Anonymous Speech Litigation 86
Shadowhawk writes "According to this story on ZDNN, AOL filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that defamation lawsuits against anonymous posters to the Internet are 'an illegitimate use of the courts to silence and retaliate against speakers whose statements, while unpleasant from the standpoint of the [plaintiff], were not unlawful.'" AOL's web page about the case has the brief they filed. AOL is making an important argument about abuses of the legal system to identify ISP subscribers.
AOL/TW Standing up for free speech!! (Score:1)
Sanchi
Woah! (Score:1)
Again, I quote Keanu Reeves: "Woah!"
--
This applies to Slashdot as well? (Score:2)
Holy crap! (Score:1)
Interesting Case (Score:1)
SEE AOL RUN, SEE AOL RUN!
-Angreal
All your base - All you base!
Wow... (Score:4)
1. That's kinda knee-jerk, isn't it?
2. It's in their interest, part 1: the article mentioned how corps like AOL and Yahoo have to respond to "hundreds" of subpoenas for their records every year.
3. It's in their interest, part 2: we'd be perfectly accepting of the New York Times stepping into a lawsuit like this, because we've got noble ideas (say) about their interest in Free Speech, The Greater Good, Rights of Man/Woman, etc. But really, AOL is, substantially, in the same business; cynical/true observations about the use of content to provide eyes for ads aside, both are publishers, and both have a certain interest -- ideal and practical -- in free speech.
In fact, in light of these points, I wonder why it hasn't happened before. I mean, I'm sure some ISP somewhere has done something similar -- but I don't recall hearing about an ISP on the scale of AOL doing this before. Or am I on crack?
Anyone?
Bueller...Bueller...
A Judge is bringing suit... (Score:2)
It is quite amusing to me that a judge is the person who is trying to limit someone's freedom of speech.
I really wish we could see what was posted about this guy.
-Lab-
Kinda funny (Score:5)
Oh, and don't bother pointing out the irony of my pointing out that people won't use their real names when I post under "vinnythenose" (no, that's not my birthname ;) and don't give you any contact information :)
Anywho, good for AOL on protecting the rights of the anonymous. But I guess the question lies, is anonymity enoforcable? If I try to be anonymous, does that mean I should legally be anonymous, even if they can find out who I was (via IP addresses, logs, etc)?
Who is in the wrong in a posting situation. If I break my contract and try to dissuade people from purchasing from my company (assuming my contract has a clause like that). I am still wrong for doing that, even if I am anonymous. But if they can find out who I am, I'm no longer anonymous. Are they breaking my rights as an individual by finding out who I am? But I did break my contract...
AHHH!!!! I'm confusing myself! Anyhow, it's an interesting topic/thought.
Re:Woah! (Score:1)
Macx
All you need... (Score:2)
A long time ago, the time of the first MS trial (Score:5)
The Slashdot lawyers told them to ignore it, so they did. Case closed.
So, at least a long time ago, Slashdot protected all their user's rights, not just anonymous cowards. I'm not so sure about today.
Are the scientologists part of this mess? (Score:2)
Lee Reynolds (yes OSA its me)
Whose driving at AOL?? (Score:1)
Could someone please let AOL know that this is bad for corporations! Who do they think they are...
fighting for the rights of us stupid Netizens to stay Anonymous
What's next??...
Some Sort of Bill of Rights pep rally!!
Re:Woah! (Score:1)
Macx
Re:Interesting Case (Score:2)
AOL/TW protecting their pocketbook (Score:1)
The article makes it clear that AOL/TW has been repeatedly requested to identify anonymous users. This is undoubtedly a significant economic burden on AOL/TW, since they have to pay somebody to dig through their logs and tie information together for each request. Any precedent that allowed the courts to order such a procedure willy-nilly would cost AOL/TW a nice chunk of change.
My cynical side says that's the real reason. My practical side says when someones economic interests coincide with individual freedom, why knock it too much.
Re:Woah! (Score:2)
Do they? Let's see. If they remove the guy's account then they lose money. If they give up the guy's name then they get bad publicity. If they try to be responsible for people using their service and what they do online then they dig their own grave.
I don't see this as being so "great of AOL as a corporation" because it's in their best financial interest to go the route they have chosen.
--
Garett
A new horizon for freedom (Score:1)
Many, I am sure, have seen the numerous posters that insist on attacking my posts - many without even reading the content of my message. The vast majority of these people do so anonymously, a true sign of a coward. But I will not allow them to be censored. I will not be happy if they were to be attacked either. Such is not the way, and I will not stoop to such an ignoble level.
The court system is bogged down with far too many trivial lawsuits. I applaud the efforts to keep further lawsuits to a minimum. By declaring that litigation against unnamed sources is fruitless is only the first step, but a very important step.
Very interesting (Score:3)
Sure, there may be some self-serving interest at the heart of this matter, but such is the way of capitalism. If their greed and annoyance at having to constantly deal with these cases results in their requesting that the courts block some of these ridiculous suits, I'm all for it.
-
The IHA Forums [ihateapple.com]
Precident (Score:2)
Having fought about this in my undergraduate years, I was surprised that the numerous individuals who were identified by various message boards and scholastic institutions (Bonsaikitten, anyone? [bonzaikitten.com]) were not more forceful in dealing with their revelers.
Damn! (Score:2)
I had planned to earn millions of $ by suing Anonymous Coward for emotional damage caused by goatse.cx posts.
Re:AOL/TW Standing up for free speech!! (Score:1)
Re:AOL/TW Standing up for free speech!! (Score:1)
Re:Woah! (Score:2)
Re:Woah! (Score:1)
Dude - I think you missed the Pig Latin post by a couple of hours
Peese
Re:Are the scientologists part of this mess? (Score:1)
Re:A Judge is bringing suit... (Score:3)
Nothing too exciting... From an article [post-gazette.com] published last November, here's what happened.
Melvin sued the anonymous Web gossip after he posted a comment online declaring: "Judge Joan Orie Melvin has been lobbying the Ridge administration on behalf of a local attorney seeking the appointment by Gov. Ridge to fill the vacancy on the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas created by the mandatory retirement earlier this month of Judge Robert Dauer.
Kinda boring, really...
Wha...? (Score:5)
AOL guys are the good guys this time?
I... I can't believe it! A Slashdot story taking AOL's side! michael must have gone temporarily out of his mind. Expect a retraction soon:
"Update: We're sorry, we just realized that we took the side of a major corporation. We hereby retract this article and all statements made within it. May God forgive us."
----
Re:A Judge is bringing suit... (Score:5)
It would be funny if his corrupted highness, MPAA Judge Kaplan were to try this over stuff I and other
On second thought, he might be afraid to... Filing such a suit would give the defendant the power of discovery to PROVE all the links between him and the MPAA that made him unqualified to preside over the DeCSS case...
Yes... according to the RIAA, MPAA and Congress (Score:3)
Sure. Why not?
People keep making a big deal about the DMCA saying that "Effectively" controls access (and the jokes about how in-effective CCA's CCS has been, as well as the scheme itself being poor encryption). But its been pointed out repeatedly that the word "Effective" means that a serious attempt has been made (or some such leagal nonsense. IANAL... and I don't play one on TV). If thats true though, then shouldn't an "Effective" attempt at maintaining ones anonymity be allowed to leagaly protect ones identity from further intrusion?
AOL outed a sailor which lead to his discharge (Score:3)
Here is an extract :
This is not the first time AOL has come under fire by gay and lesbian rights groups. The most notable instance came when AOL admitted it had disclosed the member account of Timothy McVeigh, a naval officer, to a naval investigator. Because of the disclosure, the Navy discharged the sailor for "Homosexual Conduct Admittance" because he typed the word "gay" on his member profile under "Marital Status." He has since been reinstated.
Disclaimer : I work for AOL Time Warner and opinions are my own, not those of AOL Time Warner
Up to the minute.... (Score:1)
2001-03-05 18:21:40 AOL Supporting Free Speech (articles,doj) (rejected)
Ah well... what are you gonna do.
Re:A Judge is bringing suit... (Score:1)
Judge: "I am not! I'm going to find out who that person is so I can make them stop saying that about me!"
heh
So What's Your Point? (Score:1)
...Moreover, why is everyone so excited about this? Obviously, AOL is acting in its self interest; if it were not, management would be inflicted a principal-agent problem upon the company and stockholders would have every right to eject their sorry-asses on the street. I'm sorry, but the definition of a corporation is a body which acts in its own self-interests at all times...
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
--Plato
Anonymity is essential (Score:5)
Unfortunately, Congress with the help of Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have made laws which do abridge the freedom of speech.
Many justices have declared that some forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, even though the Amendment's language is very clear. It protects profanity, it protects lies, it protects hate, it protects rumor, it protects anything you or I might say.
It protects them for one reason, because it was the hope of the Drafters that bad speech would be pushed aside by the noble and intelligent people. Remember, these Drafters originally did not give the masses the power to elect a President.
In a system where there is no longer protected speech, anonymous speech is the next best thing. Until the First Amendment is restored to it's original strength (if it ever is), we only have anonymous speech to protect us when we know an ugly truth.
The reason you may not think anonymous speech is important to you, is because you may not have an ugly truth to tell. You may never have a reason to use anonymous speech. That would be fine. But don't deny yourself the right to use anonymous speech because you do not have the need for it now.
The United States of America was founded as a great experiment to see if wealthy, educated people were responsible enough to rule themselves. Unfortunately, year by year, we give up responsibility to a mythical being known as "The Government". The problem is, as we shed our responsibility, we also shed our rights.
The right of anonymous speech requires the listeners to be responsible enough to research the claims presented. I will accept that responsibility, in the event that I ever need to tell the world of an awful truth, or in the event that someone else needs to tell me an awful truth; a truth that would cost them their job, their standing in society, or even their life.
So I beg you all to think upon this before you claim that "Anonymous Cowards" should be forever done away with. Won't you take the responsibility too, to look into the claims of someone who must hide his identity? Or does that require too much effort?
Re:This applies to Slashdot as well? (Score:1)
Nah, anyone with useful information has already left, or won't post what they know.
Microsoft doesn't seem too hurt, even though thousands of Slashdot AC's bash them and their products daily.
Suing over personal insults? The insults have risen in volume and frequency, it seems pointless. Can you really get offended at the ocean, or background noise?
The folks that should be suing are those at goatse.cx; they must get SlashDotted daily!
Hmmm... who's jurisdiction will it be in. (Score:2)
Obviously AOL is not making a "friend" of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. ;) BOF stick together, ya know. I wonder how this would end if tried in Pennsylvania.
Perhaps the AOL half of TW/AOL isn't pure evil, more like 96.2%. Good luck to them on this battle.
When did AOL become the good guys? (Score:1)
This isn't a DMCA action, apparently, so it may be a better case for AOL to start trying to turn back the tide.
Re:Wow... (Score:3)
Even if it's only this one little battle that AOL-TimeWarner join us in, in the ongoing struggle for free speech on the net, and even if they were just trying to cut down the work their legal departments have to do, I would welcome their amicus brief. Granted, it's as a strange ally to have what is arguably the biggest mistake the US Federal Trade Commission ever allowed to happen. But I think this is a Good Thing for the net as a whole.
Something more to think about. Remember when the first of the anonymous e-mail systems went down the tubes? I speak of course of anon.penet.fi. It got torpedoed by Scientology who took umbrage at the anonymous posting of one of its members. If AOL's brief is accepted by judges for deciding of online defamation cases, we may actually have an end to such and similar cases.
(Yes, I know that Scientology got it's warrant by saying that it was copyrighted material. However, a court, with the belief that anonymous posting is a valid means of free speech, may be a little more reluctant, and look a little more carefully, at the issues the next time a hard-hitter comes up to them with a demand that an ISP turn over meatdata about a user.)
The important thing is, even if AOL is recommending 'closer looks' at "cybersmear" (what a bloody awful word!) cases before revealing anonymous posters' meatdata, that's a step in the right direction, and it is certainly a very good step.
And now... the flames! Lemmie get my s'mores out first, they always taste better roasted. =)
sucks to be me :( (Score:1)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
Anonimity can bring out the worst... (Score:2)
Re:Kinda funny (Score:1)
Anywho, good for AOL on protecting the rights of the anonymous. But I guess the question lies, is anonymity enoforcable? If I try to be anonymous, does that mean I should legally be anonymous, even if they can find out who I was (via IP addresses, logs, etc)?
That will likely depend on the courts -- they will have to establish 'a reasonable expectation of anonymity,' and rule using that, just like the case law that we have today regarding 'the reasonable expectation of privacy.'
e.g. If I send a letter with no return address to a government agency lambasting them, a reasonable expectation of anonynimity says that they cannot use DNA gathered from sweat from the letter I wrote, match it to a DNA database that will probably be universal in the next 10-20 years, and then come after me.
By contrast, posting on a board where one knows the IP is tracked might diminish expectations of anonymimity.
Re:A new horizon for freedom (Score:1)
On the other hand, we have contractual obligations; if somebody releases proprietary information, it may be difficult to prove a violation unless it can be shown that John Doe was somebody who signed an NDA -- and doing so without knowing who John Doe is might be tricky. Perhaps reasonable doubt allows for the possiblity that John Doe really is an anonymous journalist who didn't violate the NDA himself, but received unsolicited information from someone who did? So in that case, it might be difficult or perhaps impossible for the plaintiff to make a case without knowing the JD's identity.
One wonders whether a compromise would work -- identity can be revealed via subpoena to the judge, who withholds the actual identity and merely confirms or denies relevance (for instance, whether or not the person has, in fact, signed an NDA) unless and until the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs?
AOL?? (Score:1)
You already can be sued... (Score:2)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Good, not good enough (Score:1)
Of course, it only addresses about 1% of the privacy problem here... AOL is still using its users' information for its own marketing purposes. It will still keep track of what its users do and use that data to market to them.
All the hype about privacy doesn't seem to have slowed down AOL's growth... I wonder if anyone (besides the geeks, journalists and politicians) really cares. Or do they just not understand?
Someone Has to do it (Score:1)
First of all, how defamatory is an anonymous comment? Only by identifying himself can Anonymous lend credibility to his statement. It is also Anonymous who is responsible, how can a third party ever be held responsible?
Where is free speech left if organisations are unable to provide a public forum?
Re:This applies to Slashdot as well? (Score:2)
Slashdot users could be a prime target for these frivolous lawsuits - we sit here all day and bitch about companies we don't like. It doesn't seem impossible that some company might take very unkindly to Slashdot postings and demand all the information Slashdot has on posters.
Imagine??? (Score:2)
It happened [sorehands.com] to me. It happened to Carla Virga when she said that Terminex sucks, and it happened to Joanne Crossby Tibbets when she complained about Best Foods. It happened to Paul David when he said that a Barbie doll was ugly.
Re:A Judge is bringing suit... (Score:2)
In practice, the only way a govt employee, of any type, can win a libel suit is by proving they are not an "official", i.e. they are a rank-and-file drone and entitled to the same amount of protection as a private citizen. I don't think a judge can be considered a non-official by any sane definition.
This is why Clinton never sued some of the right-wing wacko publications for printing nonsense. Even absurd claims that he murdered Vince Foster or personally gave nuclear secrets to China aren't libelous when we're talking about an elected official.
She probably knows she can't win, she just wants to indentify whoever her political enemies are.
Re:AOL/TW protecting their pocketbook (Score:1)
Listen to your cynical side, I mean this is a win/win situation for AOL. If they get what they want, they can cut the costs incured for each sub-poena they receive AND they already are receiving TONS of great press by the media because of this. I agree with what they are doing, but I wouldn't look too deep into their motivation for fear of being thoroughly underwhelmed.
Re:Up to the minute.... (Score:1)
Bitch and moan? But you already knew that, didn't you....
Will AOL make the Feds get Court Orders? (Score:1)
hmm (Score:1)
Re:Kinda funny (Score:2)
When was this? Sure, there was a time where there was no fear of retribution from corporations. But more generally, there has always been a fear of retribution from the powerful, whether they be corporations, governments, the church, the upper class, or just plain bullies.
If I try to be anonymous, does that mean I should legally be anonymous, even if they can find out who I was (via IP addresses, logs, etc)?
I'd say it depends on how hard you "try"--whether or not you have a reasonable expectation, as another poster noted. In general, though, I would say yes, you have a right to remain anonymous.
Some /.ers--probably a minority, but a significant minority--seem to believe that anything which is technologically possible should be legal. I don't agree. This amounts to a "tech-savvy makes right" attitude which in my mind is no better than "might makes right."
Who is in the wrong in a posting situation. If I break my contract and try to dissuade people from purchasing from my company (assuming my contract has a clause like that). I am still wrong for doing that, even if I am anonymous. But if they can find out who I am, I'm no longer anonymous.
This situation is not new to the internet. Journalists have long protected the anonymity of their sources if asked to do so, and that has generally been upheld in law. (Although judges are not in universal agreement on that point.)
Are they breaking my rights as an individual by finding out who I am?
It depends on how they found out about it. Using subpoenas in the manner of this and other cases is in violation of your rights. (I speak here of my ideal of your moral rights, not necessarily your legal rights.) They don't know who you are in advance, so they can't tell in advance whether you're divulging the information legally or illegally. And they only have the right to know who you are if you're doing it illegally.
A catch-22 for the company? Sure. I see it as one of the prices of free speech. But if they can identify you through legitimate means, they can still prosecute you.
Everyone check under your couch cushions!!! (Score:2)
Maybe we can come up with enough money to purchase the necessary legislation to enact the above poster's idea.
Democracy Wall in China (Score:2)
of a situation when I lived in Peking China 20
years ago. For a few months there was spot near
the West Point shopping center where people could
paste whatever papers they wanted. It was not
too far from one of hotels the foreign media
was confined to at that time, so material on that
wall started making it into the international
press. Initially most of the material were petty
complaints about bureaucrats who messed up peoples
lives during the cultural revolution not long
before that. Then some more serious anti-government stuff appeared.
Most signed with pseudonyms, though the police
photographed everyone in the act of posting something.
At first the stuff seemed genuine, but then it
got hard to tell if it was false slander,
government plants and the like.
The foreign press called it Democracy Wall because
it seemed to be showing human rights and freedom
of speech. The locals just called it the West Point Wall
(Xidian Cheng) after the location.
Well, it was closed down after a few months because
the government couldn't figure out what to make
of it, nor control it.
Re:A new horizon for freedom (Score:1)
I like that idea... that would be a very good compromise - so long as it is not abused by the judge, which would have been the case in one of the situations quoted in some of the other posts. So, sadly, that brings us to another issue in light of what seems to be an excellent compromise. Perhaps a seprate judge from the case could be used, or a separate but related agency set up or assigned to perform such a task? I am definitely not a lawyer ( and I've never played one on TV ), but I'd like to hear what one would say about your idea.
It should be about credibility (Score:2)
Any source of information should only be able to cause an amount of good or harm proportional to the credibility of the source. If a well known and respected news source such as the New York Times releases information that could be damaging to a company's image, the company has something to worry about, and if the information is incorrect they have a right to demand reparations from the NYT for causing possible damage to the company. A smaller news source could also cause damage, but it would likely be less to to less spread of information and possible less creadibility.
A truly anonymous internet poster essentially has zero credibility, because they have absolutely no reputation and nothing to lose from revealing incorrect information. No reasonable person would base a major opinion on the post of a single truly anonymous individual. Even if the information posted is valid, it should be verified through secondary (and hopefully more credible) sources before any decisions are made based on the information.
To hold anonymous individuals responsible for libel or defamation is to imply that the majority of the population will accept whatever they read on the internet (some people may, but it's not the responsibility of anyone else to watch out for the gullibility of others).
don't be so cynical! (Score:2)
1. AOL didn't roll over and give away the identity of "grantst99" when issued a subpoena asking for this information for use in a civil lawsuit. They notified the user who then anonymously appeared in court asking for dismissal of the suit. (which was granted)
2. Now that the suit has been taken up again in another state, AOL has filed an Amicus brief [aol.com] that might just have another positive impact for their user.
3. That they're going to this trouble means that they want their customers protected. While they say (in the brief) that users would leave for the competition if their anonymity were compromised, that's really not true for the vast majority of thier customer base. Most AOL users aren't the type to post anything of interest at all on the Internet. (anyone remember USENET in the mid to late 90s, and how bad AOL users were ragged on for "me too" posts?)
Read thier paper - it's incredibly interesting. I think it shows that they really do have an interest in Free Speech. And that while we should always be skeptical, we shouldn't always be cynical.
Re:Anonymity is essential (Score:2)
This is worth remembering. There's a lot of people in the US (and a hell of a lot of them on slashdot) who prate on and on about their "rights", but who seem reluctant to accept any of the responsibility which those rights imply. As a result, the responsibility is shuffled off to government, to parents, to teachers, to *anyone else except the person involved*. And the rest of us worldwide get inflicted with things like spam, hate speech, trolls, and all the results of people claiming rights without responsibility. We also get the results of handing that responsibility to other people - censorware, draconian laws to deal with the unrestricted, unrestrained irresponsible speech of others (the Australian 'net censorship laws spring to mind as an example), and a general perception that curbing freedom of speech may not be such a bad thing after all...
The right of anonymous speech requires the listeners to be responsible enough to research the claims presented. I will accept that responsibility, in the event that I ever need to tell the world of an awful truth, or in the event that someone else needs to tell me an awful truth; a truth that would cost them their job, their standing in society, or even their life.
The right to free speech, however, requires the speakers to be responsible for what they're saying. This means that defamatory, inflammatory, and otherwise irresponsible speech under the safety of anonymity has to be curtailed somehow. The right to freedom of speech does not automatically mean the right to insult or assault your audience, or the right to demand that people listen to you by morphing to avoid their killfiles, or sending endless offensive email to someone who has asked you to stop. It doesn't mean the right to insist that you be treated seriously when you are doing the equivalent of throwing excrement at the walls, and it really doesn't mean that you have the right to be praised and respected for doing this. Which is something which is sometimes hard to convey to any number of people from the US.
As someone very intelligent once said: "There is no right to be heard on usenet".
Meg Thornton.
--
Now this is news? (Score:1)
--Don't mind me, I just spent the last 2 hours in alt.beer
Re:Holy crap! (Score:1)
Re:AOL/TW protecting their pocketbook (Score:1)
Re:Wha...? (Score:1)
Of course, they don't filer their own spam, but still...
Re:Anonymity is essential (Score:4)
This is not exactly true. Congress has made (and the Supreme Court has accepted) laws that don't agree with you about the exact meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech". You assume that it means the absolute right to say anything you damn well please under any conditions you please. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. You can't prove that your position is correct, because there is a legitimate issue of the legal meaning of the term "freedom of speech".
It's also important to realize that even under the most liberal interpretation of freedom of speech (that you may say what you choose in what manner you choose), you are not necessarily legally freed of the potential consequences of your speech. If your speech does someone harm, you should be civilly and criminally liable for it in exactly the same way that you should be liable if your actions do harm. You shouldn't be allowed to harm others without consequence just because the agent of that harm is speech rather than physical violence; ordering a murder should be illegal even though the order is speech not action. This view is supported by the long-term stance of the Supreme Court; you may be made to suffer for what you have said if it does harm (e.g. inciting riot, criminal conspiracy, slander, etc.), but it's very difficult to get a prior legal restraint on saying it.
Re:Anonymity is essential (Score:1)
Umm, no. Speech should never be curtailed, whether anonymous or not.
You were on the right track, but somehow got a little derailed. The responsibilities that go with the right to free speech are simple:
Now, if I don't want to hear what someone is saying, I can either go elsewhere, wear earplugs, or filter it out (i.e., ignore it). This goes for online speech as well as speech in meatspace, and is true whether the speech is anonymous or not.
The only difference between normal speech and anonymous speech is that anonymous speech protects the speaker from retribution by those who don't like what is being said. But whether speech is anonymous or not, the responsibilities of the listener are the same.
I find it very interesting that many of the rights we have depend strongly on an individual's sense of personal responsibility, something that seems to be disappearing fast.
--
Re:don't be so cynical! (Score:1)
Bear in mind, though, that many people (possibly including AOL) view this as the thin edge of the wedge. If you expose the identity of anonymous/pseudonymous posters today, what will you do tomorrow? Will prosecutors demand chat-room transcripts to prove that deviants were trying to lure underage girls into sex? If they can get that, will divorce lawyers start wanting email and chat records to prove who's at fault or unfit to be parents? If they can get that, will employers want web-surfing records to show the illicit interests of their employees in termination hearings? Will prosecutors want the names of visitors to drug-related web sites to look for possible buyers? Each one cuts out a bit of privacy and seems like a reasonable step from the previous one, but nobody wants their web-browsing habits to be available to anyone with a sharp lawyer and a vauge reason to be interested. AOL understands that they need to draw the line now so that they don't have to draw it further back later.
More pragmatically, they don't want to establish a precident. If AOL rolls over and agrees to serve up the name of anyone who posts possibly defamatory information on a chat board, pretty soon that will be routine and they'll need to hire people just to serve up names to lawyers. And, of course, they'll lose the customers who see the privacy loss as significant. But serving up names won't satisfy people digging for information, and they'll get requests for more information, which they'll either have to fight or agree to; either way will require more work. Eventually they'll have to draw a line about what information is generally available for the asking and which has to be fought over. They want to draw that line as far in the "give nothing" direction as possible, because there will be fewer requests to fight over, fewer requests to serve, and fewer customers who decide to move to a more privacy friendly ISP.
Speech and Responsibility (Score:3)
You are conflating apples and oranges. Spam is not a freedom-of-speech issue, it is a theft-of-bandwidth issue. Hate speech and trolls, on the other hand, are fundamentally matters of opinion, best addressed either by rebuttal or ostracism.
The responsibilities that go with freedom of speech are 1a)Recognizing that others have the same right, 1b)Recognizing that other rights (such as property rights) may not be violated to facilitate your speech, and 2)Recognizing that you'll need to apply some skull sweat in evaluating what you read -- freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom to speak nonsense.
We also get the results of handing that responsibility to other people - censorware, draconian laws to deal with the unrestricted, unrestrained irresponsible speech of others (the Australian 'net censorship laws spring to mind as an example), and a general perception that curbing freedom of speech may not be such a bad thing after all...
Blaming censorship on people who speak provocatively is like blaming rape on women who dress provocatively. Both "arguments" excuse the inexcusable by transferring blame to the victim -- the very antithesis of "responsibility".
/.
AOL has come out on the side of free speech . . . (Score:1)
Re:Anonymity is essential (Score:1)
If I can just get ahold of an old soapbox, I might just decide to perform an experiment on reactions to public ranting. Wouldn't that be great? Just standing there on top of my soapbox on a street corner, ranting about this and that to an audience of average joes who just want to go about their business peacefully.
"Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability.
Illegal speech (Score:1)
Re:Anonymity is essential (Score:2)
But the cases at issue are not so much about direct harrasment (in which ignoring the originator is a viable option) as they are about defamation. The question is how to deal with an anonymous or pseudonymous individual spreading rumors or lies- or allegedly lies- on a public forum. In the case of an trackable person, the target of the defamation has a defense; they can haul the alleged defamer into court and try to disprove their alleged lies in public. If they can prove their case, they gain both vindication and compensation for any damages the defamation has caused. But without the ability to track down the originator of the misinformation, the defamed person has no real chance to prove their case. IOW, the right to free speech is not properly balanced by the responsibility of being held accountable for the contents of that speech.
That's not to say that anonymous speech should be banned or curtailed. There is a real need for people to be able to speak anonymously or pseudonymously. There are genuine whistleblowers who rightly fear retaliation for divulging damaging secrets and the like. But there does need to be a way to pierce the veil of anonymity and hold accountable those who use it to cover wrongdoing when wrongdoing is shown. If we let anonymity be an impregnable shield for harmful lies, its value is destroyed. It will become a burden for those who are damaged by the anonymous liars, and the opinions of people who seek anonymity will be so heavily discounted that true whistleblowers will be ignored.
Re:Anonimity can bring out the worst... (Score:1)
Re:DOWN WITH SLASHDOT (Score:1)
I suppose "aslamaleglum" is the Trollish for meta-moderation [slashdot.org]?
Thomas Miconi
(I know, I know, "don't feed the trolls"..)
Re:You already can be sued... (Score:1)
AOL will cave. They always do. byebye 4A (Score:2)
Re:don't be so cynical! (Score:2)
Which means that they'll have to share all those juicy marketing details insead of having them all to themselves.
Re:Orie? (Score:2)
Isn't this contrary to ethics? Why would it be unethical for one sibling to be on the same side in a legal case as the other sibling?
Fear of Retribution (Score:2)
Not on the Internet, not always. 15 years ago you could post pretty much ANY outlandish flamebait you wanted without fear. I remember spewing some deep out-there crap in the 80's that would get me disconnected, fired, and/or sued into oblivion if I put my name on it today.
The elder days, when the net was a benevolent anarchy and there were only two kinds of authority: peer respect, and your sysadmin. It was a good thing and a bad thing.
Then we grew up.
Legal Definition of Free Speech (Score:1)
Come ON! Way back when, most people didn't have college educations, & they still understood what FREE SPEECH meant!
The point this country's founders realized is that you cannot harm someone by SAYING anything! The only harm can come about by DOING something.
Re:Legal Definition of Free Speech (Score:1)
But it's clear that the Founding Fathers did not support the idea of Free Speech as absolute and unfettered. The concepts of slander and conspiracy existed long before the Bill of Rights, and it's clear that the First Amendment was never intended to do away with them. Freedom of Speech may give you the right to say what you will, but it does not protect you from the consequences of your speech; if your words have certain kinds of damaging consequences you can be held accountable without violating the First Amendment.
As proof that the Founding Fathers did believe that some kinds of speech could harm, you have only to look at their acceptance of dueling. They apparently considered it to be legitimate to threaten to kill somebody over an insult- hardly the stance of somebody who thinks that mere speech is harmless.
Did I miss something? (Score:1)
--
Re:Fear of Retribution (Score:2)
Well, duh. 15 years ago 99% of the population didn't know the internet existed.
But anonymous speech is not some brand new thing that's just been around since the internet was here. If you can't see beyond the internet, you miss the fact that First Amendment protection that has been given to anonymous speech in the U.S. for hundreds of years. Any analysis of the right of people to speak anonymously which does not look beyond the internet is necessarily incomplete.
Re:Fear of Retribution (Score:1)
When vinnythenose [slashdot.org] said "well, there used to be no fear of retribution" I assumed he was referring to Internet speech, since there has always been retribution for real world speech.
Re:Fear of Retribution (Score:1)
Oh, I see. I assumed he was referring to fear of retribution from corporations, since there has always been retribution from some group for speech. :)