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."
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.
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.
Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"
This is the internet. Around these parts, statements like that barely qualify as impertinent, let alone lewd.
... 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.
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.
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.
Great post, IndustrialComplex. To expand on that, using a home made cantenna I can access someones WiFi from a block or more away. Using a LiveCD or just doing a low level format I can hide any trace of connecting to someones WiFi. I don't even need to leave my house. What are the police going to do, kick down every door looking for someone who made anonymous comments? Get real.
Even if they were for any reason to get access to my house and find a pringles can, some coaxial cable and a few BNC connectors, wh
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.
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.
is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.
Nobody deserves anonymous abuse unless it is a matter of serious public concern. Assuming that your statement is correct, if the kid is already a "mommas boy" then online bullying would only make things worse. And in your post you have clearly identified yourself as a supporter of online bullying of the less socially able ("deserved"). Consider what this says about you, because it isn't very nice.
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?
The question at hand is not whether or not anybody deserves the anonymous abuse, the question is whether or not the courts need to be involved in it. Since we are not privy to the details of this case, I cannot accurately determine whether or not the comments were illegal (libel/legitimately threatening), but if they are not the courts have NO business interfering. We do not have a right to not be made fun of, or made to feel uncomfortable. We do not have the right to not be criticized. These things are absolutely essential to our freedom of expression and our freedom of speech -- if we start telling the obnoxious assholes that they can't be obnoxious assholes it is only a matter of time before it is illegal to 'anonymously abuse' the president by questioning the new Patriot Act v. 2.0.
The law ensures that anyone can express their opinions about any matter
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".
"I'm determined that there will be protection on the Internet," particularly for children, said Stone, who was elected in April.
The man posted "deeply disturbing" comments to her son in the aftermath of a bruising election battle, Stone said, ...
At one point, the teen asked to know the poster's identity and challenged him to debate the issues in person.
Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"
So the deeply disturbing comments appear to be a teasing double-entendre. That Hipcheck16 may get sued over as the boy has a recently elected parent whom will get kudos for Thinking of the children.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday November 11, @05:31AM (#30058140)
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
Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. 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.
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:-)
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.
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?
I can't believe no one has effectively articulated the following yet...
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.
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").
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.
You can always drop a civil suit. Personally I don't think a judge should be ruling on this until a suit is brought, otherwise can I just get a judge to unmask the identity of anyone online who says something mean about me so I can figure out if it's worth suing them or not? If the suit has merit then a Judge should have no problem with it.
This is the "end" of a chain of lawsuits. The court has already ordered the newspaper to release the guy's IP address, and they did. The court has already ordered Comcast to release the identity of the guy who was using that IP address and they did.
So the court knows who the guy is and the guy is represented by a lawyer. She can go ahead and sue 'John Doe' based on the information the court already possesses if she really thinks she has a case. There is really no reason for the mother to know the guys identity other than to personally harrass him (presumably as this was a debate over a local election the guy lives in her district).
hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
"Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood."
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.
This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
No, she doesn't. You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.
No, there is an escape - you drop the case. It's not hard. You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.
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
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 Amend
It's a hockey term, actually. I imagine roller derby appropriated it because it's basically the same kind of hit. In hockey, though, you can get much better arc on your opponent if you catch them just right.
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.
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.
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Re:When will some people learn... (Score:5, Informative)
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will.
I could...
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (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.
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Great post, IndustrialComplex. To expand on that, using a home made cantenna I can access someones WiFi from a block or more away. Using a LiveCD or just doing a low level format I can hide any trace of connecting to someones WiFi. I don't even need to leave my house. What are the police going to do, kick down every door looking for someone who made anonymous comments? Get real.
Even if they were for any reason to get access to my house and find a pringles can, some coaxial cable and a few BNC connectors, wh
hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Reply to This
Just Playing Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
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!
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
TFA sucks (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred [citmedialaw.org]
is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.
p
Reply to This
If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though few people deserve anonymous abuse, everyone should be able to deal with some.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Asshole.
Reply to This
Parent
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?
Reply to This
Parent
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?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:4, Informative)
If you make prank phone calls (even blocking caller ID), the phone company can be made to hand over your phone number & details
I don't think this should be the norm (you can't normally get somebody phoning you named), but i don't see why the internet should be any different.
or to meme it up for you:
Libellous comment is libellous
Threatening comment is threatening
Harassing comment is harassing
Reply to This
Parent
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Funny)
The mother could get a dog, and curtains. Problem solved.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
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".
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is why I have a bongo and tom-tom sound track playing when I speak.
Think of the Children (Score:5, Informative)
So the deeply disturbing comments appear to be a teasing double-entendre. That Hipcheck16 may get sued over as the boy has a recently elected parent whom will get kudos for Thinking of the children.
My virgin ears (eyes?) I'm forever scarred.
Reply to This
Parent
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
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (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: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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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!
Reply to This
Parent
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?
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
The crust of most dog breads are a bit too ruff for me; I prefer beagles and cream cheese.
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Informative)
This is the "end" of a chain of lawsuits. The court has already ordered the newspaper to release the guy's IP address, and they did. The court has already ordered Comcast to release the identity of the guy who was using that IP address and they did.
So the court knows who the guy is and the guy is represented by a lawyer. She can go ahead and sue 'John Doe' based on the information the court already possesses if she really thinks she has a case. There is really no reason for the mother to know the guys identity other than to personally harrass him (presumably as this was a debate over a local election the guy lives in her district).
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (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.
Re: (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: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.
Reply to This
Parent
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"
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
No, she doesn't. You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.
No, there is an escape - you drop the case. It's not hard. You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.
PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism.
Re: (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
Re: (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 Amend
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hip Check (Score:4, Informative)
It's a hockey term, actually. I imagine roller derby appropriated it because it's basically the same kind of hit. In hockey, though, you can get much better arc on your opponent if you catch them just right.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (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.