“...the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously.”

[Weird Harold]

From: AOL loses Internet privacy ruling
....
The Virginia Supreme Court sided with a lower California court’s ruling that supported Nam Tai Electronics Inc.’s request to subpoena the identity of an AOL user as part of a complaint that alleged libel, trade libel and violations of California’s unfair business practice statutes.

The electronics company alleged in its complaint, filed in January 2001 in California Superior Court, that 51 unknown individuals, including an AOL subscriber, posted “false, defamatory and otherwise unlawful messages” about the company’s stock on an Internet message board.

“The case is important to the extent that AOL was attempting to ask the Virginia Supreme Court to adopt a rule of law for Internet speech that was different than the law as it exists for the bricks and mortar world,” Jon Talotta, associate at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, which represents Nam Tai, told Reuters.

“This ruling makes this a traditional defamation case,” added Robert Feyder, litigation partner at the law firm.

In April 2001, AOL filed a motion to quash Nam Tai’s subpoena, arguing it should not be required to reveal subscriber information because it would “infringe on the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously.”
...

OK, do you feel that there is a "well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously" or not?

If there is, does it include a right to commit anonymous libel and slander?

I personally don't think there is a "right to speak anonymously," especially when it comes to libel and slander. I think that everyone should be legally responsible for their words whether they're verbal or written, and the conventions of anonymity through the use of "handles" should NOT serve as protection against legal action.

I do feel that everyone has a right to be known by a handle on the internet and, excepting libel, slander, or other illegal acts, anonymity should be protected and respected. Individuals should never take it upon themselves to violate the privacy provided by someone else's handle.

However, when a court requires that someone defend their words, they should NOT be allowed to hide behind a bogus "right to anonymity."

 

[A Desert Rose]

OK, do you feel that there is a "well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously" or not?

If there is, does it include a right to commit anonymous libel and slander?

I personally don't think there is a "right to speak anonymously," especially when it comes to libel and slander. I think that everyone should be legally responsible for their words whether they're verbal or written, and the conventions of anonymity through the use of "handles" should NOT serve as protection against legal action.

I do feel that everyone has a right to be known by a handle on the internet and, excepting libel, slander, or other illegal acts, anonymity should be protected and respected. Individuals should never take it upon themselves to violate the privacy provided by someone else's handle.

However, when a court requires that someone defend their words, they should NOT be allowed to hide behind a bogus "right to anonymity."

In the print media, where I worked until yesterday at 5 pm, LOL, no unsigned letters to the editor were ever accepted or published. I reputable newspaper would never do that.

I have a real problem with the "Unregistered" types here. Their posts remind me a great deal of unsigned letters. If you have a position then have the backbone to make it and take the heat. Or keep your hands off the keyboard.

AOL has a checkered past with it's customers and I do not hold their system in high regard at all.

 

[SINthysist]

The founding fathers never dreamed that we would stray so far a field [when they were writing the constitution, a little drunk and excited I think still today...] as to actually USE the word responsible when speaking [or writing about] of free speech.

Bet they never dreamed someone would stuff a crucifix in a jar of urine either...

 

[A Desert Rose]

Harold?

Does this not remind you a bit of libraries and book stores being required to reveal their patron and customer lists?

It does me. It makes me very uncomfortable.

 

[capricious_chic]

What a incredible sight it would be, if users had to post, chat, etc... without a guise of a nickname. What if that were not an option, and one always had to use their real name. The whole context of how people post, chat, etc.. would change. Probably for the better, as people wouldn't be able to hide behind anominity. If your family, friends, co-workers, neighbors could all see what you post, and where... oh my.

Was the company doing so badly, that they had to worry with anonymous postings on some random website?

Rarely, do people take everything they read as the absolute truth.
(Although, I am amazed daily at how seriously some people do take the written word, especially in chat).

I would hate to think any random thought I had would make a case for libel... For instance, if I said I think McDonalds was a disgusting place to eat, the food was too processed. The hamburgers no longer resemble meat, etc.. Would McDonalds then have the right to sue me for deflamation? Scary thought.

 

[Byron In Exile]

OK, do you feel that there is a "well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously" or not?

If there is, does it include a right to commit anonymous libel and slander?

That's a really good question, Harold. I think probably there is one. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote the Federalist anonymously under the "handle" Publius. It seems one might have one's personal safety in mind, yet still want to exercise one's right to speak. For instance, I might want to criticize a group or organization regarded as extremist, but avoid the possibility of being physically assaulted.

As for libel, it's hard to see how anything said by some unnamed and unknown person can actually be damaging, which I believe is one of the requirements for a libel conviction. An assertion by "anonymous" should have no more credibility than a rumor, I would think.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Harold?

Does this not remind you a bit of libraries and book stores being required to reveal their patron and customer lists?

No, not really. That provision of the USA Patriot act is an entirely different kettle of fish.

My question here is about whether or not using handle should allow you to avoid responsiblity for your words.

Byron said:

Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote the Federalist anonymously under the "handle" Publius. It seems one might have one's personal safety in mind, yet still want to exercise one's right to speak.

You have to consider that there were laws against "sedition" in effect when the federalist papers were written -- "Publius" was NOT protected by the First Amendment. That's a major reason the First Amendment exists.

The AOL case revolves around allegations of a specific and directed attack against a company's stock value by a campaign of slander and innuendo. A supoena has been issued for the name behind a specific e-mail address for the express purpose of issuing a supeona to appear in court to the person who allegedly made libelous statements.

There are often good reasons for posting under a handle, but a handle is nothing more than a "nickname" and should provide no more anonymity or legal protection than a nickname does. Whether you're known as "Byron in Exile," "A Desert Rose," or "Weird Harold" should not absolve you of responsiblity for things you say that would result in civil or criminal charges if you you used your real name.

 

[teddybear4play]

I would hate to think any random thought I had would make a case for libel... For instance, if I said I think McDonalds was a disgusting place to eat, the food was too processed. The hamburgers no longer resemble meat, etc.. Would McDonalds then have the right to sue me for deflamation? Scary thought.

If it's all opinion or parody, you're fine.

If you start claiming, as fact, that, say, they use horsemeat for their burgers, you can probably be sued.

TB4p

 

[Calamity Jane]

If it's all opinion or parody, you're fine.

If you start claiming, as fact, that, say, they use horsemeat for their burgers, you can probably be sued.

TB4p

Only if they don't really use horsemeat in their burgers, and only if you're saying it in an attempt to harm them.

And no, I don't think there's an anonymity clause in the First Ammendment. Something about a complete lack of personal responsibility comes to mind.

 

[capricious_chic]

My question here is about whether or not using handle should allow you to avoid responsiblity for your words.

I don't think that one should be able to hide behind anominity and be able to shirk responsibility, for damage done.

If people were more responsible for what they did on the 'net, and didn't have a nickname to hide behind.. the whole venue would change. However, how often are people truly "responsible" for their actions? There are so many scapegoats and ways around the system.

I doubt that will ever happen though.

Regardless, even if it did.. it would go to such an extreme that any random thought typed would be something that was reviewed.

So, in answer to your question.. No.

Yet, there is so much more involved than a simple no.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Re: Re: Harold?

You have to consider that there were laws against "sedition" in effect when the federalist papers were written --

No, there weren't. The war, and British rule, officially ended in 1783. The Federalist articles were written in 1788. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, the 1st amendment in 1791. And even if there had been, The Federalist was hardly seditious, being a series of newspaper articles encouraging ratification of the Constitution.

"Publius" was NOT protected by the First Amendment.

True, but there was no Constitution. The 1st amendment would have been meaningless, as it was not needed to restrain a government that did not exist.

That's a major reason the First Amendment exists.

What is? If you're thinking of the Alien and Sedition Acts, they were passed in 1798.

The AOL case revolves around allegations of a specific and directed attack against a company's stock value by a campaign of slander and innuendo. A supoena has been issued for the name behind a specific e-mail address for the express purpose of issuing a supeona to appear in court to the person who allegedly made libelous statements.

I don't know the details of this case, but is it going to do any good to go after people who anonymously email things from the US, but not people who email things from China? There are always ways to be anonymous -- encryption, anonymous re-mailers, or drop a letter in the mail with no return address. It's a wild goose-chase, for which you give up yet one more from your ever-shrinking list of freedoms, the right to privacy.

 

[Lancecastor]

Here's my view on the question of the thread:

Slander & defamation are civil wrongs...torts...and they give rise to actionable causes (lawsuits) where damages ($$$) can be claimed and won...if one can be proven to have harmed another with the malicious lies that slander & defamation are generally rooted in.

Putting on the mask of a "nickname" doesn't make a wrongdoing any less wrong.

Just as robbing a bank with or without pantyhose over your head are the same thing.

It might be harder to catch you, but it's still wrong.

When the Internet was shiny and new, newsgroup and irc culture tried to position the 'net as anarchy or at the very least a new world order free of geographic jurisdictions.

It took most of the 90's to settle things like where data "lives" in terms of tax, criminal and other liabilities(on the host server in most jurisdictions)...but even now ICANN is trying to sort out who really "owns and operates" the Internet.

So, while it was certainly the Wild West for a while, in most places today if you say or do something actionable, your provider has to cough up the logs to finger you or risk losing the entire piece(s) of hardware via search warrants.

Getting caught here is still relatively difficult compared to IRL, but the principles and laws are all here. Just ask Carnivore.

Cheers

Lance

 

[kotori]

I was surprised by the title of this thread, because I've never considered there to be a First Amendment right to anonymity. As was said above, opinion and parody are protected, and anonymous or signed, makes not difference. Slander and libel require that "malicious intent" thing, and the offended party feels they have been effected financially (either currently or at some point in the future). But here in the States at least, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, to show the malicious intent and the effect. If they could not demonstrate the perceived "intent" of the defendant, it would be an impossible burden to meet. So the identity of the defendant must be known.

I don't think this has any bearing on the library and bookstore cases, or vice versa.

 

[patient1]

I'm a big believer in the concept that that free speech is meaningless without the right not to speak. That's why they added the fifth amendment. Compulsory speech isn't freedom.

Whether the vandal is virtual or real, they retain the right not to speak their name. They never had the right to harm others. There are no rights without responsibllities.

 

[Byron In Exile]

So, while it was certainly the Wild West for a while, in most places today if you say or do something actionable, your provider has to cough up the logs to finger you or risk losing the entire piece(s) of hardware via search warrants.

Getting caught here is still relatively difficult compared to IRL, but the principles and laws are all here. Just ask Carnivore.

Interesting that you bring up Carnivore in this context. The possibility that one person might lie about someone else is certainly a good reason to give government a license for total surveillance of all your electronic communications. Double-plus good.

 

[scylis]

I'm a big believer in the concept that that free speech is meaningless without the right not to speak. That's why they added the fifth amendment. Compulsory speech isn't freedom.

Whether the vandal is virtual or real, they retain the right not to speak their name. They never had the right to harm others. There are no rights without responsibllities.

one has the right not to give incriminating evidence about themselves durring testimony, but it doesn't cover you giving incriminating evidence about someone else.

so while the user has the right not to give his or her real name, the server which provides them access doesn't have the right to withhold the user's name, unless it incriminates the server.

in this case, AOL itself is not involved with the slander/libel, so they must give over the information they have on the user in question. if they don't, it could be considered Obstruction of Justice or Aiding and Embeding(sp?).

 

[Lost Cause]

A similar situation...

I was attending a class on filing federal retraining paperwork about 3 inches thick. The instructor joked about after the paperwork, the gov't would install a chip in you. I joked that either they'd have to kill me, or me kill them. We both laughed about it, until 5 minutes later I was escorted out by armed security officers.
They took my picture, and said a female employee overheard my threats, and became frightened. (she wasn't even in the room) I said I'd like to apologize to her, and explain the context in what I had said. They said I could not face my accuser, and I was barred from the property. After meeting with the honchos, they were convinced on my innocence, but refused to let me meet with my accuser so I could apologize for her paranoia. I told the honchos that this is how we'll lose our freedom, because this PC shit will be accepted as normal, so when the government passes a law that takes a right, it's already normal in the workplace, so nothing lost.
Again, a similar situation where an anonymous informant is allowed to ruin someone else's day with no recourse by the accused because of confidentiality. (By the way, the teacher in the class even wrote a statement that at no time he ever felt threatened by me!)

 

[Don K Dyck]

Why Give Up Rights??

Interesting that you bring up Carnivore in this context. The possibility that one person might lie about someone else is certainly a good reason to give government a license for total surveillance of all your electronic communications. Double-plus good.

Hi Bryon . . . I don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry CIA person reading all my e-mail . . . that stinks too much of Orwell's 1984 . . . Go look in the patriot Act to see how many freedoms Americans have had given up for them since 9/11 . . . and for what benefit??? None that I can see . . . the US has the biggest sercret service force in the world, bigger even than the KGB at its peak . . . and they were unable to prevent 9/11 . . . so why will giving the security agencies even more power, make them more efficient???

 

[patient1]

one has the right not to give incriminating evidence about themselves durring testimony, but it doesn't cover you giving incriminating evidence about someone else.

so while the user has the right not to give his or her real name, the server which provides them access doesn't have the right to withhold the user's name, unless it incriminates the server.

in this case, AOL itself is not involved with the slander/libel, so they must give over the information they have on the user in question. if they don't, it could be considered Obstruction of Justice or Aiding and Embeding(sp?).

Abetting is the word . I like your way better.

You are quite right- A court of law is the one place where where your rights are suspended. You aren't free to speak. The press isn't free to photograph. They won't even let you keep & bear arms! ( this proves that once they take away that right, they can take away the rest.)

Oh the irony of it all.