Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger

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!!

[dustinbarbour]

It pleases me to know that there are judges out there in tune with the Internet, who know what it is, what it represents, and recognize it for the "unique democratizing medium" that it is. These days seem rampant with politicians, judges, and CEOs all interpreting in favor of the bigger guys. The recent rulings against the RIAA and cases such as this one begin to restore my faith in the American judicial system. We've still got a way to go and the system will never be perfect, but at least there is a glimmer.

Re:Huzzah!!

[bersl2]

The phrase "unique democratizing medium" makes me tingly inside.

Re:Huzzah!!

[ArsonSmith]

And here we see a buzz word being born. See how cute and harmless it is. makes you feel all tingly inside. Then it is going to be rammed into your head over and over and over again until you use parallel logistical flexibility to create optimize cross-platform content over a unique democratizing medium.

Right to post anonymously?

[CountBrass]

I'm surprised the judge asserted the blogger had the right to post anonymously.

But that aside: if you've got something to say have the guts to put your name to it. If you're not then perhaps you shouldn't be saying it? How do we know this blogger isn't simply lying? Or is an estranged mistress with a grudge? Or is a political opponent?

If the blogger is concerned about reprisals or being sued for defamation then I can't see how that's a defence. If they should be allowed to say whatever it is then the law sh

Re:Right to post anonymously?

[QuantumG]

The courts aint going to protect you from getting "wacked" by a crooked public official.

Re:Right to post anonymously?

[BVis]

If the blogger is concerned about reprisals or being sued for defamation then I can't see how that's a defence. If they should be allowed to say whatever it is then the law should protect them and defamation suits shouldn't be possible.

And in theory communism works, too. The real world works differently. Those with the resources to hire dozens of high-priced lawyers to file lawsuits can crush those who do not have those resources into settling an obviously meritless case (the most relevant current example being Stupid RIAA Tricks).

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.

Re:Right to post anonymously?

[amliebsch]

But that aside: if you've got something to say have the guts to put your name to it.

Right, because only [wikipedia.org] cowards [wikipedia.org] publish [wikipedia.org] anonymously [wikipedia.org].

Re:Right to post anonymously?

[ArsonSmith]

All well and good unless you're a Jew in Nazi Germany. The ability to speak anonymously can be usefull.

Re:Right to post anonymously?

[Erixxxxx]

But that aside: if you've got something to say have the guts to put your name to it.

So your name is really CountBass? Did your parents have sense of humor?

Re:Right to post anonymously?

[jxs2151]

if you've got something to say have the guts to put your name to it. If you're not then perhaps you shouldn't be saying it?

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]

Overreaction in the first place

[mrpostal]

In a series of obscenity-laced tirades, the bloggers, among other things, pointed to Cahill's "obvious mental deterioration," and made several sexual references about him and his wife, including using the name "Gahill" to suggest that Cahill, who has publicly feuded with Smyrna Mayor Mark Schaeffer, is homosexual.

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:Overreaction in the first place

[The-Bus]

If anyone is wondering why this is getting a (moderate) amount of national attention, it's because Delaware's cours (for whatever reason) are usually looked at as setting precedents for the rest of the country, at least until something moves beyond a state court; this is more true for corporate and business law than for the above case.

The "blog" everyone is talking about is actually just a bulletin board [newszapforums.com] and you can see Cahill discussion is continuing on it.

There's also local coverage of this event (which o [delawareonline.com]

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[Hope Thelps]

The judge was wrong

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:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[Hope Thelps]

You know there is a difference between "lawful" and "right", "unlawful" and "wrong" don't you? The judgeS were wrong.

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:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[Oligonicella]

No, it's the difference between law and morality. It is wrong to hang homosexuals, but in Iran it's legal.

This is an example, it is only an example and not meant to construe equality between it and the current discussion.

That is a false analogy

[brokeninside]

And its shifting the goal posts as well. Even if the law is morally wrong, it does not necessarily follow that a judge upholding that law is morally wrong in doing so. One could, quite sensibly, argue that in most cases it is morally wrong for judges not to uphold laws that they think are immoral as judges are charged with upholding the law, not with judging morals.

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[justforaday]

Wow! Can I have you represent me next time I need to go to court?

"I'm sorry Your Honor, but you're just plain wrong, because I think you're wrong."

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[BVis]

You know there is a difference between "lawful" and "right", "unlawful" and "wrong" don't you?

I do. "Lawful" and "Unlawful" are relevant in a court of law. "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective judgements, and are not the sole basis for a legal decision. Judges frequently are forced to make decisions that they might think are "wrong" in their personal opinions, but the law doesn't agree. In the end judges have to consider law and precedent, not what they might believe ("activist judges" notwithstandin

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[clary]

You know there is a difference between "lawful" and "right", "unlawful" and "wrong" don't you? The judgeS were wrong.

Hmm. The interesting question then is what should a judge do when the law conflicts with what is right? (*) Should he break his promise as a judge to uphold the law? Or perhaps should he resign his position on the bench if doing his duty to the law would force him to make a ruling that is morally wrong?

I would contrast this with the duty of a juror. At least where I live, in mos

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[The Wooden Badger]

I have to ask what is the real damage that is caused by the blogs? After RTFA it appears to me that the postings in question are part of a newspaper website article discussion. I wouldn't exactly call that a blog, unless slashdot is also a blog. I don't know of any material damage that could ever be caused by slashdot posters, and even less so of anonymous posters on a newspaper website. I would say that the Bush administration has a better case for slander almost any time a Democrat Representative or S

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[wcbarksdale]

Defamation and slander are not terms that are applicable to opinions.

Slander and Opinions

[SeanDuggan]

The difference, as I understand it, is that it becomes slander or libel (not sure what the difference between those two is) when it is represented as fact, not opinion.
For instance, I could say "I think Elliot Frielle is a cheat and a liar" and that's personal opinion. If I state, "Elliot Frielle regularly cheats on his income tax and perjured himself in court last year by stating that his mistress was with him on the night she was accused of mass murder," I'd be libeling (or is that slandering?) him by st

Re:Slander and Opinions

[amliebsch]

"Elliot Frielle regularly cheats on his income tax and perjured himself in court last year by stating that his mistress was with him on the night she was accused of mass murder," I'd be libeling (or is that slandering?) him by stating it as fact.

True, but an interesting note is that in the United States, the truth of that statement would be an absolute defense against any charge of libel or slander. In most other countries, that is not the case.

Actually, you are wrong.

[brunes69]

Slander \Slan"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Slandered}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Slandering}.] 1. To defame; to injure by maliciously uttering a false report; to tarnish or impair the reputation of by false tales maliciously told or propagated; to calumniate.

The actual comments were...

"character flaws," "mental deterioration," and "failed leadership," and stated that "Gahill [sic] is...paranoid."

The comments he used are so vague, no lawyer would ever take this to court, because

Re:Actually, you are wrong.

[jotok]

Hmm. So, where do we put the burden of proof? Does the person making the accusation have to PROVE that he is telling the truth, or do we go the other way and expect the people being defamed to PROVE that the accusations are false?

I should think that the burden of proof should be on the person making the assertions, personally.

In this case, you're right that some of the terms ("character flaws") are open to interpretation. But paranoid? That has a clinical definition, doesn't it? And if you want to say

Re:Actually, you are wrong.

[brunes69]

I should think that the burden of proof should be on the person making the assertions, personally.

Yes, in a libel case, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertions. But as I pointed out, you can't disprove any of these statements. So the person making them would make their case, and you couldn't disprove it.

In this case, you're right that some of the terms ("character flaws") are open to interpretation. But paranoid? That has a clinical definition, doesn't it?

Sure, it *can* be, but

Re:Actually, you are wrong.

[jotok]

Yes, in a libel case, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertions. But as I pointed out, you can't disprove any of these statements. So the person making them would make their case, and you couldn't disprove it.

Ok, I understand then how a libel case wouldn't work precisely because the defendant could merely say that this was his opinion...but I don't understand that paragraph above...why would it then come to you having to disprove the statements, ever?

Next question, is it possible t

Re:The judge was wrong and so are you.

[indifferent children]

What is a politician without reputation?

A politician.

Huzzah!

[jettoki]

And then, a million bloggers rose in triumphant jubilation, only to sit back down panting heavily.

Judge Steele???

[ferrellcat]

Damn, just his name alone makes him someone I wouldn't want to fuck with. I wonder if he has his own TV show.

NEXT, ON JUDGE STEELE...

Re:Judge Steele???

[schporto]

http://courts.delaware.gov/Courts/Supreme%20Court/ ?justices.htm [delaware.gov]
While he doesn't look that tough, he is a fairly intimidating man. Really, you don't want to be there in his courtroom and try to piss him off. Some folks have 'it', that odd quality that makes you intimidating.

what right?

[calyptos]

I can't find anything in the first amendment which addresses a right to speak anonymously.

Although I do agree with the court ruling.

Re:what right?

[Davorama]

Yeah, I didn't know about that either. An explaination is here. [cornell.edu] It appears to have to do with not supressing free speach in the form of leaflets.

Re:what right?

[np_bernstein]

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is not enumerated right to privacy either, but many, if not most, constitutional scholors agree that the right to privacy is indeed a right.

Re:what right?

[argStyopa]

The US Constitution doesn't list the RIGHTS people have.
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.

Re:what right?

[PMuse]

One can argue for a right to anonymous speech as an unenumerated right guaranteed by Amendment IX, but this is a weak basis.

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 an

Re:what right?

[sangreal66]

I love when people say intentionally ridiculous sounding things like "The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to drive a car" or "The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to be married." Yes, it does actually.

No, it doesn't actually. The constitution spells out which rights the government may not curtail (with the exception of the 18th amenndment). The constitution does not prevent the government from passing a law banning marriage or driving a car. It does not, therefore, guarantee those right

Re:what right?

[Guppy06]

"The constitution does not prevent the government from passing a law banning marriage or driving a car."

Go read Article I, paying special attention to Section 8. What in there gives Congress the power to legislate in either of those two areas?

If nothing else it is a federal constitution, and anything that isn't specificly delegated to the federation itself is something left to the states to decide, which is why things like marriage licenses or driver's licenses are issued by a state and given "full faith a

Re:what right?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you do not. Once you pee on him then you have assaulted him and being that pee is a bodily fluid then it might be considered a "deadly weapon" [google.com] in some states. This [google.com] could provide you something to read while you practice your rendition of "Mary had a little lamb". One of the oldest premises in law is that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" [google.com].

Re:what right?

[indifferent children]

Yes, and I have the right to pee on you while singing Marry had a Little Lamb...

You can pee on him while singing Ring Around the Rosy or Greensleeves, but Mary had a Little Lamb and Happy Birthday are copyrighted. Good luck.

Re:what right?

[rgoldste]

You have to stop construing the First Amendment as granting you rights. That kind of thinking almost led to the rejection of the Bill of Rights in the first place. James Madison once said [findlaw.com]: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against."

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:what right?

[hamburger lady]

the bill of rights doesn't bestow rights upon the people, it states what particular rights the government is diswallowed/limited from infringing. the bill of rights doesn't mention the right to yell 'goal!' at a football match either.

Re:what right?

[Sheepdot]

You won't either. The ninth amendment has been interepretted to mean privacy sort of, but no where does it explicitly state that citizens have a right to privacy. I don't think that's what the issue is, though.

Think about it, why should it be coming down to personal rights? Why can it be small business (ISP) rights? They obviously didn't want to turn the name over, so why should they have to?

Personally, I think it'd be great if there were no constitutional right to anonymity and instead we just started enfo

Re:what right?

[Vitriol+Angst]

The Constitution puts forth certain explicit rights for US Citizens, but the "establishment clause" (I think), which says in essence, when anything in the Constitution is not explicitly set as a restriction on Citizens then there is no restriction.

So, if the constitution doesn't say being anonymous is or isn't a right, then it IS a right. The tie goes to the citizen -- yeah!

That this concept has been forgotten and largely ignored is a travesty -- boooo!

In some regard, the constitution puts forth those excep

Precedent

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The Federalist Papers were published under a pseudonym.

When US law looks for examples of political speech to reason about, those are some of the strongest examples available.

In practical terms, without the option of speaking anonymously, some people in hostile communities wouldn't be able to speak freely.

Anonymous Posting

[Anonymous Coward]

For all of you Slashdotters who have have historically ( I assume no links are needed between gentlemen here on this subject? ) assaulted the AC's posts merely because they were posted as AC let this article be a reminder that AC posting is a constitutional right that has been upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court. This is of course not to admonish you for justifiable assault on poor comments and err *cough* flamebait.

Re:Anonymous Posting

[ifwm]

Shut up you pathetic AC

Horrible basis

[RingDev]

FTFA: "We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," FT First Amedment: "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." I'm failing to see where the 1st Amedment garuntees anyone the

Re:Horrible basis

[Ironsides]

Last April, in MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Anonymity, the court reasoned, helps speech stay free. Focusing on political speech - the sort of speech that lies at the core of the First Amendment - the MacIntyre ruling stipulated that restrictions on anonymous political speech must be narrowly tailored and serve an over-riding state interest.

Earlier cases had already guaranteed that the right to anony

Re:Horrible basis

[rabel]

What this finding says is that you must now prove the defendants guilt before you can even find out who it is.

Damn straight. What's the problem?

Re:Sad

[dustinbarbour]

I hear ya'. The public in this country has taken a rash beating in the passed (past? Could a Slashdot grammar Nazi clarify?) years that we get all excited when things are decided in favor of the law. How ridiculous things have become. But never fear... Little things like this mean democracy and freedom still breathe!

OT: being a grammar Nazi. ;-)

[interactive_civilian]

dustinbarbour wanted help with the following:

The public in this country has taken a rash beating in the passed (past? Could a Slashdot grammar Nazi clarify?)

Past is a noun talking about the time before now (i.e. Past, present, and future), an adjective for talking about previous times (i.e. past tense, past few days), or a preposition (i.e. go past the post office)

Passed is either the past tense or past participle of the verb pass, and basically means to move past something (i.e. time passes, one car p

Re:OT: being a grammar Nazi. ;-)

[Pogue Mahone]

Disclaimer: this post has not been check for its own grammar mistakes. Real grammar Nazis, do your worst! should of course read "this post has not been checked ...". But you knew that, I'm sure ;-)

Disclaimer: thus pist has nit bin chucked fore it's own grammer mistales eyther.

;-)

Re:Sad

[rabel]

The public in this country has taken a rash beating in the passed (past? Could a Slashdot grammar Nazi clarify?) years

it should be "Grammar Nazi"

Re:Sad

[shbazjinkens]

Slander is considered an abuse of free speech and will get you in trouble whether political or personal. The case wasn't whether the blogger had a right to free speech, but to anonymity. We aren't constitutionally guaranteed anonymity, as we're expected to take responsibility for what we say. This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.

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:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

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

That's about what I'd expect from a cock-sucking asswipe such as yourself. When did you stop beating your wife? PS - I'm glad your crack habit doesn't keep you from molesting young boys.

Re:Sad

[chenjeru]

Since when was this a popular website?

Re:Sad

[timmarhy]

"we're expected to take responsibility for what we say."

so when can we start applying that to the millions of rip of ads out there claiming all kinds of shit.

Re:Sad

[Fred_A]

Don't be silly, that wouldn't maximize shareholder value.

Corporations have the same rights as people, but you can't expect them to have the same responsabilities.

Re:Sad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

What needs to happen is for society at large to get a sort of karma-system for anonymous libel - so that AC's get less credence than those who put their name to their words. Taking away anonymity has all kinds of bad consquences, while ignoring anonymous libel just require

Re:Sad

[Pieroxy]

What is needed is a much better system than that. People will eventually become aware that blindly trusting anything anonymous is just plain stupid. This is a question of educating the population, and that usually takes a few generations. Patience will pay, I believe.

Re:Sad

[indifferent children]

But this is a different kind of anonymity. This blogger wasn't anonymous like an AC, he was anonymous like Pieroxy. He had published his blog consistently under one name at one address (ok, so I am assuming this), and his track record of writings was available for review, just like a non-AC /. user. The only reason that we consider him anonymous, is because we don't have his meat-space name, and couldn't find him in the big blue room.

Anonymity

[YouTalkinToMe]

> ...will get you in trouble whether political or personal.

It makes a big difference, whether it is political or personal.

From the Electronic Privacy Information Center Archive (see http://www.epic.org/free_speech/default.html#anony mity [epic.org] for more info)

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."

In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."

Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.

Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.

Re:Sad

[wcbarksdale]

The Supreme Court has held that non-defamatory anonymous speech is constitutionally protected (see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission). In the article, the court ruled that the statements made by the bloggers were clearly opinions, which can't ever be defamatory.

Re:Sad

[kfg]

We aren't constitutionally guaranteed anonymity, as we're expected to take responsibility for what we say.

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

Re:Sad

[Hosiah]

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,

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:Sad

[RingDev]

The difference is that watching Jay Leno or the Daily Show, you know that it is a parody. Also, content is important. If you post on a political or informational web site that you disagree with Bush's handling of the War in Iraq for reasons A, B, and C, that's fine. If you post "I had anal butt sex with Bush and Laura took pictures" then you should be held accountable for your accusations. Your post has no merit, unless you DID have sexual relations with the President, in which case you would have your chan

Re:Sad

[Hosiah]

Ay, but I'm thinking pragmatically. All you say is true. Now, are we going to set up a court to scrutinize every single word said about every public figure? Yes, you and I can judge and distinguish between falsehood and truth. But, rather than having a secret police hounding every newspaper, I'll put up with a few National Enquirers.

Re:Sad

[Trailwalker]

It's a career killer for professional politicians, especially on the local level.

Good.

Re:Sad

[thebdj]

Actually anonymity did not exactly win. The case has been remanded back to the lower court. The argument before the DE Supreme Court was that the individuals in question did not establish a prima facia case and that the judge over the case used a very relaxed standard that did not provide proper first ammendment protection. Based from what I heard this site was saying, I would not be too surprised in the end if the bloggers get unmasked. Of course, in order for that to happen the people behind this will have to continue the case, but I cannot see why they wouldn't if they have gone this far.

Re:Sad

[Mr. Underbridge]

We aren't constitutionally guaranteed anonymity,

Yeah, I missed the bus on that one too, but it sure seemed to play the central role here. The logic seems to be that if one fears reprisal of a libel suit, that it will have the famous "chilling effect" on speech? Isn't that the...point of libel laws? That people will actually think about what they're about to write before they write it?

Re:Sad

[ray-auch]

This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.

Still the case. All this judgement said is that the libel/slander must be proved first, before the anonymity is lifted.

This protects anonymity by saying you can't get the courts, isps etc. to expose an author simply by suing them. To get the exposure you first have to prove the merits of your case.

Victims of slander don't lose by this, only people who want to use meritless accusations of slander to ex

Re:Sad

[Registered Coward v2]

Slander is considered an abuse of free speech and will get you in trouble whether political or personal. The case wasn't whether the blogger had a right to free speech, but to anonymity. We aren't constitutionally guaranteed anonymity, as we're expected to take responsibility for what we say. This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.

The court didn't say a person can't be held responsible for slander, it said that someone must first prove they

Re:Sad

[cybergrunt69]

Actually, in today's society, it is a fairly uncommon thing for a (supposed) non geek to apply common sense in an internet/computer related case...

Re:Sad

[Orgazmus]

Can you really call it "common" sense anymore?

Re:Sad

[Winkhorst]

I suspect the "common" in "common sense" refers to its nonacademic, nonintellectual nature rather than its widespread existence. How often it actually appears is a function of the "sense" part, which, unfortunately, is all too rare these days.

Re:Sad

[prefect42]

"Le sens commun n'est pas si commun." so said Voltaire

Re:Sad

[prefect42]

Almost. I think 'si' in that context means 'so', and you can safely drop the leading 'The'. I would be a little less word-for-word and translate it as

"Common sense isn't so common."

Re:Sad

[larry bagina]

where in the constitution does it guarantee anonymous speech?

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

[Fred_A]

Sounds like a good way to simplify your legislation though : if it isn't clearly allowed in the constitution, then it's illegal. ;)

Re:Sad

[Winkhorst]

Was it "1984" where everything that wasn't illegal was mandatory? Or is that just a general way of describing the standard fascist police state? The fact is that you can leaflet cars on a parking lot without fear of reprisal and all this decision does is extend that ability to a medium where there is a technical method for destroying that anonimity. What they are basically saying is, "You can't spy on people because they didn't give away their identity." This is certainly a privacy issue, one of those right

Re:Sad

[RingDev]

"The fact is that you can leaflet cars on a parking lot without fear of reprisal and all this decision does is extend that ability to a medium where there is a technical method for destroying that anonimity." But you should have a fear of reprisal while leafletting cars. If I see someone leaflet my car, I can approach them and discuse the issue with them. I can see someone post an inflamitory post on the internet, and it's easy enough to approach them (given the ISP's assistance) but now the Government is

Re:Sad

[pnuema]

Actually, it's the reverse, thanks to the 10th ammendment. If it is not expressly forbidden, it is legal at the federal level.

Re:Sad

[amliebsch]

How do you get that from "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"? It seems to me that the obvious reading is that all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution fall to the lower levels of government.

Re:Sad

[pnuema]

Actually, it's the reverse, thanks to the 10th ammendment. If it is not expressly forbidden, it is legal at the federal level.

Can you see what you missed?

The bill of rights

[mosb1000]

The bill of rights (which is part of the constitution) is clearly a list of restrictions. They all say " the right to . . . shall not be infringed" or "congress shall make no law restricting . . ." or something similar restricting the power of the government.

Also, under the elastic clause the congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary to carry out the powers and purposes of the constitution, so the congress may have the ability of regulate speech, so long as it promotes the purpose of the

Re:The bill of rights

[mosb1000]

One of the powers you refer to is the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This grants congress the power to make laws other than those the constitution specifically states it may make, so long as they promote the powers granted by constitution. The power to make such laws need not be specifically enumer

Re:Sad

[CTachyon]

While no right to anonymous speech is spelled out in the Constitution or its Amendments, I would imagine that the founding fathers thought that anonymity was trivially implied by "[not] abridging the freedom of speech", since a law requiring "eunymity" of unpopular political speech effectively bans that speech. (Think Communist speech in the McCarthy era. Regardless of where one stands on the idea itself, Communist speech is protected by the First Amendment.)

The Founders themselves made heavy use of the anonymous pen name Publius when writing The Federalist Papers [ou.edu] -- essentially an ad campaign for our current Constitution -- so it's easy to see where they stood on the subject when they wrote the Constitution.

Re:Sad

[Oligonicella]

There is, however, a difference between publishing a political opinion or philosophical paper and publishing a libelous one. The second deserves no such protection as it is an active attack against a fellow citizen.

Re:Freedom of Speech ...

[Skye16]

Then maybe you should straight up say that when talking about it?

Some Degree of Freedom of Speech, for example, would make me feel a lot better, and it'll stop confusing the kids, too.

Re:Title dyslexia

[maxwell demon]

Do you mean that the blogger is annoying, or that the court favours annoying him?

Re:Why is this news??

[meringuoid]

It's like saying you'd sue someone who was spouting crap in speaker's corner - if that were the case what would be the point in speaker's corner?????

I've often wondered, but never actually bothered to look up: what IS the deal with Speakers' Corner? For those who don't know, it's a place in one of London's parks where people with axes to grind traditionally get up on their soapboxes to harangue the passers-by. I seem to remember hearing that there was some old mediaeval law protecting absolutely their rig

Re:Why is this news??

[Xiaran]

As a resident Londoner ou are correct. Speakers Corner is located in Hyde Park in London and various lunatics congregate there on Sundays to generally spout dribble and have argument with random onlookers. Its not terribly serious, and can actually be quite fun if you enjoy arguing with trolls and idiots(and if your a slashdotter Im thinking you probably do :) )

Replying to myself- McLibel Two on the record

[panurge]

Clearly some people very much dislike my posts on this. I wonder why? The reference to China or the opposition to the right of ACs to libel and slander anonymously?

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.

Go to the newspapers

[panurge]

If the "ordinary joe" has an important piece of information that would discredit a public person, (s)he should go to the respectable Press who will investigate and publish if they and their lawyers think it justified. That's what they are for and why they have special rights. (And why it is wrong that Murdoch should be allowed to control so much of world media, but that's another issue.)

Re:Go to the newspapers

[grahamm]

Why should the 'respectable' press have more rights than any other publisher? I may be totally wrong, but I suspect that the "press" whose freedom was enshrined in the first amendment bears little resemblance to the current media conglomerates who publish most of the newspaper, own TV stations etc. I would suggest that the modern day blog, and sites such as Slashdot are much closer to the 'press' at the time when the amendment was written than are the modern day newspapers and TV news stations.

Re:Go to the newspapers

[Qzukk]

And why it is wrong that Murdoch should be allowed to control so much of world media

And what if you're trying to discredit Murdoch, or one of his pals?

I think you'll find that a monopolistic Press isn't as "respectable" as you'd like to believe.

Re:Good call with limits

[Winkhorst]

How do you breath with all that sand up your nose?

The current crop of political bozos in Washington got there by using a whole arsenal of the tools you have just described, down to a telephone campaign in West Virginia that said that the main primary opposition candidate had a black baby out of wedlock, when in fact he had adopted a Bangladeshi child. Why were these folks not indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned? What's good for the politicians isn't good for the people? You are a sad case,

Get a clue.

[nonlnear]

This has nothing to do with internet governance.

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:First Amendment Right to Speak Annonymously...

[rabel]

Huh? First of all, we have the right to speak anonymously, but it's not defined in the consititution explicity (which is why it's a right, duh.).

But more importantly, why the *hell* wouldn't you want to have the "right" to speak anonymously?

where in the Constitution does it give us the right to speak annonymously? It doesn't and it shouldn't.

Please, can you explain why you feel this way? I think you may be misinterpreting "anonymous" with "illegal" ("fire" in a crowded theater and all that) and th