Canadian Judge Orders Disclosure of Anonymous Posters 250
debrain writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that Google and a newspaper called The Coast must disclose all information they have about the identity of individuals who posted anonymous comments online about top firefighters in Halifax. The story in question is titled 'Black firefighters file human rights complaint,' and there are some heated opinions in the comments."
Such Informed Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
What's hard to understand? If you write or broadcast something libelous or slanderous you risk a lawsuit.
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If you don't want to be identified the onus is on you to hide yourself, not on whoever runs a web site.
Re:From TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the great joys of a system that attempts to minimize prior restraint is that you *can* go up and slug someone for insulting you. There may be consequences afterwards, depending on the situation, but nobody is stopping you from the old fashioned honor approach to handling things.
This is good, as there shouldn't need to be courts involved until after you have personally deemed it a big enough issue to get yourself fully involved. If some coward could run hide behind a judge every time he was unhappy, it would not be a good world.
Re:From TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
For those that didn't get it - references specific to American human rights violators were used metaphorically, being examples I am most familiar with. As this particular judge's attitude is something that shows up frequently in those who dispense so-called justice all around the world, feel free to substitute whichever local corporate and political dirtbags you feel appropriate. Also - since the actions of the people I listed affected the global community as a whole, perhaps the question of jurisdiction should be re-examined. In principle, the Hague has global jurisdiction anyway.
Flame on, fellows.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
What "actions" have these posters done? Expressed an opinion? Given the racial nature of the story, I imagine those comments were quite disgusting and racist. I do not support them. But similarly, the notion that every instance of anonymous speech must be ferreted out, and the 'perpetrators' held to 'account' is just wrong.
I think the rest of your comment makes you sound like a bit of a nut, but within that frenzied rant you hit a moment of actual coherant fluid thought. Not that I don't agree with the whole statement you are making, just drifting off from the issue at hand really.
That issue is anonymity on the internet. My gripe basically boils down to this;
If you are going to disallow someones anonymity on the internet because of any punishable law, you should then have to go back and punish everyone who has ever broken any punishable law under the guise of anonymity on the internet. This is of course impracticle, so throw that idea out of the window.
IF this is against your idea of how things should be run, propose a bill that suggests you CAN aquire information from anonymous sources in the FUTURE. You can't just choose to change the laws for one scenario, especially when its the one being dealt with. This would be like an Umpire changing the amount of Bases in Baseball to 3 instead of 4, mid-game, with all bases loaded. It'd be an outrage.
So please, if you are going to attack the freedom that is anonymity - do so in the proper manner. I have no problems with Lawyers and Judges trying to reform things so long as they abide by the same rules that I do when I want things done differently. A powdered wig should not be able to make demands like that.
anonymity. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm Spartacus.
Crappy Summary and Links (Score:4, Insightful)
The linked article is pretty bad and the original story had the comments in question removed. I did a little Googling and the upshot is, it looks like some people made allegedly libelous comments, so the people they defamed are suing and the identities were ordered to be revealed by a judge. So, I don't really see how this is any different than a normal libel case in the US. Freedom of speech has never been an unlimited right. It ends when it infringes upon other individual rights and libel and slander laws are pretty common examples of this.
This is the most comprehensive article [metronews.ca] I found on the topic, but even it does not list any examples of the allegedly libelous comments.
Re:From TFA (Score:1, Insightful)
In the US we understand that the words of an anonymous coward are just words, and only have the power that you, the pussy, give to them. And as such, there can be no damage to reputation by the rantings of an anonymous coward on a message board.
Re:Judge needs education regardin teh intra-web-tu (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically if someone exercises their right to free speech and anonymously posts lies about you on the internet they are a TROLL. If someone exercises their right to free speach and anonymously posts an unfortunate truth about you on the internet you will just have to live with it. It's not something that anyone needs to sue over.
If I were to anonymously, repeatedly, and convincingly (perhaps I'm a REALLY GOOD TROLL) outright state that you are a rapist and the only reason you are not in jail is because of some technicality, what recourse do you have? If it is persistent enough that it makes it to the point where you have trouble getting job interviews and acquaintances are reluctant to invite you anywhere, haven't you been genuinely harmed (assuming that it isn't true)?
I agree with you that it's easy to overreact and suing for a handful of comments (I haven't read any of them) is overboard. But that doesn't mean legal action is never valid.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure his "cover" is more than adequate for any objective viewer. Canadian identity hypersensitivity simply makes you unable to believe it.
Some principles are universal. The fact that the United States has notable examples in recent history of both implementation and denial of those principles provides convenient reference material. I'm sure anyone sufficiently motivated by "Canada or die!" can come up with comparable domestic references.
Oh, yeah, Welcome to the U.S. [slashdot.org]
Re:Canada vs US (Score:4, Insightful)
There are lots of other provisions and protections in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also have hate crime laws. Its different than the US, its not perfect...but to paint canada with a broad brush of 'you're fascists' is ridiculous. Our country's founders had the motto of 'peace, order, and good government.'. Slightly different motivations than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- although most of the time they correlate.
Isn't the very idea of free speech that... (Score:2, Insightful)
...you don't have to be anonymous to say what you want since the government won't come after you no matter what. Individuals might hate you, though, but that shouldn't stop you now should it?
It's only when you don't have free speech that you need to be anonymous.
Re:Such Informed Debate (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a sad day when people who purport to defend debate intentionally obfuscate and deceive about issues by using language tricks, as you do here.
Yes, if you write or broadcast something libellous or slanderous you risk a lawsuit. Libel and slander is punishable. There has never been anyone who has stood on a chair and said "Libel should not be punished!"
Except that what is libellous and slanderous is in no way up to an individual to decide. If you write or broadcast something, it is not libellous or slanderous for any effective purpose until a judge has said so. I cannot take it upon me to decide that what you have written slanders me or libels me, and have that effectuated. What you write effectively becomes libellous or slanderous the moment a judge decides that it _is_ libel or slander.
In this case, the judge has not decided that way, as the parties responsible have not been found guilty of libel or slander. If the judge has not found them guilty of that, she seems to appeal to some "third estate" to mete out punishment - because she says people "must be held accountable for action X" - implying the punishment or threat of it - but for an action that she has not herself found punishable or decided _is_ libel or slander.
When you present it as "when you say something libellous or slanderous you risk a lawsuit", you are deceptive, because it is something everyone would agree with - but in this instance, no judge has decided that what was said WAS libel or slander.
If you were honest, you would have written "What is hard to understand? If you write or broadcast something that someone feels is libel or slander, you get your details made public so that they can react against you?" which is a more contentious issue. In fact, I believe this is a "first" in the Western world. McDonalds cannot go to a judge and say 'we were really disgusted by some comments but haven't really thought about whether they are illegal or not, so can you just order people to tell us who made them and then we'll talk about legality later'.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, probably because I was born and raised in America, I wouldn't give up the freedoms I have in exchange for more collective social infrastructure. But, others may make a different legitimate decision or conclude that one can have the best of all possible worlds.
Re:Such Informed Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If society forms opinions of individuals based on pseudonymous commentary by people named "Poopybear4556" then society has a serious problem. I'd argue that anonymous (or pseudonymous) speech is far less damaging than identifiable speech, precisely because we don't know who's saying it and whether they are credible or not.
If I called you in the middle of the night, identified myself as DorkFace08, and told you your momma was so fat, would you pay any attention to me? Then what the hell do you care about what "Poopybear4556" has to say?
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
That's a new defintion of 'can'. I suppose I 'can' stick a toasting fork in your head too - woohoo for freedom.
Re:Judge needs education regardin teh intra-web-tu (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically. . , when the Fox News talking heads are arrested and locked away for libel, then Americans can talk.
Or should only millionaires be allowed to Troll?
Basically, anonymous posting is necessary in the same kinds of ways as anonymous voting.
-FL
Re:From TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ann O'Nymous... (Score:1, Insightful)
Anonymous use a single name to hide their numbers...
I can tell you I post occasionally. Maybe two or three times a week. There is no "hiding" on my part. I just can't be bothered to create a vanity account. It's been my observation that most people who have accounts don't post their real names and/or use sock-puppets to help promote their arguments (and many or most people don't mind admitting that they play with sock-poppets because they think everybody else does and therefore it is OK). It's really stupid, and one of the reasons why I avoid playing those games. I'd rather just be an "Anonymous Coward" and have people judge what I say and not who I "am". And yes, you are a Troll, but sometimes I just can't help myself.