Facebook forced to unmask anonymous cyberbullies.

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technol...t-case-forcing-facebook-unmask-004214015.html

The tide is turning.

 

[renard_ruse]

Putting aside the limits on free speech involved here, this is on very shaky legal ground for a number of other reasons.

First off, how does one define so-called "cyberbullying." Its too vague and subjective. Secondly, even in the rare clear cut cases of actual slander, for example, how can you ever prove for sure who actually made the posts? A computer in the living room of a shared house, with a lot of friends coming by to visit, for example, who's to say who was actually using the computer. That's not even mentioning public internet terminals, etc.

On the plus side, this is a wet dream for trial lawyers.

 

[koalabear]

http://www.keltecweapons.com/uploaded_files/ourguns/gallery/b_705f157e2f0776b9a04801a2c1c7f006KSGgirl.jpg

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

Putting aside the limits on free speech involved here, this is on very shaky legal ground for a number of other reasons.

First off, how does one define so-called "cyberbullying." Its too vague and subjective. Secondly, even in the rare clear cut cases of actual slander, for example, how can you ever prove for sure who actually made the posts? A computer in the living room of a shared house, with a lot of friends coming by to visit, for example, who's to say who was actually using the computer. That's not even mentioning public internet terminals, etc.

On the plus side, this is a wet dream for trial lawyers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying

Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner.[1] As it has become more common in society, particularly among young people, legislation and awareness campaigns have arisen to combat it.......

 

[JohnnySavage]

Putting aside the limits on free speech involved here, this is on very shaky legal ground for a number of other reasons.

First off, how does one define so-called "cyberbullying." Its too vague and subjective. Secondly, even in the rare clear cut cases of actual slander, for example, how can you ever prove for sure who actually made the posts? A computer in the living room of a shared house, with a lot of friends coming by to visit, for example, who's to say who was actually using the computer. That's not even mentioning public internet terminals, etc.

On the plus side, this is a wet dream for trial lawyers.

You've just described virtually every civil action that makes it to court. Congratulations on your insight.

It's almost as if we should devise some type of system to figure these things out. I'd probably call it a trial with the facts determined by something called... say, a jury. That's just me though.

 

[Bert Notorius]

sticks and stones...

 

[renard_ruse]

Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner.[1] As it has become more common in society, particularly among young people, legislation and awareness campaigns have arisen to combat it.......[/I]

How do you "harm other people" on the internet in any way you couldn't "harm" them via any other manner? If anything, its a lot less possible to "harm" people on the internet because its impossible to do any physical harm to someone.

If someone is committing actual slander, and there is demonstrable material damages that result, or physically threatening someone, etc, those things are already against the law (civil or crimminal). We do NOT need any new "laws" to make up an imaginary issue like this, and trample free speech and who knows how many other freedoms in the process.

 

[JohnnySavage]

How do you "harm other people" on the internet in any way you couldn't "harm" them via any other manner? If anything, its a lot less possible to "harm" people on the internet because its impossible to do any physical harm to someone.

If someone is committing actual slander, and there is demonstrable material damages that result, or physically threatening someone, etc, those things are already against the law (civil or crimminal). We do NOT need any new "laws" to make up an imaginary issue like this, and trample free speech and who knows how many other freedoms in the process.

What new laws are you talking about

 

[renard_ruse]

You've just described virtually every civil action that makes it to court. Congratulations on your insight.

It's almost as if we should devise some type of system to figure these things out. I'd probably call it a trial with the facts determined by something called... say, a jury. That's just me though.

Yes, let's clog up the court system with even more lawsuits. Sounds like a brilliant idea.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you not agree that the concept of "cyberbullying" is absurd?

 

[renard_ruse]

What new laws are you talking about

Laws (or court decisions making torts) specifically against "cyberbullying." Do you always get confused this easily?

 

[renard_ruse]

sticks and stones...

That's not good enough for The Special Generation. They need Special Laws to protect their widdle feelings.

 

[Cratchit]

Yes, let's clog up the court system with even more lawsuits. Sounds like a brilliant idea.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you not agree that the concept of "cyberbullying" is absurd?

it is very real and does happen, and can be quite harmful and dangerous.

who are you to decide what lawsuits are frivolous or not?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yes, let's clog up the court system with even more lawsuits. Sounds like a brilliant idea.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you not agree that the concept of "cyberbullying" is absurd?

I think if someone slanders/liables/defames you, you are entitled to your day in court. It matters not the media used to conduct the act. The internet isn't sacrosanct where you can do whatever you want without fear of the consequences of your actions.

Laws (or court decisions making torts) specifically against "cyberbullying." Do you always get confused this easily?

There is no 'new' law, as you seem to want to argue against. The courts are applying existing law to a new medium - just as they did when mass publications replaced word of mouth, then radio, then television.

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

How do you "harm other people" on the internet in any way you couldn't "harm" them via any other manner? If anything, its a lot less possible to "harm" people on the internet because its impossible to do any physical harm to someone.

If someone is committing actual slander, and there is demonstrable material damages that result, or physically threatening someone, etc, those things are already against the law (civil or crimminal). We do NOT need any new "laws" to make up an imaginary issue like this, and trample free speech and who knows how many other freedoms in the process.

Harming someone is not limited to physical damage. I do not think there are any new laws here. The existing ones are being applied to the cyber world. Free speech is not being trampled upon. It is ignorant for people to hide behind free speech when damaging the lives of others with consistent slanderous lies and bullying and not be held accountable for their actions.

 

[renard_ruse]

it is very real and does happen, and can be quite harmful and dangerous.

Very real as opposed to very fake?

If someone slanders someone on the internet causing actual material damages they can bring an action just like they could in "real life" though I would think it would be alot harder to prove. If someone is exposing someone's personal information like their bank accounts or whatever, again, that is already covered by existing laws and doesn't need special "cyber" laws. If someone is making threats of physical violence, again, that is already illegal as well.

Beyond those things, what specific "harm" much less "danger" is there because someone makes fun of someone on the stupid internet? If you don't like what someone's says about you on the internet, shut it off and go outside and do something in the fresh air. Its probably a good idea anyway.

who are you to decide what lawsuits are frivolous or not?

Didn't use the word frivolous, but the justification for me using it, had I wanted to use it which I didn't, would be that I'm a logical individual with a brain who can use common sense to determine what falls into that category. Nevertheless, because of the vagueness of it, I deliberately didn't use that word. I said more lawsuits, period, that will result from a new and unnecessary class of laws that are being made up out of thin air.

 

[clutch1]

I don't see a need for a law against words being typed on a internet site.
Now if you're giving out personal information like a phone number or home address, then yes that should be agin the law.

 

[renard_ruse]

Don't get me wrong I would love to sue the likes of RoryN and his alts just for spite, but I support his right to free speech.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Don't get me wrong I would love to sue the likes of RoryN and his alts just for spite, but I support his right to free speech.

I think the problem here, is that you don't understand the concept of free speech. One individual cannot, as a matter of law, restrict anyone's 'free speech.' Freedom of Speech is a concept that protects speech from governmental action.

If I don't like something you say about me, I have the right to sue you. That's not a restriction of your right to free speech.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Pandemonium_]

Putting aside the limits on free speech involved here, this is on very shaky legal ground for a number of other reasons.

First off, how does one define so-called "cyberbullying." Its too vague and subjective. Secondly, even in the rare clear cut cases of actual slander, for example, how can you ever prove for sure who actually made the posts? A computer in the living room of a shared house, with a lot of friends coming by to visit, for example, who's to say who was actually using the computer. That's not even mentioning public internet terminals, etc.

On the plus side, this is a wet dream for trial lawyers.

Do you ever listen to yourself? No only are you a child molester but you are a very stupid child molester.

 

[JohnnySavage]

There comes a point where you cannot regenerate the IQ pts. any longer.

FYI.

On the Lit, I do try to both entertain and educate

 

[renard_ruse]

I think if someone slanders/liables/defames you, you are entitled to your day in court. It matters not the media used to conduct the act. The internet isn't sacrosanct where you can do whatever you want without fear of the consequences of your actions.

That's not what the "cyberbullying" law is about. Nice deflection though.

There is no 'new' law, as you seem to want to argue against. The courts are applying existing law to a new medium - just as they did when mass publications replaced word of mouth, then radio, then television.

They don't need to do ANYTHING different to apply it to the "new" medium (is 20 years really new anyway?). "Cyberbullying" is not about existing laws, its about creating new law which will have the far reaching consequence of changing the long held idea that the "law is no remedy for hurt feelings."

 

[TexasWife25]

I would imagine cyber bullying or cyber slander type cases are about sites like facebook where your name is known and used or on sites that deal with you professionally ect.

 

[renard_ruse]

Do you ever listen to yourself? No only are you a child molester but you are a very stupid child molester.

I'm actually quite smart. I make excellent points, and BTW, plenty of people agree with me. Just because the "people" on Lit are closed minded stupid morons with no intellectual courage only reflects poorly on you folks.

And what on earth is the slander about child molestor? WTF? Now, that I can sue you for and may very well consider it. I'd watch it if I were you. Again, WTF, Rory???

 

[renard_ruse]

I would imagine cyber bullying or cyber slander type cases are about sites like facebook where your name is known and used or on sites that deal with you professionally ect.

Are you getting worried there, Rory?