Posted on 02/10/2008 7:47:43 PM PST by gondramB
Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be. The court opinion reversed a previous decision that would have allowed Lisa Krinsky, COO of a Florida-based drug service company, to subpoena 10 anonymous Yahoo message board posters' real names.
---
These posters regularly made what the judge described as "scathing verbal attacks" against these officers. This included referring to the trio as "a management consisting of boobs, losers and crooks," and with one poster (Doe 6) describing Krinsky when he said "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene."
(Excerpt) Read more at arstechnica.com ...
I assume that if this were a criminal or homeland security matter the ruling would be different.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
But the owners of the forum have no obligation to allow trolls to keep posting either.
cool, scath on. ;-)
And the ruling says nothing about them being immune to Viking Kittens.
>>But the owners of the forum have no obligation to allow trolls to keep posting either.<<
Exactly. This seems to leave it in the hands of the forum owner (at least until there is a criminal consideration). Thus I think this is the right ruling.
What about the rules of slander? I thought you couldn’t accuse someone of committing a crime without evidence.
Yep we got 'em here!
Libel and slander are crimes.
Calling someone a “crook” is a direct attack on their character by calling their actions CRIMINAL.
To permit this as “free speech” is also to permit an online death threat (another bit of speech that is NOT protected by the First Amendment).
Gads, I didn’t need to know that.
.........and moonbats?
No death threats need be sent to obtain satisfaction.
>>What about the rules of slander? I thought you couldn’t accuse someone of committing a crime without evidence.<<
I think what they are saying is that the forum owner does not have to help you track down their members for libel (since its written, not spoken) case. You can still bring your case but in a civil case the forum owner does not break the anonymity of its members if they choose not to.
Now, somebody like me has posted enough personal info over the years that I could be identified by other means and this would not stop a libel case against me - its just means Jim would have a free choice whether to assist the case.
At least I think that is what it says.
Gnomes catch moonbats when they can. They make good profit.
I think, IBTC is more on target.
In Before The Chinese. I recall Yahoo and Google turning over IP Addresses. Pretty powerful stuff.
>>Crud, I looked up “queefs.”
Gads, I didn’t need to know that.<<
Sorry, I learned that from Southpark and should have warned ya’ll.
bump
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
