Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Electronic Frontier Foundation United States News Technology

Redditor Allowed To Stay Anonymous, Court Rules (cnet.com) 131

Posted by msmash from the taking-a-stand dept.
Online free speech has been given a victory, with a federal court ruling that a Redditor can remain anonymous in a copyright lawsuit. From a report: This means anyone from around the globe who posts on Reddit can still rely on First Amendment protections for anonymous free speech, because Reddit is a US platform with a US audience. The Electronic Frontier Foundation fought on behalf of Reddit commenter Darkspilver, a Jehovah's Witness who posted public and internal documents from The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society online. Watch Tower subpoenaed Reddit to provide identity information on Darkspilver for the court case, but the EFF filed a motion to quash this, citing "deep concerns that disclosure of their identity would cause them to be disfellowshipped by their community." In February 2019, Darkspilver posted an advertisement by the Jehovah's Witness organization that asks for donations, as well as a chart showing what personal data the organization keeps. Watch Tower said both of these were copyrighted items. The Redditor argued it was fair use, because he posted the ad for commentary and criticism purposes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Redditor Allowed To Stay Anonymous, Court Rules More

Redditor Allowed To Stay Anonymous, Court Rules

Comments Filter:

  • You know the reason they wanted the name public (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Thursday May 23, 2019 @01:53PM (#58643312)

    The cult was going to punish and abuse the leaker.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The cult was going to punish and abuse the leaker.

      It does happen. [thestreet.com]

    • The cult was going to punish and abuse the leaker.

      Was the clue the EFF's explicitly stated concern in the summary that "disclosure of their identity would cause them to be disfellowshipped by their community"?

  • Dangerous cult (Score:5, Informative)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Thursday May 23, 2019 @02:05PM (#58643404)

    The dangerous cult is not above driving their members to suicide, they are basically Scientology but with a Christian streak and a bigger membership.

    They regularly use copyright law to quash dissenters from the Internet, even if they do so frivolously. They are, besides the Catholic Church, one of the largest settlers of child abuse lawsuits but unlike the CC, they don't actually change their practices that allow abusers to remain amongst their organization.

    They are also regularly featured in the news for forcing their members to die instead of allowing certain medical procedures and regularly babies and children have been taken out of their parents' custody over these religious procedures. Members that are doctors and nurses are likewise encouraged to violate HIPAA and other laws to out members to the organization that are patients in their care.

    • ... they are basically Scientology but with a Christian streak and a bigger membership.

      And I think their membership fees are lower than those for Scientology ...

    • The dangerous cult is not above driving their members to suicide, they are basically Scientology but with a Christian streak and a bigger membership.

      A cult is a small, new religion.

      A religion is a large, old cult.

      Prove me wrong.

    • The JWs do one thing I respect. If a war breaks out and has conscription, they'll let you join for the purposes of claiming Conscientious Objector status. Though seriously if it comes to that, join the Quakers or anabaptists, waaaaay less crazier.

    • All the CC did was transfer the offender off to another congregation that was unaware of their offences. I'll respect any religious organization when they hand over any sexual predator over to the police along with a folder of their findings, ask that victims co-operate fully with the investigation, and provide counselling for those hurt and their families. Paying the victims 30 or 40 years after they've been traumatized and still blocking the police is no reason to think that the offenders have been remove

  • So much for the idea... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoeDuncan ( 874519 ) on Thursday May 23, 2019 @02:14PM (#58643484)

    ... that the First Amendment ONLY applies to situations where the government physically prevents you from expressing yourself.

    That false idea can go die now, thanks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      This is still physically expressing yourself, the first amendment wasn't just about mentally expressing yourself.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sebby ( 238625 )

      ... that the First Amendment ONLY applies to situations where the government physically prevents you from expressing yourself.

      That false idea can go die now, thanks.

      Aren't courts part of the government (or a branch thereof)?

      And wasn't this a (copyright) suit asking a court to force someone to reveal an identity?

      • Aren't courts part of the government (or a branch thereof)?

        That's stupid and you know it.

        The dispute was between the Jehova's Witness church and Reddit, neither of which is any part of the federal government (so, two private entities).

        That the dispute was mediated by the courts (which are part of the government, although not necessarily the federal one) is literally irrelevent because the federal government WAS NOT ONE OF THE PARTIES IN THE DISPUTE.

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 23, 2019 @02:54PM (#58643726)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Completely, hopelessly, wrong.

            The judge here ruled that forcing Reddit to reveal the name of a user would violate the first amendment, and is therefore not something the court can do.

            Did you even read the article?

            That's not what was ruled. Reddit had already revealed the user's identity to Watchtower. What the court ruled is that Watchtower was not allowed then to make that identity public through their case filings, because if they did so, THEY would be violating the user's first amendment rights.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          Good job proving you're a fucking moron. Perhaps you should actually spend time in court rooms, maybe you'd have a clue, JoeDrunken.

    • That false idea can go die now, thanks.

      Only if you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  • This is a good ruling (Score:5, Interesting)

    by randygalbraith ( 5996732 ) on Thursday May 23, 2019 @03:28PM (#58643914)
    I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses all my life until leaving the faith in 2007. I served as both a ministerial servant and then later as an elder. In court Jehovah's Witnesses make the incredible claim: "Watch Tower further argues that Watch Tower is not Darkspilver’s local church and has no ability to excommunicate him from his local congregation." While technically true all Jehovah's Witnesses know congregations are directed by the organization. They don't act on their own. Every case of disfellowshipping is sent to HQ where it is reviewed. It is near certain Darkspiliver's "local church" would pursue him or her as soon as the identity became public information. In my own case when we openly celebrated Christmas in 2009 the local congregation took action without informing me. My calls to elders were not answered until one day I called from work. Eventually I received a letter from HQs from SDB:SSY (yes, the JW author used an pseudonym to conceal his identity!) informing me action had been taken. All of this is so unfortunate since many individual Jehovah's Witnesses are just good people. I received much practical help during my youth from congregation members who now will not even say hello to me. They don't really have a beef with me -- rather they are induced to shun by the organization. I hope Darkspliver finds some comfort in this ruling. I also hope current members who wish to leave find their way out. It is a difficult journey but many have left and live successful lives in wider world. Cheers, -Randy
    • Yeah, I used to be really negative towards the JWs. Then one day I met someone who had gotten off drugs because of them. He didn't end up joining them, but they still helped him. So after that my attitude changed, it's important to remember they do good, too.

      They are also people trying to make it through this confusing life.

  • Check the EFF's Article [eff.org]

    The Redditor's identity will be disclosed To the plaintiff's counsel (incidentally -- whom is a JW) under an "Attorney's Eyes Only" restriction. That was something the Redditor had expressed concerns about, because of legitimate fears that the attorney who is also a JW could covertly cause the identity to leak (while pretending to obey the order) ---- and the plaintiff had all the information required to pursue their copyright claims; recall, this was allegedly about cuttin

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by randygalbraith ( 5996732 )
      Hi mysidia, That certainly is a risk, but I think fairly unlikely in this case. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the "superior authorities" mentioned at Romans 13 are the secular government. As such they generally feel one should follow secular laws. However they also feel justified to disobey laws that conflict with "God's Law." Most of the time this is the reason JWs will continue to preach in countries where they are "under ban." I of course know nothing about why they are taking these actions of late, but it
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Tax (Score:1)

    by RobXiii ( 685386 )
    Any "Religion" that throws around copyright claims should immediately lose tax exempt status.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by randygalbraith ( 5996732 )
      Hi RobXiii. From a legal perspective JWs have the right to protected their copyrighted material. And given that copyright is used to protect Free Software I favor relatively strong but reasonable copyright laws. Legality aside JWs and copyright raises some interesting moral and religious questions. For many years the JW literature we distributed had a set price. Then we were told that we would stop that practice and go to "voluntary donation basis." Unknown to me a the time Jimmy Swaggart Ministries had los

      • I studied with JWs for two and a half years. Around the "Sparlock the Warrior Wizard" takedowns of June 2012 (involving parodies of Become Jehovah's Friend episode 2 "Obey Jehovah"), an elder explained to me that Watch Tower asserts its copyrights because Watch Tower wants Witnesses, "unbaptized publishers" (Witnesses in training), and other interested parties to be sure that they are receiving intact literature.

        • Hi tepples, One of the marks of high-control groups is information control and the lack of trust that engenders. If you had become one of Jehovah's Witnesses and then told some in the congregation that you had seen a parody of one of the videos it is near certain the elders would counsel you. Why? Because fundamentally there is a lack of trust. You cannot be trusted to determine what to read or even who to associate with. When JWs shun they do it simply out of obedience to a command. "Obey Jehovah" in pragm

  • Easy solution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 23, 2019 @09:08PM (#58645400)
    if you're a tax exempt religion any documents regarding your religion are instantly in public domain.

    As other posters pointed out this is no victory. The defendent's identity will be disclosed to the plaintiffs lawyer who is a member of the cult. He will leak the name and the cult will punish the leaker. At best he/she loses all access to friends and family. At worst they might use violence. It's a cult after all.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close