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."
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Interesting)
from her website, she's generally anti-freedom
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
opposes freedom to use marijuana
and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060
What a bitch
What was the "deeply disturbing" comment? (Score:4, Interesting)
From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID. Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over. A perfectly valid question. It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general. Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.
But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Amsterdam since 6 years, and I can tell you: marijuana smells pretty badly. So, I don't care about the substance, but regulating acceptable "smell levels" would not be a bad thing :-)
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:2, Interesting)
One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system."
A fifteen year-old child is not part of The System, so this is clearly harassment. There are different standards for public discourse against celebrities/politicians and private citizens/minors, as there should be.
And in no circumstance does "Freedom of Speech" equate to "Freedom of Anonymous Speech." Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the proliferance of User IDs in lieu of real names. The day is coming when the US Government will subpoena the logs and UID databases of Slashdot, and at that time Slashdot's owners will fold in like an origami swan.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:4, Interesting)
GP said:
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
Note the quotes around "vicious"? That's because breeds are not inherently vicious, individuals are. Banning certain breeds is neither necessary to eliminate all dangerous dogs (because within any dog breed, there will be well-behaved, friendly dogs), nor is it sufficient (because within any dog breed, there will be mistreated, dangerous dogs). If you speak to a knowledgeable dog owner or breeder, they will tell you that upbringing and environment matters far more than genetics in determining whether a dog will be dangerous/vicious. If you ban certain breeds, you'll be needlessly banning many friendly dogs, and you won't be addressing dangerous dogs of other breeds. If you want to legislate your freedom against dangerous dogs, use a sensible definition of "dangerous", rather than an arbitrary one such as "dogs of the following breeds: ..." If a dog attacks someone without reasonable provocation (as determined by a criminal court), have the dog euthanized, fine the owner, even jail the owner if it can be shown that the owner was responsible due to deliberate actions or gross negligence. In severe cases where an owner is a repeat offender, maybe even prohibit that person from ever owning or being responsible for a dog again. But ban a breed just because the misinformed public believes they are more likely to be vicious? No.
Just to pre-empt some of the expected rebuttals, yes certain dog breeds are responsible for a greater share of dog attacks than others, even after controlling for the number of such dogs in a given area. But banning those breeds won't solve the problem, or even alleviate it in a meaningful way for more than a year or two (time enough for people to acquire another puppy and then train/abuse it into becoming dangerous). Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. The reason those dogs are involved in more attacks is -- get this -- because people think they are more vicious! If you were the sort of person who wants to have a vicious guard dog (which you won't train properly, or might even abuse in order to encourage viciousness), you're going to want a dog that will be perceived by others as big, strong, and dangerous, because that makes a more effective guard dog. It doesn't matter if the dog has any tendency towards viciousness or not, if the dog is anything less than perfectly trusting of strangers, you can make the dog vicious. And then that breed will have more than its fair share of vicious dogs, not because the breed trends that way inherently, but because people who want a vicious dog trend towards buying those breeds! If you ban that breed, it won't stop them from getting a dog and making it dangerous, they'll just do it with a different breed with appropriate characteristics (physically strong, reasonably or highly intelligent, having a strong pack/family sense, and a tendency to be protective of their pack/family -- all positive characteristics in a properly-trained dog). Of course, if enough people pick the same breeds based on those characteristics, then those breeds will gain a reputation for being vicious and get added to the list of banned breeds, rinse, repeat.
Comments leading up to *the big one* (Score:1, Interesting)
Daily Herald comments from 6 April [dailyherald.com]:
And another:
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. There are so much things wrong here...
The Internet already protects you from being stabbed during a heated debate, and now we are supposed to protect you from being called names?
Also the Internet operates under the idea that all peers are that, peers. That means either everybody is an adult or everybody is a child. Considering that the Internet can take you faster than a car to places further than a passport can, it should be safe to assume every peer is an adult.
Also, its easier and makes more sense for parents to be responsible for their children net access than to expect *everyone else* to make sure they are not talking to a kid.
Also, is being gay something so horrible that entertaining the notion that you might be gay is a serious crime?
Also, if the politician "mom" wants to use the legal system to sue for damages, she can sue "john doe" the only reason to get the commenter's name is to act outside of the legal system, why should we allow it?