Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]
February 15th 08, 07:16 PM
Excellent.
"*" <*@*.*> wrote in :
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080207-appeals-court-first-
> amendment-protects-forum-trolls-too.html?
>
> 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.
>
>
> The story starts out like this. 10 anonymous individuals posted on
> Yahoo's message boards in 2005 about Krinsky, her company (SFBC), and
> two other officers at her company. 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."
>
> Krinsky left SFBC in December of 2005 and filed the lawsuit in January
> of 2006, which Doe 6 attempted to quash. In April of 2006, a superior
> court judge said that Doe 6 was "trying to drive down the price of
> [plaintiff's] company to manipulate the stock
> price, sell it short and so forth," according to court documents seen
by
> Ars. The court also suggested that "[a]ccusing a woman of unchastity
> [...] calling somebody a crook . . . saying that they have a fake
> medical degree, accusing someone of a criminal act, accusing
> someone—impinging [sic] their integrity to practice in their chosen
> profession historically have been libel per se." The court then denied
> Doe 6's motion to quash.
>
> The appeals court acknowledged that the Wild West of the Internet is
> still bound by rules about libel, and that especially in the corporate
> and financial arena, people's reputations and entire companies can
> suffer damages as rumors spread over the 'Net. Still, the judge ruled
> that what Doe 6 had posted were not assertions of "actual fact" and
> therefore not actionable under Florida's defamation law, despite being
> "unquestionably offensive and demeaning." Therefore, Doe 6's
statements
> are still protected under the First Amendment, and he is entitled to
all
> costs involved in his appeal.
>
> The decision comes just weeks after two Yale law students were dealt a
> similar blow in their own case against anonymous forum bashers. They
had
> filed a lawsuit against a number of anonymous posters on AutoAdmit.com
> who were advocating that others physically assault, rape, and sodomize
> them if at all possible. The two plaintiffs, however, were unable to
get
> the IP addresses of these posters and have therefore been largely
> unsuccessful in identifying them. While the attacks made by the
> AutoAdmit posters may or may not be legally protected (they are
threats,
> after all), we will likely never find out thanks to vigorous data
> deletion policies.
>
"*" <*@*.*> wrote in :
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080207-appeals-court-first-
> amendment-protects-forum-trolls-too.html?
>
> 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.
>
>
> The story starts out like this. 10 anonymous individuals posted on
> Yahoo's message boards in 2005 about Krinsky, her company (SFBC), and
> two other officers at her company. 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."
>
> Krinsky left SFBC in December of 2005 and filed the lawsuit in January
> of 2006, which Doe 6 attempted to quash. In April of 2006, a superior
> court judge said that Doe 6 was "trying to drive down the price of
> [plaintiff's] company to manipulate the stock
> price, sell it short and so forth," according to court documents seen
by
> Ars. The court also suggested that "[a]ccusing a woman of unchastity
> [...] calling somebody a crook . . . saying that they have a fake
> medical degree, accusing someone of a criminal act, accusing
> someone—impinging [sic] their integrity to practice in their chosen
> profession historically have been libel per se." The court then denied
> Doe 6's motion to quash.
>
> The appeals court acknowledged that the Wild West of the Internet is
> still bound by rules about libel, and that especially in the corporate
> and financial arena, people's reputations and entire companies can
> suffer damages as rumors spread over the 'Net. Still, the judge ruled
> that what Doe 6 had posted were not assertions of "actual fact" and
> therefore not actionable under Florida's defamation law, despite being
> "unquestionably offensive and demeaning." Therefore, Doe 6's
statements
> are still protected under the First Amendment, and he is entitled to
all
> costs involved in his appeal.
>
> The decision comes just weeks after two Yale law students were dealt a
> similar blow in their own case against anonymous forum bashers. They
had
> filed a lawsuit against a number of anonymous posters on AutoAdmit.com
> who were advocating that others physically assault, rape, and sodomize
> them if at all possible. The two plaintiffs, however, were unable to
get
> the IP addresses of these posters and have therefore been largely
> unsuccessful in identifying them. While the attacks made by the
> AutoAdmit posters may or may not be legally protected (they are
threats,
> after all), we will likely never find out thanks to vigorous data
> deletion policies.
>