Posted on 03/08/2014 7:18:35 AM PST by PaulCruz2016
After reading the article, I agree with the judge.
I understand what you are saying and I am somewhat sympathetic to your views. I do draw a line at slandering a regular person but I was really just pointing out that you are only fooling yourself if you think .gov can not get your real identity in about 5 minutes.
Just saying that the goal is to silence the critics who don't have the Correct Thoughts. The poster in this case probably should have used the Mainstream Media pro forma for his postings:
"Some say that..."
For all we know, the troll guy might be a paid "fall guy" for the Left.
Always use the most outrageous anecdote to get the camel's nose under the tent skirt...
The legal theory on which the judge based his ruling goes back hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years.
The commenter defamed another person, which is actionable in court.
The fact that the commenter was essentially standing in the public square with a hood, or bag, over his head so no one could see who it was that was commenting, shouldn't protect him against legal action.
The judge correctly ruled his anonymity cannot protect him from prosecution for an illegal act.
By way of example, what is the correct decision if the commenter instead robbed a bank though the use of hacking? Should he then be able to keep his anonymity?
Well, true - unless you're Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, or any other Emmanuel Goldstein on the right...
The law is reasonably specific on who can sue. Those who you mentioned are considered to be ‘in the public eye’ and should expect to be criticized, even unfairly.
Just as we criticize the twit in the WH.
1. Everything is a crime under 21st century American peasant law.
2. Your Red Delicious apple and my Valencia orange must grow on the same tree, I guess... Wonderful grafting job the horticulturists can do these days.
"The peasant law is reasonably specific on who can sue"
Fixed it for you.
You seem to be saying that robbing a bank while in disguise is OK?
You seem to be saying that a Red Delicious apple and a Valencia orange are exactly the same?
Why do I think the union thug wants the poster’s name and address to go administer a gang-style beating, rather than to simply sue him?
Can I sue any liberal who calls me a “Nazi” then?
I carry a throw away computer for trolling.
If this kind of thinking holds up, we’re going to need five million more lawyers and 500,000 more judges to handle all the defamation lawsuits.
Tough issue to find balance on.
I would strongly object if someone called me a pedophile or made any other false accusation. Would I fight it in court? I guess it depends on the damage it does. If it were a run-of-the-mill troll, it’s not worth the effort. Everyone knows what a troll is and does and they are not to be believed.
If a false online accusation took hold and gained credibility, affected my reputation, threatened my job, hurt my family, or something similar, I would go after the person in court.
Maybe the key question is : Who is hurt by the accusation? Usually, it’s the accuser who looks like a nasty, petty liar. In that case the victim suffers little harm. But sometimes, the false accusation sticks and/or damages the victim. Then I think there is a better case.
How about Tina Fey calling Sarah Palin stupid in so many SNL sketches, making Americans believe she thought she could see Russia from her house? They did damage.
How about the NYT accusing McCain of having an affair? That did damage. It wasn’t retracted until it was too late.
How about the guy accused of planting the Atlanta Olympic bomb or the guy accused of sending anthrax? Severe damage.
How about Harry Reid accusing Romney of not paying his taxes? That did damage.
I don’t know enough about this case. Was the troll just flinging random accusations, trying to make something stick? Was he just name-calling? (It seems to me that “pedophile” goes beyond name-calling. “Stupid” is name-calling. “Pedophile” seems more targeted.) Did he pick that particular term for a reason - either because there is truth to it or because he wanted to inflict maximum damage? Too many unknowns.
In October 2012, Dougherty sued over a comment posted two months earlier on a Daily News blog that described a public feud involving him. The comment identified Dougherty by his well-known nickname, “Johnny Doc,” and called him “the pedophile.”
Well the point is that a judge that orders a website to cough up personal information on one of its participants may be wasting time. The website could come back and say ‘John Doe residing in Friendly Heights’. If the ISP comes back with a computer address, then it’s up to the plaintiff to figure it out from then on.
It’s a fool’s errand to chase someone on the internet unless a crime investigation is underway and ALL the tools are brought into play to trace the criminal. For civil cases it’s not worth spit.
So my first impression is this is a typical philly bully judge who is shooting out orders without knowing if they are realistic. Philadelphia is a very corrupt place. On the other hand if grassroots people in Philadelphia are involved and they are credible, then normally good judges will hear the case and act as judges should. It’s difficult to know without being there.
To be sure I would need to hear a tape of the judge or see a transcript to see what his reasoning was. A wise judge would just tell the plaintiff that he is not going to expend court resources over cyber searches that have a high probability of leading nowhere.
But the point is that millions upon millions of comments and allegations are made on the internet everyday. If a union thug wants to hunt them all down, I think that’s a problem not only with the union thug but also with using court resources for useless investigations. Then again the Philly mob controls many judges, and they are not brilliant.
Based upon what?
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.