Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
CDA News

Anonymity not a "Free Speech" right 183

Posted by Hemos from the should-it-be-covered? dept.
EngrBohn writes " A Federal judge has ruled that anonymous "defamation" on the Internet is not covered under Free Speech". This relates to the case of an anonymous user on Yahoo!, who was making claims about Xircom in chat boards, referring to their products as "faulty" and poorly designed. Recently, Raytheon went through a similar situation. (Link is NY Times: Free Login required).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymity not a "Free Speech" right More

Anonymity not a "Free Speech" right

Comments Filter:
  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    A simple script executed by cron would be sweet for that.

    LK
  • OK, How about this: someone sets up a web-based service that offers an e-mail address, with no questions asked. Some services already come close, but most still require basic identification. What if there were a site that didn't even require that? Then, your Yahoo! ID could be faked, and the e-mail address you provide to sign up would be untraceable.

    Take it one better; put the server itself virtual-hosted overseas.

    I've thought about this very kind of service myself. I have no idea what the legal ramifications are, assuming that getting past some of the technical issues (e.g. preventing spam) are surmountable.

    Any comments?
    • Well, they are a leaked internal report, nobody made them up, so this would not apply to them (I can't be defaming you if I simply divulge something you actually said/wrote).

    • But on the other hand, Micros~1 could claim otherwise. So there would be a dispute concerning the facts of these documents bet. Microsoft and ESR. And so it could well go to trial.

    • Sure, in the end it would be proven (I think) that they are legitimate and not slander, but after how many hours of court and $$ for lawyers' fees?

    I hope this judgement gets thrown out.
  • "Now I am totally and utterly depressed. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that. I might get sued."

    Don't laugh. We haven't seen the first set of corporate class action suits against individuals for "defamation of corporations", but there's no reason it couldn't happen. The Beef Industry's failed suit against Oprah Winfrey for "defamation" was perhaps the beginning of what will be an ongoing grab for absolute mind control over US citizens.

    Yes, the US is well along on the way down the slippery slope to Corporate Totalitarianism now. It all started when corporations were given the rights of citizens in the late 1800's. If the US corporate elite manage to push the MAI through, it's going to be all downhill from there. Then corporations will have roughly the rights of states.

    Haven't heard of the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment)? Maybe that's because you get all your news from the corporations that want to push it through. So much for the "free press".

  • The only reason I don't think that Microsoft sues anyone on slash dot, is that it would be another blow to their PR. Could you imagine how much less people would think of MS if they sued someone because they said "Microsoft sucks". But please be careful because they probably can sue. But I don't think they would get any real money out of it (another reason why they don't).

    Again, becareful because Big Brother is watching!
  • They could try. As my instructor said, "Anyone can sue anyone, at anytime, for anything." I think the person could defend themselves with the fact that what they said is their opinion. If I remember right, you can't be sued for your opinion (most likely because that is true free speech.)
  • Ok...how about 'online' or 'via the internet' then?

    Sheesh! Was that really called for?

    Now see, if you were an AC, I'd be way more pissed somehow.

    Go Figure.

    -K

  • I have seen quite a few posts on here that say that this is a question of defamation, not of free speech. That the constitution was not meant to guarantee you free speech in cases where it would infringe on anothers' rights.


    In this case, I cannot understand why its constitutional for the anonymity of the poster to be revoked. I think it is more in the spirit of the constitution to have the right to say what I wish than be subjected a lawsuit when I want to say something insulting about a company or person.


    So maybe we shouldn't be looking at this as an issue of anonymity is not protected, and instead as defamation laws suck.

  • one would hope that never happens, that the police take the time to see if it looks like there is reason to belevie that you are cooking meth..
    but then meth is so easy to make... but one would hope. not that this doesnt happen all the time.

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • >Make the accuser prove there is a crime before restricting free speach.

    So, there is a trial/hearing with an un-named defendant who cannot defend himself because he is anonymous?

    So, assuming a crime is proven to exist, perpetrated by an anonymous net user, then your identity is revealed by court-order, there needs to then be a 'real' trial? Seems like that puts you at a real disadvantage, as the crime has already been proven, linked to your identity, and now its just a formality to pin it on you.

  • I am not using bad english - I am using American english (which to some, equates to the same thing)!

    I suppose I could've said: This person wants to remain anonymous because he works for Xircom.

    or I could've said: This person wants to remain anonymous because s/he works for Xircom.

    I didn't - I used "they" - and you still understood what I was saying. The reason I used "they" is because, while the second example is correct ("he"), it is not considered "PC" - the third example looks plain wrong to me ("s/he") - so I avoided the "PC" issue and chose "they".

    If the person doesn't work for Xircom - this becomes even a larger free speech issue - I mean, if someone has a problem with a company's product, shouldn't he have a right to say that? Of course, if he was making libelous statements about the company with no proof...
  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    Why is it that anyone who has a strong position on an issue is called a nut? Privacy nuts, gun nuts, animal rights nuts, et al. Why do you feel the need to belittle and affix degrading labels to people?

    I think it says alot more about you than it does them.

    In the future it will be no more difficult for the knowledgeable to retain anonymity. Even with logging. It isn't important how, but it can be done.

    LK
  • What would you have him do? Using him/her all the time is incredibly awkward and is in itself considered bad English. The established "solution" is make it all plural--but he's talking about a single person. The only other rule that exists is use masculine. But guess what? That's considered sexist. Yes, we need a new pronoun, but what could we use? How likely is it that a word can be invented out of a vacuum and gain widespread use when it is as central to the language as a pronoun? Give the poster a break--English isn't French and he's doing the best he can with what he has.

    Note: I assume that cr0sh is male. Is it sexist? Well, see above. cr0sh's user profile didn't give me any clues (and that's fine) so cr0sh: if you are a she, sorry, I meant no offense.

  • (These arguments are only intended to be used in the US)
    I believe most of the problems that are comming around with the blantant abridging of rights is the realization that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are open to interpretation.
    Freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but it should be my right NOT to disclose my identity. It should be my right to say whatever I want to about my employer without revealing info about who I am. DEFAMATION SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Period. Let the people who listen to me make up thier own judgement about whatever I say, and how credible it is.
    This type of problem makes me sick. Where the problem is in this case is that somehow the judge has been convinced that basic human and (here in the states) American rights can be overlooked if they are being used for something that other people may not approve of. No. We can not do that. First, it starts small, but the next thing you know it will be illegal for newspapers to publish editorials because they defame American politicians. In fact, defamation is not a tool to destroy, but to improve! Without criticism and failure, we would not strive to better ourselves. Stockholders might not like it, but those are the breaks.......
    Sorry to sidetrack, but the main issue is this: Freedom is freedom. Denial of these rights because of the intent to which they will be used means that this country is not truly free. Saying that Free Speech rights should be denied because they do not cover freedom to do it anonymously or use through defamation makes about as much fscking sense as "All men are created equal. But those indians, they aren't men, they are savage creatures, and deserve no rights." Next it's going to be "Yes, you have the right to bear arms. But, the only arms that part of the bill of rights cover are these rolling pins. Maybe you can knead the attackers to death."
    There are times when I am proud to be an American. But in this case, I just feel shame.
  • >Rumours tend to die fast without someone to take responsibility for them, even on the Net

    Ok, but the damage can occur pretty fast also and not be recoverable. Take the case where some AC posts lies about a company where a lot of e-traders prowl and then the stock gets run up until the lie is revealed and then the stock drops down below where it was before.

    Sure, the dolts that trade on these rumors and get burned deserve what they get for being stupid. But what about everyone else (including the employees with savings plans/retirement accounts) that get screwed over because their company's reputation is damaged because of this incident?

    This AC should (IMO) be no more protected from prosecution then someone who causes a stampede in a crowded theatre (overused analogy, i know). Maybe most people are smarter than to start a panic when someone shouts fire, but there's always a few who aren't (smart enough to not panic) and their actions can affect everyone else.

  • This is consistant with other supreme court rulings that things like fighting words are not protected speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. The point of this is that they see no value in speech that is defimation. This is similar to why we have slander and libel laws, your speech isn't protected in those cases either. I beleve the original precident comes from chapell v. hardwick.

  • Unfortunately, whether you're telling the truth or not, bad things will often happen to you if you've annoyed someone powerful. That's the thing that is good about anonymity. You can be protected from those who are more powerful (read: have more money for more lawyers) than you. Unfortunately, it seems that all they need to do is accuse you of something in order to have your anonymity removed. After that, it doesn't matter whether you were actually guilty, they know who you are.

  • Last I checked, "defamation" wasn't legal anyway, with "defamation" being defined as spreading untrue information about someone or something with malicious intent (similar to libel or slander).

    Anonymity is, naturally, a right just as any other. But as someone once said, "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." No one has the right to start spreading bad things about someone or something without being able to back it up, and to hide behind anonymity is an abuse of the right to be anonymous. I think the judge might be in the right on this one.

    How does it apply to this specific case? Well, there I'm not sure. Can this person back up his (her?) claims about Xircon? If so, then it isn't defamation anyway, and Xircon can't do a thing about it. If not, the person has no right to hide behind anonymity.
  • > As far as the people working there, they're not being forced to work there.

    Wow. You sound as though you've never known somebody who works in the service sector in your life. In short: the premise that people have their choice of occupation is wrong, wrong, wrong. Remember all those people going blind and losing limbs in factories around the turn of the century? Working 90-hr. weeks and so forth? Was anybody "forcing" them to work? Oh, yes, that little fact of survival... Not everyone is as privileged as you. People who wait tables deserve the same protection from occupational hazards as do workers in the steel industry, nuclear power, etc.

    While we're at it, to hell with the minimum wage: after all, if $0.25/hr isn't good enough, why don't people just get higher-paying jobs!? No one's forcing them to work in those sweatshops!

    Yeeps. I hope you don't vote.
  • I think we all can see the obvious implications of this--not just ACs on Slashdot, but in the entire Internet as well.

    My main concern is that by conventional means, there will not be too many ways to police posts and online speech. As a result I fear that more tactics like Intels chip ID could be placed.

    Anything that can be done can be taken, and this is something we might want to stand up for.
    -Clump
  • As I recall, you and I debated for a few rounds on the legitimacy of anonymous posting last time this came up, which I think was around the time that scores appeared, effectively filtering out anonymous posts (since, before moderation, it was AC gets 0, login gets 1). User accounts had only been here for a little while; I had held out for a few months on general principles (though I always signed my posts with my full name and real e-mail address, not even spam-proofed, just not through an account), but I had just recently created my account at the time.

    I was and still am very much in favor of the right to post anonymously. I respect those people who feel even more strongly than I about those general principles.

    Some object for technical reasons, such as refusing to use cookies, and the argument that you can "ln -s /dev/null ~/.netscape/cookies" is irrelevant: not everyone uses Unix, and more to the pont, he didn't say he doesn't want a cookie file, he said he refuses to log into a site that requires a cookie. The argument that he should use cookies is even worse. The answer is "Sez who?". He said he doesn't want to, and I for one can respect that without necessarily agreeing. Should that eliminate him from SlashDot?

    Even if it were implemented without cookies (or any objectionable technology du jour), some just object to being required to yield any personal information in order to use a site. Why should they have to?

    I think you should have the right to have that filtering button that you ask for, because you want it, even though I think you're wrong to want it. See how this works? People have the right to post anonymously, but you have the right not to read what they say, or even see it, since you find it so offensive.

    But now, we're talking about whether people have the right to speak anonymously at all, not just whether or not their posts can or should assault your eyeballs. You emphasize the importance of people standing behind their words:

    How strongly can you feel about your company, government, or other local opressive body if you're too afraid to say it yourself?

    Not everyone has the courage to be John Hancock, but I don't think that makes their opinions completely worthless -- they just get somewhat less respect. You ignore the possibility that the "local opressive body" might really be oppressive, so much so that someone might legitimately fear for his job or his life if he spoke too freely. Should he really not be able to speak unless he is willing to literally risk his life? Protecting the right to anonymous speech weakens the forces of oppression. No, I don't really mean to imply that SlashDot is that important in the scheme of things, but this story is about a Federal Court ruling, so we're talking about stuff with big social consequences.

    As for SlashDot, moderation has had an interesting effect: at least some moderators seem to be a little quick on the "Offtopic" and "Troll" triggers, possibly causing some people to censor themselves too much. A certain amount of thread drift is not a bad thing, it's what makes these discussions interesting, and not every expression of a dissenting opinion is a troll. People who care about their cumulative score might want to log out before posting something that is good but may not be well-received, and I think we do want this to be possible -- what fun would this be if we all agreed with each other?

    I think this is an example of a good reason for anonymity: It's especially problematic that posts regarding moderation can be moderated, when issues related to SlashDot itself are ones for which completely free discussion is especially important. I think there should be a special area for this in which everything would be anonymous, but with comments automatically tagged indicating whether or not the poster has an account or has ever been a moderator.


    David Gould
  • while there may not be many ways, I can think of one....don't allow posts from unknown users
  • You can look at denying unknown user posts as limiting free speech. It certainly denies privacy. The last thing we want are outside forces governiing the Internet. Look at CDA. If people don't want unknown users, they should not allow them. Of they allowed them, no governing body should interfere.
    -Clump
  • For libel or slander to occur, it is necessary that what is said/published be untrue. More than that is necessary, however. If we make our lies about another public, *that* is libelous/slanderous. If they are privately shared with another person, that's a different matter. Though still not a moral thing to do, I don't think they could drag you into court for it.

    As I understand it, libel and slander only occur when lies about another are made public. So -- though I think it's abominable that the police would lie to try to wring a confession out of a suspect, I don't think that they could be sued unless they went to the media and started broadcasting their lies.

    But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.

  • This is not an attack on anonymity. It's a recognition of the long-established law that defamatory speech is not protected by the First Amendment. It doesn't matter whether the defamatory speech was anonymous or not.

    There is a very long history of the courts defending the right to anonymous speech; laws which have sought to require people identify themselves in conjunction with otherwise protectable speech (other than commercial speech) have been consistently struck down.

    Yet another case of Much Ado About Nothing.

  • I don't think the differents between anonymity and pseudonymity is all that great. In the 18th century, the use of pseudonyms in political speech was not uncommon. The Federalist Papers were originally attributed to "Publius" are now known to be written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The Anti-Federalist Papers were written under such pseudonyms as "Cato" and "Brutus." In 1769 papers alleging government corrubtion in England were promulgated by one "Junius," now believed to be Sir Phillip Sydney. These pseudonyms were chosen carefully and their allusions to classical Roman politics both reflected the political fashion of the day and reminded readers of the corruption and intrigue of a previous republic. Were they to be submitted without name --anonymously-- thay might not have recieved so much attention. Primary Colors is now known to have been written by Joe Klein. The original author, however, was only known by his pseudonym, "Anonymous." I refer to his usage as Psuedonymity, because Klein adopted his nom de guerre purely for reasons of noteriety. Pure Anonymity implies that one cannot read anything into the identity of the author. In writing as "A view from within" the author adopted a pseudonym. Historically, though, both anonymous and pseudonymous speech has been protected, and much of the case law dealing with such speech concerns authors previously known only as "a concerned citizen" or "citizens against government waste." Woodward identified his source by the pseudonym "Deep Throat," in an effort to protect the informer's anonymity. There really is very little difference.
  • "Of
    they allowed them, no governing body should interfere." Oops. meant to say "If".
  • So far, defamation has only been alleged. Is an allegation of harm sufficient grounds to compell a service provider to turn over the identity of an anonymous user? What level of proof should be required?
    Here begins the "discovery dance." The ISP is a third party to the action, so what ends up happening is the plaintiff (assuming federal practice) sends a subpoena to the ISP under Rule 45 commanding the ISP to produce for inspection certain documents in its possession (called a subpoena duces tecum). The ISP then can either submit to the subpoena and provide the documents, object to the subpoena under Rule 45(c)(2)(B) or move to quash the subpoena under Rule 45(c)(3). If the ISP objects, the plaintiff can seek an order compelling production under Rule 37. If the objection under Rule 45(c)(2)(B) or motion to quash under Rule 45(c)(3) is well-founded, the plaintiff can only have the requested documents if he can show that he has a substantial need for the materials sought and the materials cannot be had in any other way without substantial hardship. Rule 45 requires that every nonparty subpoena include language advising the recipient of the subpoena of their rights to object and to move to quash.

    Note that if you object to production, you cannot be forced to produce anything within the bounds of the objection unless the requesting party moves for an order to compel, and unless the court then rules as a consequence of that motion that production should be required. The law generally does NOT require production without a clear showing of substantial need and undue hardship. I would imagine that the instant case being discussed is exactly such a situation.

  • Seems to me the ruling isn't about anonymity at all -- that defamation isn't a free speech right is nothing new. That any records that exist can be subpoena'd can be nothing new. The solution -- don't retain subpoena'able records -- isn't anything new either.
  • i have the CM 28.8 modem, and the friggin thing only has a 16450 UART. made in 1995, yet they couldn't put a 16550 in. it almost always downloads fine, but uploads occasionally puke or crawl.

    another gripe: they charge *$60* for a modular adapter replacement. i saw an almost identical part of another brand for a mere $15, but the pin arrangment was different (sure that isn't by chance).

    i don't know what this other character claimed about Xircom, but i can verify that they are cheap bastards. :/
  • My $0.02: like other top-down control methods, controlling the right to influence others (which is really what tampering with free speech is all about) is best left to the people themselves. Yes, anonymous posters can spread scandalous, libellious drivel - but who listens to them? A few people perhaps, but not many.

    Rumours tend to die fast without someone to take responsibility for them, even on the Net. I find unnamed flameboys odious, as do most people who never post anonymously - but I don't worry about them, and I wouldn't interrupt their right to do it. As their method of posting suggests, anonymous posters are literally nobodies, with reputations to match. So let's stop talking about top-down regulations - the bottom-up ones we've grown on the Net are far better.
  • I talked the the isp of the indidual in question. They have a very interesting setup.

    They cater to corp types that want access so that they can post, etc. w/o exposing their employers to litigation and so on.

    To this end they route all outgoing to one ip address to further mask an indidual machine frome outsiders.

    So far, so good.

    However, they have a standing policy (as well as their upstream provider) that they carry no responsibily for user posts (icluding IRC, etc) but don't 'condone' it. They won't issue any punitive action, in other words.

    I'm not sure how I feel about this either, but I suppose it is a 'sign of the times...'

    The net is relatively self-policing, but when folks up the line shirk this duty, where does this leave us?

    Mind you this is not an anon reposting service, but a full-service ISP.

    Have we lost something here (on the net) with this sort of approach?

    More to think about, because as I said, many of use here make a living online that is so tied to the net, that oftentimes no other physical-media equivelent (paper/cdroms/pcbs, etc) exist.

    -K



  • I think the "nut" label is applied to those who defend their cause to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. I.e., gun nuts refuse to believe that the government should have any say at all about what kind of guns they should be allowed to own. They don't care what other issues are involved and they are unwilling to allow reason into their argument. They just want their guns. Thus, they are labeled as "nuts." Other than such extreme cases, I don't think advocates should be called nuts.

  • Unfortunatly, it DOES happen all the time. It's hard to gauge just how bad the situation is since you never hear about the cases where proper care is exercised and nothing happens, but even one such event is too many.

    Back on topic: The courts need to think very carefully before ruling that anonymity is not protected. What will happen to anonymous crime tips (surely accusation of criminal activity is more defamitory than accusation of shoddy workmanship)? What about witness protection (which is nothing but a legal pseudonym)?

    On the other hand, we live in a culture that loves dirt (in the gossip sense), and often gives negative comments far too much creedance. That's why we have laws about defamation, libel, and slander in the first place. We simply cannot allow anonymity to completely nullify those laws.

    What it comes down to is that JUDGES need to use judjement on a case by case basis. Sadly, such judgement seems to be in short supply.

  • Every action has its consequences -- this is a hidden truth in TANSTAAFL that a lot of people miss. In this case, instead of standing up to take personal responsibility for his statements, John Doe is facing the consequences of putting the ability to anonymously express opinions in jeopardy.
    I (mostly) agree with your conclusion, but your final argument has a hole in it -- using the same logic, one common person stealing from another common person should be encouraged because a totalitarian state would discourage it. A free society is not defined in the negative (such as anti-totalitarian), but rather in the affirmative. True freedoms are not "freedom from..." but rather "freedom of..."
    Christopher A. Bohn
  • I cannot think of a case where defamation would be criminal.
    The Supreme Court held (albeit in dicta) in New York Times v. Sullivan that criminal defamation laws are irreconcilably in conflict with the First Amendment and are per se unconstitutional. Thus, there is no circumstance where one could possibly face a criminal penalty for defamatory speech in the United States (unless that speech act also violated some other law, such as those against criminal fraud, incitement to riot, or breach of national security, for reasons not related to its defamatory content).
  • There's a rising market in what is being called "employement slander" or "employment libel" where a supervisor who is requested to write a letter of reference for an employee makes a material false statement damaging to the employee such that the employee is not hired for another job. This is actionable as defamation even though the letter is not "published".

    My understanding (without checking the Restatement, which I'm too lazy to do righ tnow) is that all you need for a defamation action is proof that the alleged tortfeasor shared the defamatory statement with at least one third party, and then proof of damages resulting therefrom.

  • It is worth mentioning that a statement has to be credible to be actionable as a defamation. Incredible statements ("Bill Clinton had sex with my dog!") are not actionable because no reasonable person would believe them.

    This has actually been used as a defense in defamation cases: certain defendants have argued that their public reputation is so poor that no reasonable person would believe anything they say anyway. Reportedly, this has actually worked from time to time.

  • "Free Speech" - as in "Congress shall make NO law" - meant no prior restraint, but not that there would be no consequences to what you say. In the example given here, it is clearly a case of FRAUD. If someone tells you something known to be untrue in order to induce you to do business with them, that is and always will be fraud - intended to be a punishable offense.
  • correct, or is actually in a different language.

    Sound obeys the laws of space and time. It is required that only one person speak at a time so that one can be heard clearly. (and yes I do read a lot of posts.)

    The internet curls space and time into one thing.. bandwidth. Clarity and content is preserved.

    The internet however destroys concepts of place and name. Probably a Good Thing(tm).
  • Since we can't vote our conscience, since we're obsessed with Clinton/Lewinski (so the media say), then when this this passes through the senate (it has already passed through several hice of representatives), we will all be known to concerned that people would burn the flag, and our official position on it will be that we'd rather have the constitution burn instead of the flag (so will say the media).

    Your opinion brought to you by FOX news before you've even been asked.

    --Shortest straw pulled for you.
  • of contract as publishers of phone books. One publisher got slammed a while ago and

    By the way the Amendment IV or VI (I forget) says rights to personal security and request of warrants are required by the constitution.
  • "It's all getting worse, all the time. Give up."

    Sounds like a pretty negative attitude to me. Yes, the world is going to hell right now. But my point is that we should all get up and do something about it. Wake up! Get informed. Learn what the MAI is about. Learn about what the US government is doing on your behalf in foreign countries. And then, above all, VOTE! VOTE relentlessly and in every election for someone outside the democrat/republican hegemony. VOTE for Ralph Nader and Green/Socialist/Independent candidates on a local level. We are a democracy and we can take power back from the corporations.

    "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul" -- Edward Abbey

  • One thing is for sure-- the decision will either stand or fail on appeal. Either way, which way will the direction of new law go. Will we further lose our ability to remain anonymity? Will new circumvention laws require anonymous remailers to maintain a minimum database of information for all users? Will it be a crime to post anonymously to any forum (not so far fetched when you consider some of the encryption laws in affect)?

    Or will we see the reverse. Will there be new, expanded internet version of wire tap laws? Net watch services advertise that they monitor IRC conversations (see http//www.ewatch.com). Certainly most parties have the same expectation of privacy that they would have if using a telephone.
    Its not that far a leap considering our past history. In the early '70s their was a wide opinion that telephone conversations were open prey. Many states currently have laws that forbid the recording of a conversation UNLESS BOTH parties consent to the recording. Should all sites and/or participants disclose their intent as to use of information, or would this be a swing to far in the other direction?
    Also, would it make a difference if the forum declared itself a news service? If Yahoo, instead of the defendant, had challenged the subpoena based upon the constitutional rights of free press, could they quash the subpoena.
  • There are people who are in sensitive positions, relative to their employment. Unless they are allowed to voice their opinions anonymously, free speech is effectively denied to them -- or at least, subordinated to some other important concern.
  • is one of the things alledged.
    Most tech companies make you sign a
    contract on employment that you won't
    disclose things like this. doesn't matter
    whose computer or time you use.
  • I heard some rumours about Xs4all [xs4all.nl] considering anonymous internet access. This is after a recent court ruling in which the government tried to get an internet tap. More info on it here [xs4all.nl]
  • Well, this judgement may apply to the US, and sites therein, but the US does not control the "entire Internet".
  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    As long as it'd done with my consent I have no problem with someone knowing my identity. I just don't like backdoor attempts to rob me of my privacy.

    LK
  • This is not legal advice. WHile I am an attorney, I am probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. If you need legal advice on this matter, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    Those cases address a *prohibition* on *speaking* in the first place. Furthermore, the prohibition is by a government.

    That is a far cry from using anonymity to protect oneself from the *consequences* of speech.

    Free speech governs the right to make the statement. It does not protect one from the consequences. To look at your second example, while the local government can't block the distribution of the pamphlets, if teh information was defamatory, the employer would still be able to issue supoenas to determine her identity in a defamation action. There is no conflict.

    Hawk, Esq.

  • ...or slander, or defamation when the content of said attacks on another's character is untrue.

    You don't have a right to lie about others in such a way as to damage their reputation. The First Amendment guarantees your right to say what you wish within the confines of telling the truth.

    It's astonishing that there would even be one moment of debate about this.

    As to anonymous free speech -- even when it is true speech -- judging from the example of the founders (viz., The Federalist), I don't see how anyone can deny that anonymity is not something that the government can legitimately strip from us. Some nuts might say "If you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about?" This is a red herring that does not address my right to be secure and retain privacy in my personal affairs.

  • Am I the only one who doubts whether a person in such a position really does care about the issue if he's not even convinced he wants to attach his name to his sentiment? How strongly can you feel about your company, government, or other local opressive body if you're too afraid to say it yourself? If you don't want to be known as the man who opened his mouth, maybe you should keep it shut.

    I feel the very same way about the Anonymous Cowards here on Slashdot. If you're incapable of logging in, I don't want to read what you have to say. I'm not for disallowing unregistered use, I just want a check-button in my prefs which says "Absolutely never, ever, under any circumstances show me any posts from anonymous contributors [X]". Right now setting a threshold at 1 doesn't cut it; some posts are moderated up because they're "funny" or "insightful". I don't care--I'm not ready to ponder the words of a man who can't be debated, reached for comments, commended, or even identified. Go talk to a tree.

    I guess I look at anonymity as a convenience; if it's there you should be able to use it, but what part of "free speech" means "the right to have everyone who might disagree look the other way for a moment?" It's not a right any more than its opposite. Should I appeal to the Supreme Court of my country if I am denied ultimate and relentless _promotion_ of my name with my commentary? Why should we mandate the supression when it happens to be convenient but not the promotion when it's also convenient.
  • But what constitutes slander & libel?

    Under U.S. law, defamation/slander/libel == false and injurious statements of fact regarding a living person or entity.

    [Important 1st Amendment qualification: If the person/entity is a public figure, a negligently-made statement can't be the basis of a D/S/L claim.]

    Do you believe that there are not occasions when it is necessary?

    Under what circumstances do you think it might be "necessary" to tell an injurious falsehood about someone? (This is a serious question, incidentally; if you have some theory of why the value of making such statements in certain cases outweighs the harm which would result if anyone were free to make such statements without fear of reprisal, I would genuinely be interested to hear it.)

  • Uhm... why not just turn logs off?
  • Yes, but what's your reaction to the people who repeat stories they read in the National Enquirer? If it's anything like mine, you don't worry about these people receiving any special attention from the people who directly influence others.
  • If it's really nasty, and you're thoroughly disgusted, why are you still working there? If you're not confident enough in yourself to make a stand for what you believe, why should I listen?
  • Companies do not want to sue whistleblowers. When the whistleblower shows up with a ton of evidence in the courtroom that everything they said was absolutely true, CEOs tend to lose their job. CEOs don't like losing their jobs.

    If a company can verify that the whistleblower was or may have been telling the truth, they try very quietly to root out the whistleblower and punish him quietly. Anything else is bad PR and getting caught punishing the whistleblower, especially if the company has any commercial relationship with the federal government, is likely to be against the law.

  • It seems reasonable to me that the
    judge must first find that the statements
    made are very likely to meet the legal
    definition of defamation before a subpeona
    could be issued.

    Even then the poster's anonymity should
    be protected (judge knows who it is, Xircom
    does not) until it is actually proven and
    can mount a defense under the guise of
    anonymity (as it sounds like this guy is
    doing).

    I'm not a lawyer, but I have been sued for
    defamation and libel (Hi Dave, if your were
    less ignorand and could use a computer without
    hurting yourself maybe you could read this!)
    . Based on the way that that
    case was laughed out of court I would say:
    Saying "Xircom SUCKS!" does not count. Lying
    about being an employee when you are not isn't
    libelous in any way. you have to say something
    that is harmful and that is provably false. I
    haven't seen anything here that can be proven to
    be either true or false, so it becomes opinion
    and is free speach.

    garyr
  • First, this suit is about public defamation, not whistleblowing in the legal sense, so it doesn't really apply.

    Whistleblower protection is intended to permit someone to report illegal activities to authorities without facing retaliation from their employer. I don't think anyone ever envisioned remaining anonymous as part of that protection.

    Beyond that, I don't think there is any public good in allowing internet anonymity to shield someone from otherwise complying with the laws and appearing in court. If what you post is serious enough to bring on a lawsuit, you should be ready to appear in court about it. (And don't bring up harassing lawsuits; there are other ways to handle that problem.)

    Put simply, if anonymity protects one from lawsuits, then nobody can ever be sued for what they say on the internet. That's wrong.
  • Well, if I'm not mistaken, there is a specific 'whistleblower' law or something that lets you do just that... rat out your employer for doing something anonymously. Differences are, it has to be true, and you have to do more than just post it anonymously on the net, I think you have to actually go to some government agency and spill it.

    Anyone know the specific of this or am I totally confused on this?

  • It's awkward, but I believe it's correct:

    This person wants to remain anonymous because this person works for Xircom.

    You could also just reword it:

    This person who works for Xircom wants to remain anonymous.
  • Again I ask, what constitutes Slander and Libel? False or Injurious statements is a broad category.

    It's an and, not an or. It's completely permissible to make true and injurious comments ("Charles Manson is a murderer") or false and non-injurious comments ("Linus Torvalds is from Denmark").

    Now I ask you two questions:

    1) If the law says that what I've done is illegal, should I go to jail even though what I've said has been in the publics intrest?

    To be clear, under U.S. law, you don't go to jail for D/S/L; it's a tort, not a crime. (A "tort" is something you do that someone can sue you for and collect damages if they win. Sometimes the same behavior can be both a crime and a tort; for example, homicide is a crime and wrongful death is a tort. Committing D/S/L isn't a crime, however, unless you commit D/S/L as part of some other crime.)

    In the corporate practices example you give, you wouldn't be held liable if your statements were true, even though they may have been injurious. Note that corporations are often reluctant to sue for defamation, etc., even when they have actually been defamed, as the lawsuit often serves to publicize the defamatory statement, and because the defendant may be able to obtain through discovery documents which would further embarrass the corporation. (I understand that this is what happened when McDonalds sued some pamphleteers in the UK [mcspotlight.org] under the UK's more restrictive libel laws.)

    2) If the law says that this particular scenario is legal, what is the differance between it and the Xircon case?

    Presumably in the Xircon case the statements are alleged to be false, as opposed to your example where the statements are true.

    Also note that employees of a company have a fiduciary duty to act in the company's best interest, though subject to public policy limitations (e.g., employees are generally not bound to keep quiet if the company is burying bodies in the basement). As I understand the Xircom poster asserted he was an employee, Xircom doubtless brought a claim against him for breach of fiduciary duty as well, which also supported the issuance of the subpoena.

    Now for the final wizbang point of my post. The more we limit peoples right to speak out negativley (noise) an equal amount of important (signal) speech will be lost.

    I'm not sure this proposition is self-evident in the case of the "right" to make false and injurious statements. Would you care to elaborate?

  • Corporations exist primarily to limit the legal responsibilities of it's members. Claiming rights for corporations is somewhat obscene. They claim benefits from being non-persons, they should also suffer similar detriments. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
  • You seem to be confused about what defamation means in the US. Do you really think that it is okay to knowingly and wilfully tell a lie about someone else? The rest of your criticism doesn't defend that position, so I am guessing that you are not using the American definition of defamation as I understand it.

    Whistlblowing is not defamation. Telling people about the evils of someone else's behavior is not defamation. Telling lies to hurt someone is defamation.

  • >The justification for anonymous remailers has been for protecting whistle-blowers
    >and people who *need* their privacy protected, i.e. people talking about their own
    >abuse experiences.

    That's all well and good, but there's no legal justification for it. Whistle-blowers are legally protected in other ways; their anonymity may be helpful, but in the face of a subpoena, what justification is there for retaining it? Abuse survivors and others may want their privacy, but they don't need it.

    Remember, we're not talking about the end of privacy in general, simply whether established privacy rights extend to protection from defamation (and other) lawsuits. There is (as the phrase goes) a *compelling need* for the state to require someone to appear in a lawsuit against them. That's what legal tools like subpoenas have always been used for -- and since you have to get a judge to issue one, they don't exactly fall from trees.

    >a judge that believes that such people don't deserve protection on the basis that
    >protecting our masters in corporation and government is more important than any
    >possible right to personal privacy. It is my opinion that such a judge has no
    >place on the bench.

    Whoa! This is not about personal privacy (it isn't even about free speech, since defamation is by definition not protected speech). It's about abusing the privacy laws to shield oneself from legal remedies -- whether the plaintiff is a corporation or an individual. If the statements made do not amount to defamation, the lawsuit will fail, and the plaintiff will have to pay court costs. If the statements DO amount to defamation ... gee, too bad. Shoulda kept yer mouth shut.

    >The biggest problem is that we have politicians and judges making decisions on
    >high-tech issues that have literally never seen a C: prompt and think that all the
    >Internet is some sort of online porn shop. The solution is to GET RID OF THEM

    Are you sure this is a high-tech issue? What is fundamentally different here, legally, from someone distributing anonymously-printed leaflets? Just because it happened "on the internet" does not mean it breaks new ground within our legal system. I don't think the internet throws slander and libel laws out the window. I don't subscribe to the adolescent idea that free speech is "absolute"; there have always been exceptions, and this is one of them, and the internet should not change that.
  • Sheesh! Was that really called for?

    Yes.

    -sam

  • That's an oxymoron.
  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    Then the so called "gun nuts" are right. If they are marginalized, they will be persecuted.

    It's a historical fact that giving the government control of a populace's ability to arm themselves leads to suffering, pain and death on a massive scale. ie Nazi occupied europe, Cambodia, Angola, China, etc...

    Maybe, by your definition that makes me a gun nut.

    I also want my cryptography. I want it as strong as possible I wish we had the hardware to make million bit encryption possible (or at least practical), I don't want my CPU to have an ID number that can be tracked without my consent or knowledge. I don't want a radio beacon placed in my car so that the "authorities" can track me everywhere I go. Maybe that makes me a privacy nut by your definition.

    You just want to take our guns, and our privacy. I then regard you as an anti-gun nut, and an anti-privacy nut.

    LK
  • From the article: "The author, writing under the pseudonym 'A View From Within,' claimed to be an engineer at the company."

    Now, I'm not sure how Yahoo's message boards work as my experience is pretty well limited to Slashdot, but even as I post here under my pseudonym, I am not anonymous. Were I to say something defamatory in this post, I'm pretty sure that Rob could be served with a subpoena to reveal my user information, which could then be used to subpoena further information from my geocities or the University of Minnesota as to my identity. If I post as an AC, the only thing having a minute chance of appearing anywhere would be my IP in the logs.

    If my assumption about the inner workings of the Yahoo message boards is accurate, the poster was not anonymous. I'm just surprised that the rest of the 80 or so commenters didn't pick up on this.
  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    Troubleshooting/diagnostic reasons.

    LK
  • I'm all for choice, but why should the ashamed, cowardly, shy or bashful have special priveledge or protection? Choosing not to give your name should be just like choosing to write with purple ink. There's no reason to outlaw it and all the reason to allow it.

    Not giving your name is choosing what not to say, the same way one might refrain from spreading unfounded rumors. It's just like not giving out your address with every message you send, for whatever reason you choose, and I respect your right to not say what you don't wan't to say. Your rights don't, however, give you special protection from what other people might say about you.

    The "special protection" is what I hear people clamor for here. People say that having your identity exposed and attached to a comment you really did make should be prevented if you don't wish that information to be revealed. Under few of these circumstances are both the author and carrier under any contract to each other to keep parties secret. This is like saying that if someone found out your address later on (from a phonebook, let's say) and then revealed it to your audience, even though you didn't want it to be in your message, that he's violating your rights.

    It's not in the interest of any government to allow its citizens privacy. The only privacy you have is the kind you make through encryption, careful inspection of your interaction with society, or good old seclusion.
  • Ok, but the damage can occur pretty fast also and not be recoverable. Take the case where some AC posts lies about a company where a lot of e-traders prowl and then the stock gets run up until the lie is revealed and then the stock drops down below where it was before.

    Sure, the dolts that trade on these rumors and get burned deserve what they get for being stupid. But what about everyone else (including the employees with savings plans/retirement accounts) that get screwed over because their company's reputation is damaged because of this incident?

    I think the reason for this lies within the way the stock market works today. Ie. rumours and lies can mean a lot, as "everybody else will listen to it". And it's what everybody else is doing that matters, whatever the reason might be.

    Don't hate the media, become the media.

  • Yes, I'm replying to my own post, but actually I'm replying to the 3 posts above this one (or is that below?)

    First up, I never said the government should be regulating this. Incase you didn't read the last line of my original post, read it again, and guess how I feel about goverments.

    Next. If I wanted to report a neighbour for child/spouse abuse, my boss for embezzlement, or my workmates for setting the apprentice on fire, I will. Why should I be afraid to? Take responsibility for yourself, stand up for what you believe in.

    Say I got my boss for embezzlement, what are they going to do? Fire me? So I get them for wrongfull dismissal, or simply get another job. So what?

    I'm not putting a webcam in my house because what I do in my own home is not public domain, it's my own business.

    I'm not saying Privacy isn't a right, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hide things, I'm simply saying that you should be responsible for what you do.

    Anonymity on the net is like walking Bourke St in a Koala Suit. Nobody knows who you are, and that's fine, but if you start yelling insults at pedestrians, why shouldn't they be able to find out who you are and get you to stop?

    I'm pretty sure they came for the Carthagians before they came for the Jews. Just because I support people being able to find out who AC's are, doesn't mean it should be left to the Governments to decide the rules, they're bound to screw it up. I'm worried about how things are already, and I don't like the way things are going, but if done properly (heh!), this could be a good thing.

    Society needs to be act responsibly again

  • This is just plain infuriating. I suppose now, a company will sue you if you send them a letter of complaint as well. Or if you tell your friends not to buy their product for one reason or another. I wonder if this same judge would force a reporter to give up his or her source, just because some big corporation didn't "like" their article. Or, perhaps he'll soon find me in contempt of court, simply because I don't like his decision. "No right to free speech to defame." WTF? I'm sure England felt that same very way after reading the Declaration of Independence.

    Now I am totally and utterly depressed. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that. I might get sued.
  • What if the company disputes whether my alligations are the truth? What if had posted this information anonymously? What if, what if, what if...?

    That was why I argued elsewhere that they should have to show a prima facie case that this was indeed libel. Companies should not be able to break through anonymity just because they are peeved, but they should be able to try to find out who harmed them.

    Besides, in this particular case, its still not certain (or apparent to me at least) that what the anonymous poster said about Xircom is false. Regardless, he is still loosing his privacy.

    How anonymous was the person originally. Most of these "anonymous" posts are like crank calls, easy enough to trace if you've given someone the incentive to do it.

    Solution: don't criminalize speech. Especially just because its in the intrests of some company.

    It's not criminal except in very limited circumstances--lying to a court is supposed to be a crime. I really don't want to give liars a free pass.

  • OK, I gotta question here. Anonymous Guy(AG) has lawyers defending him. The article makes that clear. How did Xircom get together with these people? Did she contact them and say "I'm the lawyer for the guy you're ticked at."? Is she court appointed, and doesn't actually know her client? How does she even prove her client's the guy?
  • I understand what you are trying to say, but I aam afraid I disagree. There are instances where people prefer to remain anonymous because they are afraid. However, there are instances where people prefer privacy for other reasons.


    You mentioned ACs in Slashdot. Just because they didn't log in does not mean what they have to say is immaterial. Some lost passwords and haven't the time to mail, some disable cookies and choose not to log in every time, and some don't feel like it. I put my name on what I do but I feel it is no right of any Government of any country to say who has can remain anonymous. We can't afford to squelch a potentially important communication medium.

    Name by comments or not, we should at least be allowed to choose. Not for the sake of a country or by a law, but for anyone that wants to say anything.
    -Clump
  • I think you mean the "intepretation of truth".

    Huh?

    The law is very generous in the US truth, as in "I made a reasonable effort to find the evidence before I made a statement about this." Despite some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the media, you really have to be indifferent to the truth before you lose a defamation case in the USA.

  • True, but you DO have the right to criticize anonymously.
  • Strangely Enough, I'm not worried by this.

    One of the major problems with the net is the ability for anyone to say anything, and not take any responsibility for it.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to post anonymously, but such anonyminity (sp?) shouldn't be complete. If someone wants to find out who you are, why shouldn't they?

    Privacy, however, should be allowed, and maybe even enforced.

    Sure, you know who I am, and what I said, but since I put all that in the public domain, why do I care? But anything else is my own business.

    Politicians suck, why are we letting them run our country? (Australia mainly, but also USA)

  • So? The only thing Xircom should be able to do is yell at Yahoo about allowing anonymous posts. Lets keep the Government out.
    -Clump

  • whistleblowers? (Score:3)

    by ywwg ( 20925 ) on Tuesday June 15, 1999 @06:18AM (#1849937) Homepage
    What about whistleblowers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of being fired/killed/forced to sleep with the fishes? If I work for Micros~1, and I want to reveal something _really_ nasty, I wouldn't want to put my name in BIG LETTERS at the top of the email! I thought there were laws that protected this type of thing.

    Although it doesn't sound like this particular person was whistleblowing, just being a troll, this ruling sets a bad precedent.

    Can any people who _are_ lawyers comment?

  • Re:Concern (Score:3)

    by dhms ( 3552 ) on Tuesday June 15, 1999 @06:18AM (#1849938)
    This will get squashed by the supereme court. Just last year the supreme court re-affirmed thatanonymous speech *is* protected by the frist amendment.

    Since the CDA decision found that the Internet net is worthy of the "highest level" of first amendment protection this decision won't stand for long.

  • This person wants to remain anonymous because they work for Xircom - and wish to keep their job (though I wonder why, if the conditions are bad like they say they are - anyone got a link or something to that discussion?).

    Now, I imagine Xircom might have a case if the employee used company equipment to post the message or they did it on company time - I think this sort of thing has precedent. But I can understand wanting to remain anonymous if they did it on their own time/equipment (and if they were smart, they did).

    I can't think of a "real world" example for comparison here - though I am sure one could find one...
  • I can't belive that companies will willingly allow people to make negative comments in IRC like places if the people identify themselves.
    Companies will take this as far as they can to silence those who speak against them. They'll distort anonymity as far as they can. Maybe telling people your name, mailing address and phone number over IRC will still leave you legally anonymous because it cannot be proven. That can be stretched to include email, news & web postings, the whole internet. They'll take it to the point that we'll need registered PIII like IDs to avoid being anonymous. Since there is no registration of the ID's now, no one can prove online the ID belongs to them, so everyone could be considered anonymous online now (save for some PGP use maybe) and thus could be censored by corporations from making negative comments about them. We might not even be able to say that graphics card X has lacking performance.

    This, of course, is an extreme example of what it could become. Lets stop it now before it gets much further.
  • Can someone 'in the know' clarify for me when a statement becomes potentially liable as "defamation"?

    I understand it has to be 'published' materials, and I assume there has to be some component of the statement that can be empirically shown to be false? (And also that the person making the statement can be reasonably shown to have known the statement was false? Not sure about that part, but I assume so...)

    Is there a spoken defamation component?

    Some examples:

    "Company XYZ sucks because their product breaks."

    Well, maybe I bought 3 widgets from them, and all three broke down. But for most everyone else they work fine. Is XYZ being defamed because I say they suck?

    I'm curious as to how precisely this can co-exist with free speech laws. There seems to be a lot of hazy cases. Clearly if I said about my neighbour, "He tortures small animals." And published it in the newspaper it would be a case of defamation, plain and simple... but if I'm talking about my experiences with XYZ's products, and my opinions of their quality... I don't see how this can be defamation, as it is something of a 'subjective' area.

    Anyway, if anyone has the exact details, or knows links to the resources which have details I'd be interested to know.

    Obasan

  • Non-anonymous defamation not protected either. (Score:4)

    by root ( 1428 ) on Tuesday June 15, 1999 @06:21AM (#1849942) Homepage
    The key word is defamation. Weather it comes from an anonymous source or a non-anoymous source should be irrelevant. Defamation never was a protected form of speech just like you can be arrested for yelling "fire" in a theater when there's no fire.This ruling about defamation- not anonymity.
  • I hope so.
  • The immediate problem is easy enough for an experienced user to handle. Go to an anonymous remailer that handles news postings and post whatever amuses you. Real (cryptographically based) anonymous remailers don't depend on the ability of the owner to avoid search warrants.

    For those who are unfamiliar with this, go to http://www.well.com/user/abacard/privacy.html and learn about anon remailers and other privacy protection methods.

    The long term issues are whether or not court and politicians will try to close down anonymous remailers.

    The justification for anonymous remailers has been for protecting whistle-blowers and people who *need* their privacy protected, i.e. people talking about their own abuse experiences.

    It isn't surprising to find a judge that believes that such people don't deserve protection on the basis that protecting our masters in corporation and government is more important than any possible right to personal privacy. It is my opinion that such a judge has no place on the bench.

    The biggest problem is that we have politicians and judges making decisions on high-tech issues that have literally never seen a C: prompt and think that all the Internet is some sort of online porn shop. The solution is to GET RID OF THEM. (disclaimer: I meant legal means)
  • The behavior is about the same. A nameless group or person slinging mud in hopes of influncing the opinion of others is a (usually negative) way. This is pretty sacred 1st amendment stuff. I don't think that the PACs are gonna be too happy about this.
  • If you're a whistleblower then you go to the authorities or media who, in turn, should responsibly deal with the situation and your identity, you don't air your problems in a public forum anonymously. It won't fix the problems and it only stands to hurt the organization that has the problems, at that point your free speech is an act of aggression and not an act of whistleblowing. The only case where there may be no authorities is if it is the government you are blowing the whistle one but you're given explicit protection to speak against them. The Xircom case involves a pseudowhistle blower who lacked any responsibility, you should get in trouble for that.

    In Sweden, where I live, it's actually illegal to try to find out who has anonymously given information to the media. That's a great law, IMO.

    No matter if you're a government official or whatever. (Though I think there's an exception for 'military secrets that would danger the nation' or something like that.) So if I'm a, say, police officer, I can go to the press saying 'Some of the policemen use the tax payers' money to pay whores!'. It would be illegal for the journalist to reveil my name to anyone, and it would be illegal for anyone trying to find out my name.

    Of course, if there's no truth in the accusation it might be a crime. But the crime is that of the journalist not checking the story enough. So the publisher goes to jail.

    Though it haven't been tested in relation to the EU yet... My guess we won't be able to stick up for this principle.

    Don't hate the media, become the media.


  • What it comes down to is that free speech is not a "postive right," or a right *to* something, but a negative right, the right to prevent government from silencing you.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding the consequences of your speech, or with remaining anoynymous.

    hawk, esq.
  • Hypothetically, lets say I notice some harmful buisness practices by a large company. For instance, I notice its destroying the environment or using sweatshops in third world contries.

    I decide to go out and make a big deal about it to the media (who probably wouldn't care anyways) but it happens to injure the reputation of the company and it looses shareholders.

    This is right on the edge of the definition of this particular law.

    Nope, this isn't even close to actionable in the US. Truth is always a complete defense. In the US you aren't likely to get into trouble unless you knew or should have known that you were telling a lie. If you repeat something that turns out to be false, but you reasonably thought was true, you are safe.

    I cannot think of a case where defamation would be criminal.

  • As far as I can tell, you can get a hushmail.com account pretty anonymously. No information needs to be given to activate it, and if you are communicating with other hushmail users, your emails are encrypted, and you retrieve your mail through a secure web based interface.

    I wonder if the hushmail server is based here in the US...or somewhere else?
  • So far, defamation has only been alleged. Is an allegation of harm sufficient grounds to compell a service provider to turn over the identity of an anonymous user? What level of proof should be required? If anonymitiy can be shattered by a simple allegation, then your anonymitiy extends only to those without the means to file suit. For those with attorneys on retainer, your anonymity is fleeting.

    I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they have a chance to find out who has lied about them. Much of this appears to be an attempt to root out local malcontents.

  • I can't gleam enough from the article to determine what contracts may be in place, but if the poster is truely an employee of the company, and was under an NDA, then making ANY statements about internal company politics, true or otherwise, would be a breach of contract. If it turns out that this person is not an employee of the company, then there is the issue of misrepresentation.

    Had an anonymous user not affiliated with the company simply stated his opinions online, then the company would have very little legal ground to stand on.

    -Restil
  • Seems to me like that fellow does in fact have a right to say whatever idiocy he wants to. However, I'd approach the people maintaining the forum, demonstrate how this person is being abusive, and see if they would be willing to remove his posts or take other appropriate action.

    Unfortunately, I think that weathering the slings and arrows of blithering idiots is something we're going to have to learn how to route around. I feel like denying them the right to express their (ignorant, abusive, and inaccurate) opinions would be worse than ignoring them. Peer review (like her on Slashdot) is, I think, ideal. The community moderates itself, and people can opt out of that moderation (by surfing at -1 like I do) if they want to. Nobody is denied the right to speak, but they are also not entitled to be heard.

  • Isn't anonymity protected? (Score:4)

    by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Tuesday June 15, 1999 @09:56AM (#1849957) Journal
    Two cases come to mind: "McINTYRE v.OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION 514 US 334 (1995) [cornell.edu] and Talley v. California 362 U.S. 60 (1960) [findlaw.com].

    In the McIntyre case, the court protected the right of a woman to distribute anonymous handbills expressing her opposition to a referendum. In the Talley case, the courts protected the rights of a protestor to distribute anonymous leaflets alleging employment discrimination. Both distribution attempts violated local ordinances banning anonymous communication.

    In Talley the court stated that "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

    The court has recognized in McIntyre a general right to anonymous speech, finding that "[t]he decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. "

    In both of these decisions, the court noted that the highest protections should be given to political speech.

    As I recall, Cmdr Taco has assurred us that slashdot doesn't store records of Anonymous Cowards. Whether he would be required to turn over the identities corresponding to named accounts is an open question.

    To the dismay of some, the best prophylactic against subpoenas may be to increase the level of political discussion on slashdot. Since accounts could be used to post protected anonymous opinions, it might well infringe on protected free speech rights to reveal the actual owner...

  • I'm two ways about this...here's why. (Score:4)

    by MrKai ( 5131 ) on Tuesday June 15, 1999 @06:27AM (#1849966)
    I always post as me, use a real email address etc for a very important reason that I think a lot of us have overlooked.

    The net gives the above-average/saavy user great power, greater than say the phone to which the average person uses to connect to it, but in most cases, not as great as say, broadcast tv.

    What it does not do is add a level of *personal responsibily* on parity with that power.

    I'm going through this right now. I'm being defamed on a 'public forum' on a privately-owned website by someone using an assumed name because this person *thinks* I am someone else.

    Now for the most part, we learn to ignore it. In this case the poster is making quite nasty, and patently untrue statements, some even with racial overtones (which I generally ignore as well) to an audience that I write for, and cannot verify the basis of his false claims do to software/platform related issues.

    What's more, is that since this individual feels that he is 'protected' by his ISP's 'hands-off'-ish policy, he can continue, despite repeated warnings, with impunity.

    Now I ask you: is this what we had in mind, people?

    Sure, not quite on the same scale as spreading false financial info...or is it?

    As we move ever-forward, many (many) of us make our living totally within the confines of BitSpace.

    And word, true or otherwise, travels real fast out here.

    Sure, we want to be protected from the spammers, etc.

    But for the level of power the net gives the indiviual, we may need another level of checks and balances as well for public posting.

    At least here on /. you can demote the AC's. Maybe we need a Net-Wide 'license to post' as well.

    -K

  • The future (Score:4)

    by Mr T ( 21709 ) on Tuesday June 15, 1999 @06:52AM (#1849985) Homepage
    Free speech protects you from the government, it has nothing to do with saying nasty thing about some company or group of people and having them hate you. It doesn't explicitly make any provisions for anonymity. There is a difference between being able to speak out and not being able to speak out and then there can be consequences for speaking out. It's only a matter of time, we will end up with anonymous registries, you can speak anonymously but if you slander or say anything to hurt somebody they will reveal you because it's not supposed to be a cloak for that purpose. Information is too powerful and it is too easy to do damage with it, and we as a society are way too immature to deal with it. Free speech requires responsibility, anonymous free speech requires even more.

    If you're a whistleblower then you go to the authorities or media who, in turn, should responsibly deal with the situation and your identity, you don't air your problems in a public forum anonymously. It won't fix the problems and it only stands to hurt the organization that has the problems, at that point your free speech is an act of aggression and not an act of whistleblowing. The only case where there may be no authorities is if it is the government you are blowing the whistle one but you're given explicit protection to speak against them. The Xircom case involves a pseudowhistle blower who lacked any responsibility, you should get in trouble for that.

    I think anonymous registries will be a good thing for this reason: what happens when the companies and the government catches on to the information revolution? I'm thinking about what happened a few years ago with all those anti-scientologists on the net. The church of scientology is a big and powerful organization and it legally shut a lot of people down by controlling information. Think of a microsoft of IBM or tobacco company controlling the information. If you want to have your privacy and the ability to slander and defame people and companies there will be serious motivation for those companies and the government to start mastering information and the value of tracking down "anonymous" people will be much higher. The other side of that coin is to have registered anonymity and as soon as you start crossing the line of legality someone can get a subpoena and learn your identity. Of course this is going to cause some serious issues with the civil libs and the privacy nuts who absolutley refuse to be numbered but it's going to happen if people continue to abuse anonymous speech.

Slashdot Top Deals

Over the shoulder supervision is more a need of the manager than the programming task.

Close