ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech

Subject: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: WyoWoman
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 02:55 PM

Just in case those of you who choose to go "anonymouse" so you can flame and slam other people, here's an Associated Press story about a recent Florida appeals court ruling. Not that any of you actually WOULD try to slander anyone or destroy anyone's reputation, but just to show you the drift of the courts in relation to anonymity for the sake of doing harm to others.

Philosophically, I tend to side more with the ACLU, but, if some people can't play nice, they're going to harden the attitude of the courts toward them more and more ... ww

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Anonymous Net Posting Not Protected

By CATHERINE WILSON= AP Business Writer= MIAMI (AP) _ In a ruling that challenges online anonymity, a Florida appeals court declared Monday that Internet service providers must divulge the identities of people who post defamatory messages on the Internet. Critics of the ruling say it could have a chilling effect on free expression in Internet chat rooms. The ruling comes against the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union to protect the identity of eight individuals who posted anonymous missives on a Yahoo! financial chat room about Erik Hvide, the former CEO of Hvide Marine Inc. Hvide alleges that personal attacks against him also caused damage to the company's image. Hvide's attorney Bruce Fischman hailed the ruling, saying it would force Internet users to ``think a bit before they speak.'' The ACLU had wanted the court first to rule on whether Hyde had actually been defamed before identifying the defendants, named in court papers only as John Doe. If there was no showing of defamation, the ACLU reasoned, the critics should remain anonymous. However, on Thursday, the court dissolved a stay freezing subpoenas for the records of Yahoo! Inc. and America Online Inc., whose service was used by one of the defendants in the defamation case. Lauren Gelman, public policy director with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is concerned that other courts could follow the lead of the 3rd District Court of Appeals in approving subpoenas. ``This kind of speech happens all the time in all kinds of chat rooms,'' Gelman said. ``We don't want to see these subpoenas become regularly used to cause people to self-censor themselves.'' Both Internet companies took a back seat in the lawsuit, saying they would do whatever the judges said. Lyrissa Lidsky, who argued the case on behalf of the ACLU, called the decision a surprise and a setback. Nevertheless, she said, ``It's not a defeat for all the other John Does in the pipeline'' fighting Internet-related subpoenas because the court did not explain its legal reasoning. An appeal is being explored. ``The court had the potential to set an important precedent about the right to speak anonymously on the Internet,'' Lidsky said. ``The courts are eventually going to have to come to grips with this issue and decide how broad free speech rights are in cyberspace.'' The issue is largely untested in the nation's courts. A Virginia federal judge sided with a government subpoena request in a criminal case, but civil suits in California and Virginia have not settled the subpoena questions involving anonymous Internet users

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 02:58 PM

gee, does this mean Max is supposed to TELL us which 'guest' is screeching about Hitler and accusing anyone who doesn't openly HATE Hitler of liking him?

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 03:00 PM

I wonder how this will play should it reach the Supreme Court. Could be very interesting.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: wildlone
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 03:04 PM

As Max has pointed out in the past your computer can divulge a lot about yourself when it accesses web sites

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 03:21 PM

In another life I would have been an ACLU lawyer, but this one is stretching the concept of the individual; ie, to be an individual and to be accorded the rights of an individual, you must have an identity, a name. As often happens, I'm sure that this time too, there is some serious disagreement within the ACLU.

Spaw

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 03:22 PM

It doesn't really seem like a freedom of speech issue, because the issue is whether someone can to make an anonymous public statement and require others to conceal their identity--

If I say something nasty at a party in Max's house, and someone asks Max who said it, do I have a right to expect Max to keep his mouth shut? I don't think so--

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 03:50 PM

MTed, I may be missreading this one but I fail to see that that this house party was "Max's".

Also, I find the statement "Internet service providers must divulge the identities of people who post defamatory messages on the Internet." completely against freedom of speach.

Where will it end, am I not allowed to say "I think so-and-so is a prick" in a personal face to face conversation (which may involve more than one person)? If one reverses the implications from this example, I guess that if this sort of precident is set, it won't be.

This seems to me to be another move towards censoring the internet.

Jon

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: Lindsay
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 04:06 PM

We have never had "free speech" in it's purest sense. It is, for example, illegal to speak about violently overthrowing the United States Government. Another example is slander, which is what I believe this ruling is all about. There are instances where hiding behind anominity (is that spelled right?), to protest injustices makes sense, but should that cover attacks on people or groups because their opinion is different from yours? That smacks a little of terrorism. BTW, I generally oppose censorship as a principle. With age, I find it harder not to look at both sides.

I do have a problem with whether this Hvide fellow was in fact defamed and suffered any damage as a result. It would seem very pertinent in this case. No injury, no crime, no divulging of names.

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 04:15 PM

*grin*...well, I meant my post totally tongue-in-cheek. I never expected Max to get involved in unmasking 'guests'....I merely was tweaking the nose of 'guests' who overdo the ability to be nasty anaoymously.

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 04:17 PM

I don't know all of the details of the story but who listens to anonymous postings? Apparently somebody because there's a lawsuit but hey, do we really want to open up this can of worms? I mean, for a lot of people out there the whole attraction of the internet is the anonymity. All of us, to a certain extent, are allowed a certain amount of anonymity. With the exception of Seamus, I've not met anyone else here. Now, for myself, I'd like to change that and meet all of you but there are some who would prefer to just be Bob or Jane and let it stay at that. Having said that I have no patience for flamers and trolls who sole purpose is to stir up the pot. On the other hand if the only thing that someone wanted to be known as is MUDCAT_GROUPIE or something like that, I would respect that decision. As much as I hate the flaming that has happened here and in other forums I've visited, I don't think that divulging the identities of those slinging the garbage is the answer......

Just thinking out loud...... Frank

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 07:50 PM

I wouldn't want to comment on the rights or wrongs of this case, but would just mention that it's worth remembering that US law does not, (so far!) extend over the entire world, however much the government of the US might like it to.

Malcolm

Subject: RE: ANONYMOUS Posting Not Protected Speech
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 09:48 PM

Not enough information to make an informed judgement call here, but the ACLU's tack seems reasonable. There should have been a ruling first to determine if this guy had actually been defamed. Otherwise, the message the Florida court sent could be misinterpreted to read that the records of private companies and the identities of their customers are subject to invasions of privacy, regardless of the severity of the infraction.