Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked To Mom 404
LegalReader writes "An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting."
The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:2, Insightful)
One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful. The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch. Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.
Re:Why do we care? (Score:2, Insightful)
Especially when it's such a substance-less [non-]story.
If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:3, Insightful)
i can't tell if you're being sarcastic; however, combining your post with the quotation leads me to believe that you might not understand what freedom means.
freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions, even if i don't agree with them. if someone can't handle that, perhaps they need to live in a tightly restricted community, or under a tyrant.
When will some people learn... (Score:3, Insightful)
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Though few people deserve anonymous abuse, everyone should be able to deal with some.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.
Who decides what is "bullying" or "harrassment?" One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system." Who decides this? You? Me? Well, me, of course.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
The law doesn't ensure that everyone gets what they "deserve". The law ensures that anyone can express their opinions about any matter, without needing to appeal to any type of authority to determine whether or not something is "okay to talk about" first.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously saying that the identity of anyone who calls someone names on the internet should be revealed by force of law?
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:1, Insightful)
One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity
The right to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is intrinsic and by implying that somehow it replaces a need for anonymity is a ridiculous straw-man argument. On the contrary we should ensure there is always a channel for anonymous communication since eventually, and inevitably, any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know, it could be your rights on the firing line.
Re:Feeling left out? (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps Britons are just not retarded enough for that kind of crap.
Thank you and goodnight.
Re:When will some people learn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Opening yourself to Man in the Middle spying or Over the Shoulder spying isn't a bulletproof plan to protect anonymity if you're a paranoid individual.
Just Playing Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.
Public health oncerns are generally overbroad, politically targetted, and regularly exaggerated.
I'd suggest it's up to the individual to decide whether second hand smoke from someone smoking pot should characterised as objectionable, welcome, or somewhere in between (as in "Dude, it's only 8:00 in the morning").
Re:Who said you'll be found out via the net? (Score:5, Insightful)
On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.
So lets say someone wants to make an anonymous statement.
Are you suggesting that 'they' are able to do this:
1. Know within a short period of time that Anonymous comment X was made by someone they wish to track down.
2. Subpoena the IP logs of the website where the comment was made (assuming that such logs are kept)
3. Receive the logs, determine which ISP the IP was assigned to
4. Subpoena the IP assignment table of the ISP and receive the cooperation of the ISP.
5. Assuming that the IP is correct, identify the location where the wifi router was.
6. Go to that location and take a guess as to which camera records to subpoena.
7. Subpoena the records of the cameras.
8. Hope that the cameras actually show something and that the data hasn't been overwritten. (Some only store 1 week of video)
9. Ask around and see if anyone saw any nefarious individuals using *gasp*, a laptop. (Who are you going to ask in a McDonalds? The people who are there now, or the people who have scattered to the winds 5 minutes after eating? The employees who are obviously savants and remember everything since they work at McDonalds and could easily identify someone using a laptop in their store 2-3 weeks ago)
10. Realize that the guy who posted the comment didn't even enter the store and simply typed up the statement/message in private and set it up to connect to the first open wifi location and didn't even have to take his laptop out of his bag.
11. ????
12. Profit.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
There are many things that are dangerous in this world. Cars, for instance, are numerous times more dangerous to me than any dog, and I speak as someone who has been attacked by a large and dangerous dog as a child. I would never call for a ban on either of those, but they do not necessarily invade the rights of others. Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.
Sorry, but you're profoundly ignorant of how the legal system works. She wants to know if he has any money, if it would be monetarily profitable to sue. Its an investment decision. If he/she is "judgement-proof" or "rich enough", she won't bother. If "mother" can ruin their life simply by filing suit, "mother" will. The justice system is all about money...
Guarantee step #2 after determining identity is deciding how to make the most money.
In a way, its a profoundly stupid tactic for the mother to follow, because either she'll discover theres no point in suing, or the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account. Or, if he/she gets blackmailed, there is now a legal trail showing mother did it. An effective way to win the battle and lose the war.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:4, Insightful)
the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account.
Arrrgh rephrased,
"the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that obviously the plaintiff was unhurt, and remained unhurt until she determined the size of the defendants bank account, at which time she felt like grubbing some money"
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
retitled "Court pitches first amendment" (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this is a politician stifling anonymous speech makes this decision even more egregious.
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... yeah dude, it does. Anonymity can be CRUCIAL to free speech -- there are certain things that we all wish to express and say about others and about the society around us that we cannot say in public. There is no freedom when a judge can read an Internet posting and immediately, like R. Lee Ermey at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, bellow "WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT?!" This can lead to all sorts of bullying and abuse by the powers that be and will in the long run have a powerful chilling effect on free speech.
Re:Just Playing Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.
So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.
The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know which country, state or municipality's "law" you are talking about, but if you are living in a city in the US, you are incorrect.
You may express your "opinions about any matter" but you cannot "say anything you want about anyone", especially not about someone who is not a public figure.
The "law" as you put it, actually protects us against libel and slander. Further, it protects us against speech that would incite violence against someone or puts someone in danger.
It's a shame that so many people in the US think that "free speech" means "I can say anything I want".
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:3, Insightful)
No no no. Your wrong. Anonymity is an important and vital component of free speech. This is due to the simple fat that expressing certain views and opinions, such as in politics may get you killed. The fact is, while the government can say it prosecutes such offenses, the fact is there is little to prevent these acts from happening and in many cases the attacker may remain untraceable. The government cant be everwhere to protect everyone. As well, a lack of anonymity would allow your employer to basically trace every single thing you have ever said. If they found you had liberal views and wanted to to regulate corporations they may not hire you. Here technically no law was broken but you are being punished by speech. As long as the option for anonymity does not exist, free speech does not existant on any topic of any real world importance.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me
I don't want you walking around with a dangerous tool of rape tucked in your trousers. You could rape me any time!
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit. She's fishing. What if it were to turn out that it's her son or daughter or father or mother was posting the messages? Would she still press charges? A crime is a crime is a crime. If charges are to be pressed, then press the charges and then address the revealing of an anonymous posting. But don't play the "outing game" just to determine if she should try to sue.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Score:4, Insightful)
Lewd? I see no lewd insinuations at all in the above quote. Read it carefully, and avoid projecting your own lewdness on to the sentence.
Yes, it can make a reference to sex. As it can to underage drinking, running away from mom, sedition, playing with legos, and a whole lot of other things. The poster only set up an entrapment for your lewd mind, and succeeded.
I think one has to be seriously oversexed or repressed to see a sexual reference where there is none.
Which, perhaps, tells us plenty about the situation here in the US today. Many people will actively look for "lewdness" under every rock, because that's where their repressed minds go.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel a lot of scum being abusive and rude to women, threatening to rape them as well.
I have two rottweilers. They are spoilt rotten sweet couch potatoes. If a thief broke into our house they would LICK him to death. They've been brought up with a lot of love and they don't have a clue what aggression is. But despite that they are OMG ROTTWEILERS TAKE THESE MURDERER DOGS AWAY FROM ME!
Maybe we should tackle the actual problem, not the overgeneralization?
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this.
It's a good thing he didn't say that. He talked about making a joke, which is reasonably covered under freedom of speech.
(And most probably, also very immature)
Oh, so you think it's okay for you to say whatever insults you like?
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that the judge should include an analysis of the anonymous poster's financial portfolio as well? I'm sure that would be a lot more helpful to this woman.
Re: Perhaps anonymity is over-rated (Score:2, Insightful)
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this. (And most probably, also very immature)
Yeah, I guess it would only mean that in a society that is actually free. You would have to be pretty immature to believe that about the USA.
Re:NOT anonymous! (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that finding out the identity involved getting the IP that the post was made from logged by the web site, then getting the ISP to identify whom was assigned that IP at that time. Since they bothered with the ISP step it would seem his identity was not known by the site.
Which likely could be done for an Anonymous Coward post on slashdot too.
Oh and the mother isn't the mother of the "anonymous" poster but of the guy he pissed off on the forum.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, she should sue first and *then* get the name of the poster. Then, if she decides that the person isn't worth suing (perhaps they're mentally ill or willing to settle amicably out of court), she can drop the civil lawsuit and it all goes away. It is only if criminal charges were filed that she wouldn't be able to back out of it.
Freedom of speech using your name is important, but freedom of speech using a pseudonym or being completely anonymous is important also. The First Amendment doesn't read "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech when the person uses their real name." It reads (in part): "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Anonymous speech is included in this.
Finally, this wasn't graffiti. Graffiti implies writing done somewhere where writing wasn't wanted. (On a store's wall, for example.) This was posted to a newspaper's comments section. In fact, the comments took place in an online conversation between "hipcheck16" and this woman's son. Hipcheck16 did seem to make some bad insinuations, but if the woman took that much offense to them, she should file a lawsuit first and *then* get his identity.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the reason why you need several special permits (driving license, vehicle inspection proof, insurance) to operate a car on a public road.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
But... and perhaps this started with 2 Live Crew, though that was so long ago, I scarcely remember... it seems to me that today's younger generations are twisting the Freedom of Speech to mean that they have the freedom to swear and insult. In the days of our Forefathers, if someone spoke out and said something, they were allowed to but there came a certain degree of accountability. If you spoke up back then, people knew you. Your words were immediately associated with you and you were held accountable. There was not even a glimmer of an idea that some teenager in the back corner of the family room with a little electronic box (electronic? What's that?) would be able to instantly, anonymously and baselessly insult and defame someone else without any sense of repercussions.
In 'Ye Olden Days' you could send anonymous letters to the local newspaper. However, it had to pass the editor. He would read the anonymous article and decide whether or not the words would be worth the cost of the ink. Today, while some sites have such checks, most are just 'Click and Post' commentary. And I personally think in an era where 14-yr-old children are walking through the mall with parent-provided Blackberries, accountability should be more important than ever. Sure, go ahead and speak your opinions. It's your right. But be ready for the repercussions.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if she's not decided to sue, she shouldn't have been allowed to get this far. Doesn't matter if she "sued" the other info out. If she's not sure if she's to pursue a case against the person who posted the commentary, all of this is merely discovery without a case associated with it. You either know you're going to sue and then change your mind later (allowed...called a dismissal...) or you don't know and don't have a case yet. If she's lacking a civil suit for the comments in question, she shouldn't be allowed a fishing expedition- which is what this is right at this point without one.
Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the internet. Around these parts, statements like that barely qualify as impertinent, let alone lewd.
People who feel otherwise, should leave.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, have to know if there's money to be made.
It doesn't, actually. Freedom of speech means that the Government can't imprison me for saying something they don't like (but they can send an assassin after me if they really dislike me, altought this is one of the areas where Russians are far ahead). Anyone else - employers, businessmen, Rober Murdoch - can use their power to harass me, or simply refuse to do business with me or anyone who will.
The only way to have freedom of speech is to hide your identity in such a way as to make it impossible for the powerful to target you. If you don't have the freedom to say something offensive, you don't have freedom to say anything - because everything is offensive to someone.
This is why I run a Tor and Freenet nodes. Might not be much, but it's the best I can do to help others be anonymous.
Exactly! Only the foulest [wikipedia.org] of [wikipedia.org] traitors [wikipedia.org] would wish to publish their foul offensive drivel [wikipedia.org] anonymously.
Re:Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretending the words don't mean what everyone reading them knows they mean is the wrong approach. Trying to convince people to say that they might mean something else by insulting those who jump directly to the meaning that was clearly intended when the words were written? Ancient rhetorical trick, not even an A for effort.
If it's 1960, and I'm with a group of guys in white hoods, and finding a black man I say "fetch a rope", I don't get to later claim "maybe I was just offering to help the poor guy with his knot-tying merit badge". Social context does, in fact, matter.
There are plenty of valid ways to qusetion the legal standing of the mother; if you would choose from among those to expect a judge or 12 jurors to think 'do you often invite men you know only from the internet to your house, or do they usually invite you over' to mean anything other than 'heh heh, you have gay sex with guys you meet online', you're fooling yourself.
It certainly wasn't graphic. It clearly wasn't intended as enticement of a minor. It may have crossed a legal line based on the protective attitude the law takes toward minors, sex, and the Internet. That's a different question than where exactly the line should be. Then again, those laws are criminal in nature and would not involve the mother looking at the identity and deciding whether to sue. Whether that line was crossed would be a matter for the prosecutor's office.
This is about defamation law.
Anyone who was a teenager in the 90's or later knows exactly what hipcheck16 was doing - taking a cheap shot in a flamewar. Winning a defamation suit over that would be nearly impossible. Regardless of procedural matters - should the suit have been brought first, etc. - the judge is wrong to take away the speaker's anonymity in connection with a possible defamation suit unless such a suit is likely to succeed, which it should not be.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with dog bans is that there's a correlation/causation problem when defining "vicious breeds."
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
If you say "I think we should kill him!" in response to "what should we do with this guy!" from an angry mob of people who accuse someone of some serious crime (whether guilty or not, you have no proof) and they do , in fact kill him, then you can't use "free speech" as a defence if there's a reasonable chance that you are putting someone in jeopardy.
Similarly if you shout "bomb!" in a crowded room and people get trampled to death trying to escape when you knew it was a hoax.
Libel and slander are specific cases of veracity of the facts, or spreading information you know to be true but that is damaging anyway.
Re:retitled "Court pitches first amendment" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure there is. It protects speech. Period. Whether anonymous or not. Given that many of the framers published under pseudonyms, I would assume they would understand that protecting all speech would include anonymous speech. And without anything in there specificallly denying the protections to speech that happens to be anonymous, it fully protects all anonymous speech as much as other speech.
But I took the comments you are responding to to be about political speech. Someone talked about a politician. A family memeber debated those points. The debate continued (with ad hominem attacks, but that's debate none the less). This is a debate about politics and nothing else, and the Supreme Court has held that such speech is the most protected there is.