Judge Orders Troll Exposure

[Arcade22]

A Marion County judge has ruled, for the first time in Indiana, that news media outlets can be ordered by the court to reveal identifying information about posters to their online forums.

In rulings this week and last week, Marion Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid became the first judge in Indiana to rule on whether the state journalism shield law protects media outlets from being forced to disclose names of anonymous posters on their websites or other identifying information about those posters, said Kevin Betz, an attorney for Jeffrey Miller, former chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana.
...

"All it is is cyberbullying. And these kind of individuals need to understand there is accountability for that kind of behavior."

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...Judge-Star-IBJ-must-identify-anonymous-poster

 

[Policenaut]

What a crock. This should get overturned fast. Also this guy is clearly insane:

"The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit Miller filed last year. He is seeking to broaden the list of defendants in his case to include people who criticized him anonymously last year on websites run by The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Business Journal and WRTV (Channel 6)."

 

[bokonon]

"I am Spartacus."

 

[Babbylonian]

Great. Nothing like providing more work for our glut of lawyers instead of getting them into more productive occupations, like cutting lawns.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What a crock. This should get overturned fast. Also this guy is clearly insane:

"The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit Miller filed last year. He is seeking to broaden the list of defendants in his case to include people who criticized him anonymously last year on websites run by The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Business Journal and WRTV (Channel 6)."

I disagree, what gives you the right to hide behind anonymity to slander someone?

Now I'm not saying this Plaintiff has a case as far as slander goes, but just because you can hide behind a username or not even that doesn't mean that you should be able to publish lies, and even damaging lies, without the person that is being defamed having the ability to seek redress.

Putting it bluntly, saying nasty and untrue things publically about someone while hiding your face is cowardly and little more then petty spitefulness. I agree with the Judge that it's just a form of cyber bulling and people doing need to be shown that it is even less acceptable than doing the same thing after growing a pair and defaming someone openly.

The paper should have deleted the comments as soon as they were made.

 

[biomorph]

I disagree, what gives you the right to hide behind anonymity to slander someone?

human rights.

Dont like critiisim? dont open your big mouth then. As for slander, who cares it's not an AK-47 is it?

Now I'm not saying this Plaintiff has a case as far as slander goes, but just because you can hide behind a username or not even that doesn't mean that you should be able to publish lies, and even damaging lies, without the person that is being defamed having the ability to seek redress.

They do have the ability to seek reddress, post a reply , thats all.

You should be able to say whatever you want, its the doing that really hurts.

Putting it bluntly, saying nasty and untrue things publically about someone while hiding your face is cowardly and little more then petty spitefulness. I agree with the Judge that it's just a form of cyber bulling and people doing need to be shown that it is even less acceptable than doing the same thing after growing a pair and defaming someone openly.

If one is that easily offended, keep one's mouth shut. dont like being critisized?, dont open your mouth...easy

The paper should have deleted the comments as soon as they were made.

Why? just so some jerk in his underpants in Idaho cant have his say? either enable comments, or don't. Just don't whine when the comments dont go your way....

 

[PhantomWolf]

human rights.

Incorrect, your freedom of speech is limited to things that will not bring harm to others, in in the US, this is countries have Defamation laws. In fact in some countries, defamation isn't a civil crime, it's a criminal one! Now personally I don't agree with that, but may even on this board do.

Dont like critiisim? dont open your big mouth then. As for slander, who cares it's not an AK-47 is it?

Slander isn't critiisim, and while words might not be bullets, they can indeed cause serious harm, loss of income, employment, and even in extreme cases lives. People have been jailed for this sort of thing before.

They do have the ability to seek reddress, post a reply , thats all.

The reddress for defamation is via the courts, not a forum board.

You should be able to say whatever you want, its the doing that really hurts.

Of course you shouldn't be allowed to say whatever you want, even in the US this is understood. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can tell people to go and lynch someone, and you can't attempt to destroy someone's reputation using lies. If you think otherwise, you better go find a new planet to colonise because every society on the planet disagrees with you.

If one is that easily offended, keep one's mouth shut. dont like being critisized?, dont open your mouth...easy

Again, slandering someone is not critising them, and even that is wrong, play the ball and not the man.

Why? just so some jerk in his underpants in Idaho cant have his say? either enable comments, or don't. Just don't whine when the comments dont go your way....

Because by publishing it and knowing allowing slander to remain online, they are just as liable under the law as that jerk in his underpants in Idaho that wrote it.

 

[C_Felix]

I'm gonna cut this right down the middle.

Nobody has the right not to be offended.
But, if you're going to criticize in a public forum, then your identitiy needs to be divulged. (I'm working on articulating why I feel this way.)

 

[Varanid]

human rights.

Dont like critiisim? dont open your big mouth then. As for slander, who cares it's not an AK-47 is it?

They do have the ability to seek reddress, post a reply , thats all.

You should be able to say whatever you want, its the doing that really hurts.

If one is that easily offended, keep one's mouth shut. dont like being critisized?, dont open your mouth...easy


Why? just so some jerk in his underpants in Idaho cant have his say? either enable comments, or don't. Just don't whine when the comments dont go your way....

Gotta disagree. I am a raving lunatic in favor of 99.9999% free speech, however, you can't slander/libel people. That does infringe upon their rights.

 

[andyandy]

I think there's got to be a balance here - when posting personal views with an expectation of privacy that should be respected - unless you abuse that anonymity to engage in comments which would be regarded as libellous if you made them in "real life". Revealing identities should be a last step - before that there should be mechanisms in place (board removal) and warnings that such posting violates the law.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Corn Dog Georgie has gotta be loving this!

 

[Vortigern99]

Of course you shouldn't be allowed to say whatever you want, even in the US this is understood. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can tell people to go and lynch someone, and you can't attempt to destroy someone's reputation using lies. If you think otherwise, you better go find a new planet to colonise because every society on the planet disagrees with you.

This.

 

[soylent]

If you fabricate demonstrably false nonsense about me you are effectively defaming yourself, as it is now trivial to demonstrate that you're a lying scum bag and have it stick.

If you make up some nonsense that cannot be proven or refuted I can just ask you to put up some evidence or shut up. If you fail to present anything at all in support that still gives me a lot of room to defame your character and have it stick.

 

[Darat]

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with free speech as no one is saying that people can't exercise whatever right to free speech they have in that state. From my understanding of the article all that the judge has done is decided that the law that protects a journalist from being forced to reveal their sources doesn't apply to comments made online by non-journalists just because it is on a newspaper's site. Seems quite sensible to me!

 

[WildCat]

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with free speech as no one is saying that people can't exercise whatever right to free speech they have in that state. From my understanding of the article all that the judge has done is decided that the law that protects a journalist from being forced to reveal their sources doesn't apply to comments made online by non-journalists just because it is on a newspaper's site. Seems quite sensible to me!

I don't think being a journalist or not has anything to do with it. The shield laws don't make journalists immune from being sued for slander. It's about protecting sources from being identified, so the issue is whether a post on a message board is considered a source or not. I would think it isn't, and the judge is correct.

 

[Chucky]

I'm gonna cut this right down the middle.

Nobody has the right not to be offended.
But, if you're going to criticize in a public forum, then your identitiy needs to be divulged. (I'm working on articulating why I feel this way.)

Ok,here's some grist for your mill. Let's say I live in nation ruled by a dictator. I could be killed for criticism. I find a way to post about conditions in my country commenting on western blog and forums and news articles. Why should I be required to give my real name?

ETA: Sometimes I'm responding to defenders of my country's dear leader. I may even have reason to be surly in my responses with my brother in prison, my wife having been beaten and not having had a full meal for a few days. I may be nasty to the person I respond to. I may even be accused by other people of lying or exaggerating. I might be unfairly accused of 'trolling'. Am I not allowed to post without full disclosure?

 

[Darat]

I don't think being a journalist or not has anything to do with it. The shield laws don't make journalists immune from being sued for slander. It's about protecting sources from being identified, so the issue is whether a post on a message board is considered a source or not. I would think it isn't, and the judge is correct.

I agree I suspect however that someone has tried to argue that because the comments are made on a newspaper site they should be treated the same way as a journalists sources would be - otherwise it doesn't make sense for a court to decide that information about the posters does not fall under the shield laws.

 

[sadhatter]

Ok,here's some grist for your mill. Let's say I live in nation ruled by a dictator. I could be killed for criticism. I find a way to post about conditions in my country commenting on western blog and forums and news articles. Why should I be required to give my real name?

ETA: Sometimes I'm responding to defenders of my country's dear leader. I may even have reason to be surly in my responses with my brother in prison, my wife having been beaten and not having had a full meal for a few days. I may be nasty to the person I respond to. I may even be accused by other people of lying or exaggerating. I might be unfairly accused of 'trolling'. Am I not allowed to post without full disclosure?

In a dictatorship like you mention they would probably just get your name in a less than legal fashion. In a civilized nation there is not chance of being killed for your views, but we have laws protecting people from being slandered.

So in a dictatorship i suggest using electronic methods to hide your identity. In a developed country, your accountable for what you say by the laws created by said country.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What a crock. This should get overturned fast.

On what grounds?

The right to free speech is not the right to anonymity.

Expectation of privacy might apply, but it's easy enough to make a case that it's not a reasonable expectation that your comments are private if you had to disclose identifying information to register to make comments. [ETA: Aside from the fact that it's not at all reasonable to expect participation in any sort of forum as being of a private nature.]

 

[C_Felix]

Ok,here's some grist for your mill. Let's say I live in nation ruled by a dictator. I could be killed for criticism. I find a way to post about conditions in my country commenting on western blog and forums and news articles. Why should I be required to give my real name?

ETA: Sometimes I'm responding to defenders of my country's dear leader. I may even have reason to be surly in my responses with my brother in prison, my wife having been beaten and not having had a full meal for a few days. I may be nasty to the person I respond to. I may even be accused by other people of lying or exaggerating. I might be unfairly accused of 'trolling'. Am I not allowed to post without full disclosure?

I think there's a difference between trolling someone, possibly liebel/slander, saying things like, "Okay Mr. Chucky. Nice point. Now, go away and think about why your mom didn't love you.", and a person posting about how things really are in country X.