PETA Wants To Sue Anonymous HuffPo Commenters 590
MarkWhittington writes, quoting himself: "PETA is incensed over an article in the Huffington Post that details that organization's unsettling practice of euthanizing animals in a Virginia facility that many have assumed is a no kill shelter. According to the New York Post, PETA wants to sue some of the people who have left comments on the article. The problem is that, following the practice of many on the Internet, many of the comments are under assumed names or are anonymous. PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of their critics so that it can sue them for defamation."
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm no fan of PETA, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
PETA sockpuppet,
1. Look at the user ID. It's so new it's still wet behind the ears.
2. Aha, let's look at their postings. Only postings in this thread - no other history.
3. So let's check Loba Art's friends...
Loba Art (2933853) is all alone in the world.
I would agree with your assessment. Loba Art is a PETA sock.
--
BMO
They should be allowed to sue (Score:4, Interesting)
PETA should be allowed to discover the identities of the posters for the purposes of suing them, if the statements are in fact defamatory. But the first bar PETA should have to clear is to demonstrate to the court that the statements are in fact defamatory. And they should be required to identify the allegedly-defamatory posts publicly, so the posters can retain counsel and contest the allegations without having their identity revealed. Only after they've prevailed on the "the statements are defamatory" part should they be allowed discovery as to the identities of the posters. And if they fail to follow through and file suit, sanctions should be imposed for abuse of process.
Being anonymous should not mean you can't be held accountable for what you say, but the first step should be showing that someone could be held legally accountable for saying what was said. If what was said isn't actionable, then it shouldn't matter who said it.
Re: Oh brother (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the issue, there are more pets than people can properly care for due to the economy, as well as extra animals from neglectful owners that abuse or don't "fix" their pets and let them run the streets.
There isn't enough money to care for strays, or people willing to take them. So eventually the shelters have to put the animals down. Sounds like PETA didn't like that basic fact being published... But it's still a fact that they CANNOT save all the animals they rescue, its not their fault. But they created this "bleeding heart movement" that's going to backlash on them.
PETA is a terrorist organization (Score:2, Interesting)
Why bring that up? Well they want some "offensive" remarks removed, you have to be joking. PETA claims to support the Ethical treatment of animals, yet I fail to see how burning down testing labs, humane shelters and animal hospitals is ethical treatment of animals. What PETA really wants is to let animals roam free without being owned or loved by humans.
You can pull out extreme videos of animals being abused to a sick level, but that doesn't mean all or even most animals are kept this way. I can pull of videos of humans being treated in the same fashion but that doesn't mean all humans live that way. PETA even went as far as to play a video of the holocaust and compare that what humans do with animals. Now what sensible non profit organization is going to do that! PETA wants to make an extreme example out of what really isn't an issue and that to me certainly sounds like what a terrorist group would do.
Also for my final point, PETA has CONVICTED criminal on the pay role who have commited terrorist acts again humane shelters, animal hospitals and animal testing labs, so you be the judge of it, but PETA is not innocent organization, they are terrorists that governments around the world support.
Forget PETA politics for a sec... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a YRO story. Can the courts compel HuffPo to turn over the identities of the users? Under what circumstances? If the courts have the legal power to do this, SHOULD they have this power?
I tend to err strongly on the side of free speech. I don't like the idea of courts having this power, because the circumstances under which they could compel disclosure of identities are always subject to change. Today it might be defamation, tomorrow it might be legitimate criticism of the government.
Leaving aside the question of existing law, I would argue that rantings of an AC on an internet forum can't meet a standard of causing "harm" to a person or organization. Regardless of how libelous or scandalous the comment, an AC has zero credibility unless they are able to provide facts which can then be independently verified. If the facts harm the reputation of a person or group, then truth should be an absolute defense (although in many countries that's not the case). Otherwise, any anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations should be dismissed out of hand and deemed 'harmless'.
Re:A name for PETA (Score:5, Interesting)
Liberals HATE PETA. Every liberal I know HATES PETA.
You're talking about anarchists and a few Hollywood icons who don't know jack about PETA but will participate in a no fur campaign (because, hey, it's a chance to take off your clothes in front of a camera).
That's who supports PETA.
Every rational adult liberal I have ever discussed with with basically snorted and spit their name our of their mouth if the topic was ever broached.
This is like saying most conservatives are militia members. It's total bullshit.