Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger 227
joel_archer writes "The Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official. Judge Steele described the Internet as a 'unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,' and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. 'We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,' Steele wrote."
Huzzah!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Overreaction in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
Article above In two messages from September of 2004, Proud Citizen discussed a member of the Smyrna Town Council, Patrick Cahill, referring to Cahill's "character flaws," "mental deterioration," and "failed leadership," and stated that "Gahill [sic] is...paranoid."
EFF Article [eff.org]
One article makes it sound like its teenagers calling each other fags, and the other points to actual political opinions.
Either way, this is how NOT to react. Don't these people know how to take anything lightly?
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad anonymity won, but I don't know if I'd feel the same way if some anonymous ass was slandering me on a popular website and people were believing it. It's a career killer for professional politicians, especially on the local level.
Re:The judge was wrong and so are you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges, not judge. Judges of the State Supreme Court.
Okay, so you're saying that the Supreme Court of Delaware was wrong on a point of law with regard to the State of Delaware. Are you going to cite any precedents at all to support that or are you just claiming to out-expert them?
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong question. The Constitution enumerates the powers that the gov't has; it is not a list of restrictions. The correct question is, "where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to regulate speech?".
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I have every right to publish a pamphlet or newspaper article and not put my real name to it, and distribute at will.
In fact, that's exactly what the authors of The Federalist Papers did. That is, in fact, why they are refered to as The Federalist Papers.
I may not have a Constitutional protection of anonimty, but I have every Constitutional right to publish anonymously.
You do not have a Constitutional right to the identity of an author, and hence the protection of anonymity comes about left handedly. This is by design, just as the Fourth Ammendment exists because it was recongnized that the governement would, sooner or later, pass illegal and offensive laws, but would be prevented the legal means of enforcing them.
The very reason the government has tried so hard, and so successfully, to nullify it.
Now they're moving on to nullifying the first.
KFG
Glad I don't live in Delaware (Score:1, Insightful)
If a reporter in a newspaper quotes an anonymous source and thereby commits libel, the newspaper can be sued. It seems to me the ISP is on a hiding to nothing here. If journalistic standards are applied, the owner of the website is surely a publisher not a carrier, and can be sued. If the website is the equivalent of a freely available notice board, then anybody pasting a libel on it should not expect to avoid being identified.
The initial posts seem to support the position of "Proud Citizen", but he appears to be a socially dysfunctional individual with a nasty mind. I do not see why he deserves any anonymity at all. If only so the Cahills can assert THEIR first amendment rights and say in public what they think of them.
The point is that in the US freedom of speech is protected and anonymity is not needed, whereas in China (why on Earth do we have anything to do with that scumbag government?) freedom of speech is banned and so everything should be done to protect the anonymity of legitimate critics of government.
Re:Right to post anonymously? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
But the nut of the matter is: Politicians have power. So, the powerless have a right to openly criticize them. The powerfull have the right to live and conduct themselves in such an honerable way that nobody would believe their critics. Otherwise, every time Jay Leno or David Letterman makes a wisecrack about the Chief, they'd be liable. But a person in power affects all of our lives, so we have to be able to discuss it openly amongst ourselves.
Re:Glad I don't live in Delaware (Score:1, Insightful)
Go to the newspapers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go to the newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you are wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
The comments he used are so vague, no lawyer would ever take this to court, because they would surely lose against any halfway-competant defence. Everyone has character flaws. Everyone over 30 could easily be shown to have some measure of "mental deterioration", all they would have to do is ask them some trivial fact about last year that they would not remember. As for "failed leadership", that is also open to interpertation.
In order to make a case for slander, the comments have top be false. There is absolutely no way you could prove or disprove that with these comments.
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what right? (Score:4, Insightful)
That guard is the Ninth Amendment. The correct interpretation of the Constitution, then, is that you have boatloads of natural rights, and the Constitution protects them all; certain rights explicitly protected just have greater weight when rights conflict. When a court recognizes a right, they're not being "judicial activists" at all, they're keeping well within the intent of the Framers.
Re:The judge was wrong and so are you. (Score:3, Insightful)
The judges either applied the law correctly or else they did not. It is possible that the law could do with being amended but that does not mean that a judge correctly applying the law as it stands is "wrong". That's just gibberish.
Re:Right to post anonymously? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also the "no man is an island" factor. Say enough unpopular things and you'll soon find yourself unpopular; while in high school all that got you was a wedgie, in the real world it will keep you from earning a living. Speaking your mind may be your right, but take into account that companies don't like to hire/do business with people who are controversial, no matter what particular politics or topics are involved; it's bad for business. Plus most employers have the attitude that they own your opinions 24/7 because they pay you a salary; say disparaging things about the people who sign your checks (regardless of whether they're based in provable fact or are only opinion and represented as such) and you'll soon stop collecting them. IMHO not fair, or right, but that's how it is.
That is a false analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The judge was wrong and so are you. (Score:1, Insightful)
And the supreme court here, interpreted it as a protector of anonymity.
if the law is judged to be morally abhorent by the public in large, then congress is the institution we should be declaring as being in the right or the wrong, and as such should force them to change the law. Not the bench.
Re:Right to post anonymously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because only [wikipedia.org] cowards [wikipedia.org] publish [wikipedia.org] anonymously [wikipedia.org].
Re:what right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Constitution limits the powers of government to circumscribe the rights inherent to its citizens.
We've been so deeply brainwashed by the "Hollywood" (i.e. shallow) presentation of the Constitution that every time a question like this comes up, we LOOK for the "Right" to be listed in the document, and if it's not there, we must not have it.
We have it UNLESS:
a) our state constitution specifically allow the government to have a say in it, and
b) that state provision doesn't exceed the powers allowed to the states according to the US Constitution.
Replying to myself- McLibel Two on the record (Score:4, Insightful)
To make you waste some more mod points, let me point out today that in the Guardian today is an article by Helen Steel and Dave Morris (The McLibel Two.) They stood up, on the record, for their beliefs. McDonalds had the most pyrrhic victory imaginable, and European courts decided that the trial was unfair because of the failure of the UK government to enable Steel and Morris to be adequately represented. The UK has much poorer protection of freedom of speech than the US, but the EU seems to have some judges with a clue or two.
Steel and Morris are heroes of dissent. And Proud Citizen has nothing to be proud of.
Get a clue. (Score:3, Insightful)
That should be obvious from the fact that all this happened under the jurisdiction of the state of Delaware - it's not even a federal issue.
Re:Right to post anonymously? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right to post anonymously? (Score:3, Insightful)
So your name is really CountBass? Did your parents have sense of humor?
Re:Right to post anonymously? (Score:4, Insightful)
A few influential people may disagree with your assertion.
"The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. "
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/ [ou.edu]
Re:what right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, one should base an argument for a right to anonymous speech based on Amendment I. The first amendment doesn't say that free speech is only guaranteed where the speaker is known. It says that free speech is guaranteed. For a bunch of historical, logical, and policy reasons that other courts have described at great length, it turns out that that means both anonymous speech and non-anonymous speech.
The argument that the first amendment doesn't mention anonymity and must not therefore protect anonymous speech is based on a method of dividing speech in half and then declaring arbitrarily that only one half or the other is protected. The anonymous/known division is no more sensible that public/private, child/parent, man/woman, oral/written, or verbal/gesture.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.