Mike70
16-Oct-2009, 03:36 PM
first off, i think it important while reading this story to keep in mind that libel and defamation are NOT protected forms of free speech at all. this article revolves around a defamation case in which the plaintiff is seeking the identities of persons who posted defamatory comments in a forum. it all revolved around some hotly contested local election.
it is also important to note that courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs in cases like this before and have forced ISPs to reveal the identities of the persons posting the comments. i have no problem with this at all. again, defamation is not free speech by any stretch of the imagination. given that, i also think that a person who has been defamed has an absolute right to recover damages and confront the person who said/wrote the stuff about them in court. therefore, i see no problem with this at all.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139442/Online_libel_case_stirs_up_free_speech_debate?taxo nomyId=1
here is bit from the end:
Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the case was troubling. "We think anonymous speech on the Internet is really critical and needs to be protected," Yohnka said. It has traditionally been a means of personal expression concerning political and social issues, he said.
Yohnka warned against a growing tendency by corporations and individuals to use defamation claims as a way to unmask anonymous online commentators. "Saying something is defamatory shouldn't be the trigger" for deciding when someone should be unmasked he said.
Corporations and public figures in particular need to show they have a prima facie case before they are allowed to seek the identity of an anonymous poster, Yohnka said.
yes, it is important for the web to be anonymous but you absolutely cannot let people use that as a shield for neither criminal behavior nor behavior for which you can be held accountable in a civil court.
i do agree totally though that there has to be strong, prima facie case before an ISP is forced to give someone up.
it is also important to note that courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs in cases like this before and have forced ISPs to reveal the identities of the persons posting the comments. i have no problem with this at all. again, defamation is not free speech by any stretch of the imagination. given that, i also think that a person who has been defamed has an absolute right to recover damages and confront the person who said/wrote the stuff about them in court. therefore, i see no problem with this at all.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139442/Online_libel_case_stirs_up_free_speech_debate?taxo nomyId=1
here is bit from the end:
Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the case was troubling. "We think anonymous speech on the Internet is really critical and needs to be protected," Yohnka said. It has traditionally been a means of personal expression concerning political and social issues, he said.
Yohnka warned against a growing tendency by corporations and individuals to use defamation claims as a way to unmask anonymous online commentators. "Saying something is defamatory shouldn't be the trigger" for deciding when someone should be unmasked he said.
Corporations and public figures in particular need to show they have a prima facie case before they are allowed to seek the identity of an anonymous poster, Yohnka said.
yes, it is important for the web to be anonymous but you absolutely cannot let people use that as a shield for neither criminal behavior nor behavior for which you can be held accountable in a civil court.
i do agree totally though that there has to be strong, prima facie case before an ISP is forced to give someone up.