right side everytime eather.

      IAALZ- I am A Linux Zellot.

  • Dunno if this is related (Score:4, Informative)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2002 @01:57PM (#4600470) Journal
    After looking around for more background info on this, I came across this [usatoday.com] year-old article about a similar case. To quote the article:

    "
    Using seven different aliases, Titzer posted 246 messages on Yahoo Internet message boards ... Nam Tai argued that at least three of Titzer's messages were false, defamatory and unlawful."


    Even in that case, where (if?) the person was making a deliberate attempt to undermine the company using false information, I still see no reason why Yahoo, AOL, or any other middle-man company should be at all obligated to get involved. It reminds me of Napster - They only went after them so hard because it was the only target they had. I suppose some people just have to do something to justify themselves.

    Now as much as I despise AOL, I hope they don't give in so easily. Privacy is an all-or-none type of issue. "We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass no matter how self-seeking." -FG Withington

    =Smidge=
    • Even in that case, where (if?) the person was making a deliberate attempt to undermine the company using false information, I still see no reason why Yahoo, AOL, or any other middle-man company should be at all obligated to get involved.

      Because they are the only people who have the information. If someone commits a crime and then hides in my house, I cannot say that they aren't there, just because I don't want to be involved. they are not asking AOL to get involved directly, but to reveal information about the people who may have committed libel. If someone has broken the law (or whatever subsection of the justice system libel falls under, probably torts), you are responsible to not hide information requested by the court about them.
    • Even in that case, where (if?) the person was making a deliberate attempt to undermine the company using false information, I still see no reason why Yahoo, AOL, or any other middle-man company should be at all obligated to get involved.

      I used to work at Kinko's, which sends out faxes for people as a service. One time the cops showed up and asked for some information about someone who had sent a fax from the store. The sending of the fax was somehow criminal in nature (I believe it was an attempt to defraud someone). We were obligated to give it to them.

      AOL has the obligation to turn over the information in the event that someone uses their service to commit illegal acts. Libel is a well-established and well-tested aspect of law, so if the company actually has a libel case (see above for the two-part criteria for libel), they probably will have to give over the information.

      The similar case with Verizon being supoenaed for information about a user that was serving MP3s is somewhat different. Violations of copyright law with regard to digital media are not anywhere near as well-tested. The company bringing suit can't even prove that anything illegal happened... it is possible (however unlikely) that all of the people who downloaded the songs actually had a legal right to (because they owned the CD). Verizon's role as a service provider is similarly not well-defined.

      The other option, in the case of libel, is to hold AOL directly responsible. That's what would happen if a newspaper printed libelous information. But given that they don't have any feasible way to screen what their users post on the internet, that's not a practical task.
  • When I think about it, with the scale of the internet and stuff, what can they do about it. And Freedom of speech is a major thing. If AOL dont want to get bashed, they should make a decent service. Every day the internet seems to have more and more facist rules. Or attempts at them.

  • Libal as I understand implys damage as a result of something someone said.
    If a drunken bum runs around claming I'm homeless I can't exactly sue.
    If a newspaper makes the same clame I can.
    The usenet is akin to the drunk bum. Sorry some random annonomous jerk posted slander amid such trust worthly reports as the FBI blackmailed me and Aliens eat strawbery icecream.

    I can't believe anyone would acually believe anything on usenet now a days and so few people even read it anymore I'm douptful that if EVERYONE on usenet belived it that it would make more of an impact than gossup amoung some old ladys at a bingo parrlor.

    BTW
    IAMAL
    Didn't read a book, consult an aterny, or even watch a tv movie with a totally fictional version of the law.
    So I'm quite likely full of it but I'm full of it with conviction...
    Umm that sounds scarry...
  • The good news: this doesn't mean all online anonymity everywhere just disappeared. The Va Supreme Court's opinion [valawyersweekly.com] is based on the following idea, which it quotes from an earlier case:
    "The tort complained of here is an intentional wrong to the property rights of another, accomplished by words...employed in pursuance of a scheme designed wrongfully to enrich the speaker at the expense of the victim. The law provides a remedy in such cases, and the constitutional guarantees of free speech afford no more protection to the speaker than they do to any other tortfeasor who employs words to commit a criminal or a civil wrong."

    The bad news: plaintiffs could easily be "creative" in claiming that an anonymous poster has done them felonious harm, and should therefore lose anonymity.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close