Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Privacy United States News Politics

NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech 406

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the let's-out-people-in-witsec-next dept.
Ponca City, We Love You writes "A New Jersey blogger is fighting for his right to blog anonymously and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked a Superior Court judge in New Jersey to preserve the blogger's free speech rights as he faces legal threats from local government officials. On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township's purchase of polluted land in 2005. The decision to file suit was met by a lively debate in the regional press and among local bloggers. One blogger who was particularly critical of the Township was datruthsquad. Attorneys for the Township issued a subpoena to Google demanding that the identity of this anonymous critic be turned over, along with datruthsquad's contact information, blog drafts, e-mails, and 'any and all information related to the blog.' Despite repeated requests from EFF to explain how this could be anything other than an attempt to out a vocal critic, attorneys for the Township have refused to withdraw the subpoena and informed EFF that it can go to court to object to the subpoena. In a motion to quash the subpoena, EFF has asked the court to block the township [PDF] in its attempt to uncover the identity of 'daTruthSquad' and allow the blogger to continue to write about this or any other issue without being forced to identity him or herself."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:21PM (#21563729)
    But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.
  • Post Anonymously (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:28PM (#21563787)
    I submit that we should all Post Anonymously to this thread in support.
  • by CodeShark (17400) <ellsworthpc@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:29PM (#21563797) Homepage
    To the extent that "all government is local", this is a very important case, because while Uncle Sam may be great big and far away, if you are in a small city or town and are critical and can be outed via a simple subpoena, then what's to stop the local city or town government from instructing the local chief of police to make sure you get more than your fair share of traffic tickets, building inspectors from condemning your home, power co. operators from playing with the juice, in short any or all other governmental or quasi-governmental person who stands to benefit from a critic being silenced from engaging in a pattern of harassment, deception, etc.?


    That said, with both the EFF and Google being against the subpoena, I don't really think that this stands a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving the legal challenges. And if the Superior Court judge gets it wrong, I would still see this going all the way to SCOTUS for resolution before the blogger would be outed.

  • by Beavertank (1178717) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:30PM (#21563801)
    Ok, but before you get to dig through all of my personal information and destroy my anonymity you have to prove libel occurred.

    Were the things I said injurious to the character and reputation of a person/organization? Were the things I said untrue?

    If the answer to either of those is no you can take your accountability and go straight to hell.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:33PM (#21563849) Journal
    They should realize they are some small city government in New Jersey. They seem to think they are China. Only to China, Google and Yahoo will dutifully genuflect and bend over. Not to New Jersey.
  • by PrescriptionWarning (932687) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:33PM (#21563851)
    You are being just as bad as the apathetic by taking on a cut and run mentality. I'm sure the founders of this country would hate you even more for being aware of the problems and not trying to get them solved. It's one thing to be ignorant of issues and quite another to know the issues and turn away.
  • by PrescriptionWarning (932687) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:40PM (#21563907)

    Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
  • Par for the course (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:41PM (#21563915) Journal

    Welcome to the Garden State. Never let it be said local officials were ever too happy about having their judgment questioned. When it comes to mayors, school boards, and township committees, N.J. is a hotbed for corruption, and whenever someone calls someone else out, there's always some under-handed move by local government to quash the opposition. The sad part is, despite his campaign promises, out illustrious governor hasn't done a damned thing about political corruption on any level in New Jersey.

    I frankly don't think this subpoena has a chance in hell of surviving, but I do feel it's going to have to go pretty far up the chain before it gets choked off. NJ just has the kind of effect.

  • by rueger (210566) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:42PM (#21563923) Homepage
    "Freedom of Speech" has never meant "Freedom for Responsibility." The right to speak your mind does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your statements.

    It is important that anyone speaking out, or even breaking the law, understand that there are possible consequences, and assess whether on the balance they still wish to move ahead. Obviously datruthsquad has a rather sketchy understanding of the law, and is now being threatened for his actions.

    Rather than trying to find some cloak of invisibility he should be preparing his defence with his lawyer.

    Assuming that he can actually defend his statements.
  • by tjstork (137384) <todd...bandrowsky@@@gmail...com> on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:44PM (#21563943) Homepage Journal
    maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"

    You read the B of R the wrong way. The government can't go after you because the Constitution doesn't give it the power to search digital works. The BoR only is examples of your rights, not a sole enumeration of them.
  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:44PM (#21563947)

    What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.

    Here's a free clue.

    The Constitution is not about listing the "Freedoms" a citizen has.

    The People have ALL the Freedoms. Inherently.

    The Constitution defines under what conditions the government can infringe upon those Freedoms.

    You have it 180 degrees BACKWARDS.
  • by scubamage (727538) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:46PM (#21563969)
    First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
  • by fotbr (855184) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:46PM (#21563973) Journal
    You could start blogging about it and pretending it'll make one damn bit of difference.

    Sure, it won't REALLY accomplish anything, but maybe you and a couple hundred other like-minded bloggers can all get online and whine about it and convince yourselves it matters.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:47PM (#21563983)

    That said, with both the EFF and Google being against the subpoena, I don't really think that this stands a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving the legal challenges.

    The scary part about this is that two NGOs are the advocates for privacy and citizen rights in this case. It's very, very sad when we trust a private corporation more than we trust our local goverment.

    Neuromancer, we'll see you soon.

  • by scubamage (727538) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:48PM (#21564003)
    "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is gravely important that you do it." - Ghandi
  • by tompaulco (629533) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:51PM (#21564037) Homepage Journal
    If I wanted to do something about decreases in freedom of speech, I wouldn't even know where to start.
    Start by sending a letter to your local congresscritters. If they don't care about your privacy, then vote someone in who does. If there is no one to vote in that cares about your privacy, then get involved in politics. It's not as hard as it sounds. Unless you are in a really large city, there are probably empty board seats on the city council in which you could probably run unopposed.
  • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:54PM (#21564069)

    Hey. Fuck you. You're the prime example of the idiotic reasoning that causes this problem in the first place!

    Here's a newsflash: the Constitution does not enumerate all freedoms. It merely reiterates a select few of them!

    Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!

  • by Rakishi (759894) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:55PM (#21564083)

    Hmm, an uneducated answer. See, its hard to get citizenship elsewhere when you're massively in debt.
    Or when you have utterly no marketable skills and would be a drain on the economy of any country you moved to.

    However, there are very few uneducated jobs available in the US thanks to Clinton's push to have them eliminated.
    There are plenty of uneducated jobs available, at low salaries of course unless you have connections. Oh wait do you mean well paying, non-physical, safe and comfortable uneducated jobs? Yeah, blame Clinton not your own laziness or anything like that.

    This leaves people no choice but to go to college, which for most people means tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
    A trivial amount, if you're capable of working hard and living well within your means you can easily pay it back within a year or two of graduation.
  • by module0000 (882745) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:05PM (#21564205)
    IANAL.
    Do you have to be present in the courtroom yourself, or can your attorney represent you without your actual presence being required in this type of suit?
    Would a judge not see through their attempt to forcibly his/her anonymity by getting him to show up in court?
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:16PM (#21564345) Homepage Journal

    A trivial amount, if you're capable of working hard and living well within your means you can easily pay it back within a year or two of graduation.
    1) Did you go to college in the U.S.? and 2) Did you pay for your college education out of your own pocket?

    If the answer to either is "no," then I'd say you probably don't really know what you're saying. $30-50K is about average for a college education from a 4-year accredited private institution these days. A bit less if you go to a public school Unless you're willing/able to live with mom and dad for the first few years following your graduation, paying back that loan is a real bitch, especially when the economy ends up in the crapper following 9/11 and there are no jobs available with sufficient pay to both live on and pay back your loan. Then, when you end up not paying, the loan goes into to default, and you can forget about getting a mortgage on a house, getting a car loan, or anything else that 'normal' people do to make themselves financially stable that involves having good credit. Finally, the collection agencies catch up with you and make all kinds of nasty threats and try to force you into repayment programs you can't afford, so you have a nervous breakdown from all the stress.

    Not that I'm bitter or anything.

  • by davetd02 (212006) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:19PM (#21564387)
    I can't stand living here anymore.

    This is hardly the first time in US history that local officials have bullied their way into a legal mess, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The difference is that the Internet makes it much easier for the EFF and other advocacy groups to publicize local abuses that in other eras would go completely unnoticed. The good news is that the court will resolve the dispute between EFF and the government according to our laws and constitution; we have a system of checks so that courts can stop overzealous government from infringing on individual rights. The court is working exactly as it is supposed to -- both sides are presenting their arguments and explaining why their actions are or are not legal.

    If you don't remember, the free press in this country has always been in tension with the demands of government. It's a constant back-and-forth that over time has led to a reasonably stable balance of protecting individual rights. The examples go very far back: In 1798 (yes, "seventeen-hundred and ninety-eight") the Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] made it illegal to criticize the government, on pain of criminal prosecution. Lincoln arrested three newspaper editors for publishing stories he didn't like [wikipedia.org] (two for publishing the story and one because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time) and suspended publication of the same papers for two days. The Sedition Act of 1918 [wikipedia.org] made it criminal to criticize the government during World War I (repealed 1921). The list goes on and on.

    National coverage of these issues is good, and the legal system is functioning as it should. One side is demanding more than the legal system can support and the EFF is properly standing up in a fair proceeding to stop it. The right answer isn't to leave the country, but to recognize that this is part of a long back-and-forth over rights that is an important part of American history. Have a sense of proportionality and your urge to flee will lessen. It's important that EFF fight the good fight here, but the fact that we're hearing about the story is a good sign -- it means the press is still doing its job. Anyway, you can do far more good here than in the vast frozen tundra of the far north.
  • It's very, very sad when we trust a private corporation more than we trust our local goverment.

    You got that exactly backwards... it's very, very sad when people put trust in government -- ever. I'll take a private corporation that I can either do or don't do business with, over a government entity any day. You don't have any choice with the government.

  • by EngMedic (604629) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:25PM (#21564457) Homepage
    Marbury v. Madison

    [The constitution] organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

    The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
  • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:29PM (#21564505)
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    --

    Ever day that passes I think more and more of these words. Over 200 years old and they're dead on. These guys knew what they were talking about. I'm also waiting on the day that "we" reach critical mass. Right now if I were to attempt this. I'd be a terrorist. Right now if I were to get 100 friends. We'd be terrorists. What happens when I get 1000 friends in every city. 10,000 friends. 100,000 friends?

    --

    Second. Politicians AND citizens seem to have forgotten who is boss. I don't work to serve a politician, a politician lives to serve me. If my boss walks into my office and says "You worthless piece of shit. You're useless. Get out and don't come back." I can't sue him. (Assuming he didn't come on to me, blah blah). I don't have a contract with my company. If at an annual performance review I'm told that I suck. I have to take it. I can't sue him because he doesn't think I'm doing my job right or he's critical of my job. I WORK FOR HIM.

    "People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"

    Or more to the point:

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
  • by Rakishi (759894) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:32PM (#21564535)

    1) Did you go to college in the U.S.? and 2) Did you pay for your college education out of your own pocket?
    Yup and mostly, financial aid paid most of it and a scholarship covered many odd expenses. I think in the end if not for the scholarship I'd have paid $30k or so for the whole thing. I worked summers, of course, to pay for some it.

    If the answer to either is "no," then I'd say you probably don't really know what you're saying. $30-50K is about average for a college education from a 4-year accredited private institution these days.
    Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation. Also I'm quite lazy, if I needed to I could have easily doubled that amount at the cost of my free time. See I went for a degree, statistics, that won't be outsource in 2 years and which not half my university is going for. I also got a masters because it's sort of silly to not make that extra investment in my field given the returns.

    A bit less if you go to a public school Unless you're willing/able to live with mom and dad for the first few years following your graduation, paying back that loan is a real bitch, especially when the economy ends up in the crapper following 9/11 and there are no jobs available with sufficient pay to both live on and pay back your loan.
    9/11? Are you confusing the recession caused by the bubble bursting with 9/11?

    Also what sort of degree did you get, are you one of the idiots who didn't think or plan ahead and just went for whatever crap they "felt" would make them money? Have you tried moving to get a job? Have you worked your ass (ie: if you have free time you're not trying hard enough) off to make money?

    Then, when you end up not paying, the loan goes into to default, and you can forget about getting a mortgage on a house, getting a car loan, or anything else that 'normal' people do to make themselves financially stable that involves having good credit.
    Why would you need to do any of those things, do you have absolutely no financial planning ability at all? Pay for the car in cash, a cheap used car of course. You don't need a house, rent till you've paid off your debts. You're young (assuming you went to college after high school) and such frivolous wastes of money are unnecessary.
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:40PM (#21564647) Journal
    As said above, there is no explicit right to anonymity, but I think there's a definitely a case for one, and one should be implicit.

    The original post bitched that all of our rights were being stripped away. Personally, and maybe I'm wrong here, I never knew we had a right to anonymity. I looked it up, but couldn't find it in the Constitution (as I said). If we do have the right to anonymity, then I need to go rip my name off my mail box and my license plate off my car! If the fourth amendment means that I can post speech in a public forum anonymously, then my name should not be in the county records as the owner of my address (take that property tax man!!). My marriage license should read "the bearer of this document is married to the other bearer of this document...". I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am!

    Assuming that anonymity is a right opens a big-ass can of worms that our system is not ready for. Everything from our jobs and homes and bank accounts to our credit scores and criminal records are tied to our identities. If we have a right to anonymity, then all of this goes away. How can I claim that I am the person who owns my home or that I am the parent of my child after someone sues the government to remove all names from public records? Having an identity is the complete opposite of anonymity. Identity is used to guarantee rights and protect property.
  • by vertinox (846076) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:49PM (#21564769)
    But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.

    The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous.

    Throughout western history the ability to publish works anonymous has brought about great social changes during great repression by central authority. Eramus [wikipedia.org] was often thought to have written works criticizing the Pope for his militant ways during a time when such texts would result in torture and/or burning at the stake.

    Many of the Founding Fathers wrote works with pseudonyms in order to escape persecution from British authorities. In Eastern Europe during Soviet Occupation, anonymous pamphlets, shortwave radio broadcasts, and later fax machines were the only way to speak out against the repression.

    Libel and slander are a bad thing, but they are small price to pay for having anonymity that lets you speak the truth when things are really that bad but you fear for your life or your family.
  • by darkmeridian (119044) <.william.chuang. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:54PM (#21564833) Homepage
    Can we stop using the phrase "cut-and-run"? It's empty political rhetoric coopted by those who associate realism with cowardice.
  • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:58PM (#21564889)

    Indeed...I don't think it should be considered a tort if Lewis Black calls George Bush an asshole.

    According to the Supreme Court decision in Falwell v. Flynt, that wouldn't be susceptible to libel because no one would interpret that literally to mean that George Bush is actually a sphincter. However, if you say that George Bush has embezzled a billion dollars, that would be libel if it's not true.

    That's not to weigh in on this case, but there's some delineation between obvious insults and actual slander.

  • by Grandiloquence (1180099) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:59PM (#21564917)
    Specifically, they would have said:

    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @05:16PM (#21565133)

    Most of you are a bunch of mindless sheeple.
    This word always, without exception, applies to anyone who uses it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @05:28PM (#21565263)
    I wonder if this http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html/ [epic.org] Supreme Court case relates.

    "Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation."

    I'll post anonymously in keeping with the spirit of things.
  • by Kingrames (858416) on Monday December 03, 2007 @05:34PM (#21565333)
    In other words, it's okay to say anything as long as you approve of it.

    Bullshit.
    The first and fifth amendments to the United states constitution both apply here.
    1. I can say whatever the fuck I want, without worrying about the consequences of doing so, because, damnit, it's absolutely necessary to preserve my other rights.

    5. My words cannot be used against me in any court of law. If you intend to convict me of a crime, you need goddamn evidence. Testimony of any kind is UNRELIABLE no matter what. To ask someone to testify against themselves KNOWING:
    a) they were not sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god when they were bragging to their friends about the fish they caught or the derring-do's they've done or the women they've slept with.
    b) I have a constitutional right to lie when I am out and about and having fun.
    c) I may be wrong.
    d) My attorney has advised me to admit to a crime I did not commit and hope for a plea bargain because 100% of all of the people of my skin tone and background and neighborhood who are charged with a crime are convicted.
    e) You cannot even guarantee with 100% certainty that I am telling the truth if you have me in a large, claustrophobia-inducing machine that SCANS MY BRAIN.

    Does it shock you to find out that nearly every single person convicted based on a confession while their attorney was present may in fact be innocent? It's true (and proven) in over 45% of the cases.

    The problem is simple:
    There is no way for this person to prove their innocence, and they are being judged by the people who will render a verdict based on the crime dramas they watch.
    They are motivated to confess because their life would be better off behind bars and they would not be such a huge financial burden to their families.

    As soon as a person's own testimony of any kind is used against them, their rights have been violated, for no other reason than that "somebody has to pay."

    You really need to stop assuming that these people are guilty, nothing good comes from that.

    So no. you should not be held accountable for what you say. Every single fucking word that comes out of your mouth is free. And it should stay that way. It should never be used as evidence in any way, shape or form, ever.
  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday December 03, 2007 @06:00PM (#21565591)
    It would seem to me that to the extent that the township has any right to this information (the township claims to believe that the blogger is the defendant, in which case it is possible that there are comments on the blog that will have bearing on the defendant's testimony), there are two possible reasonable answers. First, and preferable, Google is compelled to answer whether the blogger is indeed the defendant. If the answer is no, end of story. Second, and only acceptable if there is reason to believe that Google does not definitively know who the blogger really is, have Google present the information it has about the identity of the blogger to a neutral third party (the judge in the case, an appellate judge, a federal judge, other options could be suggested). Again if the third party concludes that the blogger is not the defendant, end of story.
    However, I suspect that EFF is correct, and the township is trying to find out who the blogger is in order to penalize the blogger at some later date.
  • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Monday December 03, 2007 @06:16PM (#21565755)
    On the internet most anonymous stuff is considered noise unless it has very good references. How much credit would you put on a picture of a public official with marker colored mustaches on it in a public bathroom? That level of public pamphleteering is so over used to be pointless... much of the internet is the same way.

    Look at Paula Jones of GrokLaw. She? is relatively anonymous so why should we credit her? But we do credit her because she produces official certified documents that are available publicly, if you know where to look. We can independently verify her claims, and then her opinion has value even if we don't know who she is. This is the same as Ben Franklin's early writings in secret, under a pen name as well as several others at the time of the American Revolution.

    My opinion is that an anonymous site like this is either childish noise, or it's accurate. If public officials are after it for "noise" they could simply request it to be removed and show Google facts that support their position. The need to "out" this poster means somebody is hitting the mark, and being taken seriously.. In that respect they should answer the requests to the satisfaction of the public and this guy will go back to being noise. If the person does have real dirt, then they would be a protected whistleblower.

    Given the situation, where a public body bought "poisoned" land, and it appears the lawyer did not do due diligence, there is a good deal of criticism in order as Federal and State laws don't protect the local government from responsibility.. they could be sued for millions tomorrow by the EPA even though they just bought the land! It's been 20 years of these environmental laws and a lawyer not presenting this evidence is either extremely negligent or in on the deal with somebody that owns the property perhaps on the council... there's not a lot of middle ground for "simple error" here.
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Monday December 03, 2007 @07:41PM (#21566429) Homepage Journal
    Criticism is fine. But there is a problem when an honest political candidate is attacked by people working for a dishonest one. Discrediting that person with exaggeration or out right lies. I think Barack Obama is feeling the effects of these dirty politics.

    I'm fine with laws if they apply equally to everyone. While at the same time I do feel that it is my right to criticize public figures without fear of retribution. But the tricky bit is when someone like me is critical of a public figure, it comes off as one man's opinion. While when an elaborate plot to discredit a rival's reputation can appear to the layman as factual evidence. Such is the case where the news media is used to do certain presidential candidates dirty work.
  • by ContractualObligatio (850987) on Monday December 03, 2007 @07:52PM (#21566505)
    "The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous."

    If this premise is true, then the rest of the argument follows. Can you provide evidence that this is the case? Citing examples of outright oppression does not provide any support to your assumption, as there was an absolutely no intent to separate truth from fiction in those cases.

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal

Working...