Say Something Bad On The Net - Have Your Identity Revealed. Good Idea?

[pdmike]

Someone on the Internet (we will call that person the defamer) is posting defamatory statements about another individual (we will call that person the defamee). Should the Web site that allows the defamatory remarks to be posted, be forced to turn over the name and other identifying information about the defamer so that the defamee can commence appropriate legal action?

Earlier this week, a court so ordered in the case of a model who had (allegedly) been defamed by a blogger on a Google blog site.

What do you think about that? Good ruling? It raises several questions, not the least of which is, what does something like this do to open and free posting on the Internet? Should someone who puts something on a message board or in a blog, do so with the knowledge that if another person chooses to interpret what has been said as some form of defamation, they run the risk of having the site disclose their personal identifying information to the person with a gripe? That can't be a good thing.

On the other hand, true defamation should not be allowed to just sit here on the Internet with no recourse for the defamee.

Interesting issue. How would you rule on it?

[CaptainPike]

There's no reason to limit information, which is what will happen when you start threatening people by exposing their identity.

[malnila]

In a perfect world, I think we would like to think our personal information is just that, personal. Don't most sites claim that whatever information you need to use to register for that site will remain personal and confidential? Doesn't this put a whole new twist on your scenario?

IMO, the site would should be wholly responsible for the content posted on their site (shoot, we need more Internet Police enforcement), then the site would or should go after the "defamee" for damages. I think most sites love the "traffic" so much, they turn a blind eye to what's being said or done on the site. The buck should stop with the site.

[snagswolf]

Definition of defame:



Main Entry: de·fame
Pronunciation: \di-ˈfām, dē-\
2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander


I really don't think that happens on the internet as much as you think it does.

Someone on the internet saying something bad about snagswolf doesn't 'defame' me in the least.

[DLaw911]

........Interesting issue. How would you rule on it?Assuming it fits the elements of libel it should be actionable and, if libel per se, damages should be presumed.

Persons who post on the internet do not become public figures or celebrities triggering rules which allow false statements to be posted so long as there was no conscious disregard for the truth -- or malice.

Let's same someone here makes a statement about Person X to the effect that he or she has AIDS. And not only is it false, the person who posted the statement knew it to be false. There is no doubt in my mind that damages for libel would be presumed and there would be no need to prove loss of reputation and humuliation. On the other hand, nothing prevents the harmed person from proving up actual damages. The more interesting question would be whether or not the owner and/or administrator of this board would be responsible for damages. Or let's make a hypo - let's say the post is reported to a MOD who says "no foul" and leaves it. Who could be accessed damages.
Frankly I don't know the answer.

[DLaw911]

Definition of defame:

I really don't think that happens on the internet as much as you think it does.

Someone on the internet saying something bad about snagswolf doesn't 'defame' me in the least.So it would it be OK for someone to get your real name and post a false story, for the mere purpose of harming your reputation, that you had VD that you got from adulterous sex with prostitutes?? Would you laugh it off knowing it was a totally false story??

[snagswolf]

So it would it be OK for someone to get your real name and post a false story, for the mere purpose of harming your reputation, that you had VD that you got from adulterous sex with prostitutes?? Would you laugh it off knowing it was a totally false story??
Why would you post something different than what I wrote, and assume that's what I meant?

Having problems with your reading comprehension?

[gdoane]

Which dumb court judge decided that the whole internet is in his jurisdiction?

I don't think a judge has any right telling anybody out of his jurisdiction to do anything.

If, for example, a judge in New Mexico decided he wanted to order me to turn over my computers to him, he'd be summarily told to kiss an unattractive part of my anatomy and there's nothing he could do to make me comply.

[pdmike]

Definition of defame:

I really don't think that happens on the internet as much as you think it does.

Someone on the internet saying something bad about snagswolf doesn't 'defame' me in the least.

Well, that depends on what is said. If someone says that another person is a rude, insulting jerk, that is not defamatory - it is merely insulting (or, in some cases, accurate).

On the other hand, if someone says that another person (whom they identify by their actual name) has been convicted of a felony, has a social disease and, to boot, is cheating on his/her spouse, that's another matter - that IS defamatory.

Frankly, I have never seen one instance of true, defamation on the Internet. That's not to say it doesn't happen - I'm sure it does. But you are right, it really doesn't happen that often, I'm sure. For example, if someone were to utter true defamatory remarks against another person on the Internet, but was addressing them only by their screen name on some message board, I doubt that any judge anywhere would be ordering the site to turn over the author's personal information.

It is the use of the actual name of the other person, coupled with true defamatory remarks, that triggers the issue. Again - that does not happen very often. When it does, however, I would agree that the site should be forced to turn over the author's ID.

[pdmike]

Assuming it fits the elements of libel it should be actionable and, if libel per se, damages should be presumed.

Persons who post on the internet do not become public figures or celebrities triggering rules which allow false statements to be posted so long as there was no conscious disregard for the truth -- or malice.

Let's same someone here makes a statement about Person X to the effect that he or she has AIDS. And not only is it false, the person who posted the statement knew it to be false. There is no doubt in my mind that damages for libel would be presumed and there would be no need to prove loss of reputation and humuliation. On the other hand, nothing prevents the harmed person from proving up actual damages. The more interesting question would be whether or not the owner and/or administrator of this board would be responsible for damages. Or let's make a hypo - let's say the post is reported to a MOD who says "no foul" and leaves it. Who could be accessed damages.
Frankly I don't know the answer.

I think we can all agree that nothing is actionable unless the defamee's actual name is mentioned. Defaming an anonymous screen name couldn't be actionable.

[pdmike]

In a perfect world, I think we would like to think our personal information is just that, personal. Don't most sites claim that whatever information you need to use to register for that site will remain personal and confidential? Doesn't this put a whole new twist on your scenario?

IMO, the site would should be wholly responsible for the content posted on their site (shoot, we need more Internet Police enforcement), then the site would or should go after the "defamee" for damages. I think most sites love the "traffic" so much, they turn a blind eye to what's being said or done on the site. The buck should stop with the site.

Good call, Mal. You have brought up another issue - whether or not the Internet needs its own set of rules; rules which might include something like: "You can say whatever you want on a message board, provided you do not mention another person's actual name. If you do, you then you forfeit your guarantee of anonymity and your personal ID can be made available to the injured person upon request."

Further: "And any site that knowingly allows defamatory material directed at another person by name, is equally liable for damages to the injured person."

[pdmike]

Which dumb court judge decided that the whole internet is in his jurisdiction?

I don't think a judge has any right telling anybody out of his jurisdiction to do anything.

If, for example, a judge in New Mexico decided he wanted to order me to turn over my computers to him, he'd be summarily told to kiss an unattractive part of my anatomy and there's nothing he could do to make me comply.

Here, Gene - read all about it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/earlyshow/leisure/gamesgadgetsgizmos/main5251778.shtml

Notice the part in there where Google is quoted as saying it will not turn over any personal information about its bloggers unless in response to a court order or a subpoena.

I suspect that, in this case, suit was brought in a court that has jurisdiction over Google. As such, there is a whole heckuva lot that can be done to make them comply if they refused to do so.

[snagswolf]

Well, that depends on what is said. If someone says that another person is a rude, insulting jerk, that is not defamatory - it is merely insulting (or, in some cases, accurate).

On the other hand, if someone says that another person (whom they identify by their actual name) has been convicted of a felony, has a social disease and, to boot, is cheating on his/her spouse, that's another matter - that IS defamatory.

Frankly, I have never seen one instance of true, defamation on the Internet. That's not to say it doesn't happen - I'm sure it does. But you are right, it really doesn't happen that often, I'm sure. For example, if someone were to utter true defamatory remarks against another person on the Internet, but was addressing them only by their screen name on some message board, I doubt that any judge anywhere would be ordering the site to turn over the author's personal information.

It is the use of the actual name of the other person, coupled with true defamatory remarks, that triggers the issue. Again - that does not happen very often. When it does, however, I would agree that the site should be forced to turn over the author's ID.
So then you agree that your title of this thread, "Say Something Bad On The Net - Have Your Identity Revealed. Good Idea?" is much too broad, and no one should have their identity revealed for just 'saying something bad on the net'?

[gdoane]

Here, Gene - read all about it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/earlyshow/leisure/gamesgadgetsgizmos/main5251778.shtml

Notice the part in there where Google is quoted as saying it will not turn over any personal information about its bloggers unless in response to a court order or a subpoena.

I suspect that, in this case, suit was brought in a court that has jurisdiction over Google. As such, there is a whole heckuva lot that can be done to make them comply if they refused to do so.

If it were a criminal case, perhaps but this is plainly a civil case in Manhattan and the order is against Google which is based in Mountainview, CA. Does a civil case extend jurisdiction 3,000 miles? I don't think so.

[pattyk]

Definition of defame:

I really don't think that happens on the internet as much as you think it does.

Someone on the internet saying something bad about snagswolf doesn't 'defame' me in the least.

but what if they used your real name and location?

[snagswolf]

but what if they used your real name and location?
As I said, that really doesn't happen that often.

And that's much more specific than 'saying something bad'.

[Nevarwinter]

Well, there are non-internet laws to provide protection from slander and libel. As much as I hate getting any gov't body involved with the internet, I think the model that we're probably talking about has a case (providing it's actual slander) not just opinion.

Think of a reporter (when they existed in places that aren't named Fox). A reporters name is in the article. If there is some libel and slander, you know who to go to. Should this apply to the internet as well?

[Greyclouds]

Definition of defame:

I really don't think that happens on the internet as much as you think it does.

Someone on the internet saying something bad about snagswolf doesn't 'defame' me in the least.

I agree with you. An anonymous internet personality "flaming" another anonymous internet personality is not committing libel or slander.


An anonymous internet personality "flaming" a real person/celebrity, however, CAN commit a crime if that same poster does not provide factual evidence/sources to back up claims.

In this case? The model had a right to confront her libelous accuser, IMO. I do not have the right to demand Snagswolf's personal identity when he posts his weekly, "Greyclouds sucks!" threads.

[OldSchoolConservative]

If it were a criminal case, perhaps but this is plainly a civil case in Manhattan and the order is against Google which is based in Mountainview, CA. Does a civil case extend jurisdiction 3,000 miles? I don't think so.

I agree with this post. It is very legal shaky ground IMHO for states to get involved with internet issues and often in the past the federal government has had to void or strike down state laws that tried to regulate the internet on various issues. If memory serves me correct when the internet was in its infancy I the mid 90s Georgia tried to make it illegal to post under a screename but the federal government had to step in and void that law. I think matters of this kind should be handled in a federal court and not a state court.
Due tot eh nature of the internet it falls more under interstate commerce and structure so therefore internet matters should be a federal issue IMHO. Now if someone were communication threats on the internet I do think that is a local state issue which local state authorities do already address anyway.

[snagswolf]

I agree with you. An anonymous internet personality "flaming" another anonymous internet personality is not committing libel or slander.


An anonymous internet personality "flaming" a real person/celebrity, however, CAN commit a crime if that same poster does not provide factual evidence/sources to back up claims.

In this case? The model had a right to confront her libelous accuser, IMO. I do not have the right to demand Snagswolf's personal identity when he posts his weekly, "Greyclouds sucks!" threads.
Yes, we agree it CAN happen, but it's extremely rare, and certainly not worthy of "Say Something Bad On The Net - Have Your Identity Revealed".

From his post yesterday on this subject, it's clear that the OP believes that it's not just those who slander known people who should be punished, but anyone who 'says something bad'.

[Greyclouds]

Yes, we agree it CAN happen, but it's extremely rare, and certainly not worthy of "Say Something Bad On The Net - Have Your Identity Revealed".

From his post yesterday on this subject, it's clear that the OP believes that it's not just those who slander known people who should be punished, but anyone who 'says something bad'.

Yes, and when it does happen, I would hope that our legal system can differentiate between a necessity of revelation and a necessity of privacy in an otherwise anonymous medium.

... I'm also depressed that you're going to continue with the "Greyclouds sucks" threads. :(

[Wake-Up]

It may happen more than people think.

I was a VP of a large company. One of my branch managers, following all internal and legal avenues discharged an employee for cause.

The terminated employee contacted over a dozen vendors we used with a story that the branch manager was fired from another company for theft and recently was arrested for possession of narcotics.

None of this was true and we were able to verify it and document it.

The branch manager elected not to pursue this legally as an individual and we handled it internally with out customers directly.

Fortunately we were able to diffuse this quickly. Needless to say that terminated employee lost all credibility with those people he contacted. He needed to change industries and had a very difficult time finding new employment.

I don't have a solution but these things do occur.

[gdoane]

but what if they used your real name and location?

Well, what of it? I'm Gene Doane, I'm in Phoenix, Arizona and I've been called some pretty bad things on the internet.

Gonad seems to be a favorite with the more juvenile dyslexic posters who misread Gdoane, but am I going to sue the idiots because of it? What are my losses? My reputation? My career? Anything? If I lose nothing then my damages are nothing.

It's my understanding of civil law (I am not a lawyer but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) that for discovery to proceed there must be a reasonable expectation of victory in the pending litigation.

Otherwise, what stops an identity thief (common enough on the internet) from filing bogus lawsuits and getting personal information on anybody and everybody for use in identity theft, extortion, and frauds of every kind?

If it's a CRIMINAL charge, say somebody is busted downloading kiddie porn from a server in New York then by all means, subpoena the information and get the villain.

However, calling somebody a name on a blog hardly rises to the level of criminal behavior and a civil lawsuit isn't worthy of abrogating privacy. If somebody is claiming that so-and-so was born ugly and got worse with age then that's not criminal, but threats against a person's life definitely are and that's where I'd draw the line.

[Pudge]

Someone on the Internet (we will call that person the defamer) is posting defamatory statements about another individual (we will call that person the defamee). Should the Web site that allows the defamatory remarks to be posted, be forced to turn over the name and other identifying information about the defamer so that the defamee can commence appropriate legal action?

Earlier this week, a court so ordered in the case of a model who had (allegedly) been defamed by a blogger on a Google blog site.

What do you think about that? Good ruling? It raises several questions, not the least of which is, what does something like this do to open and free posting on the Internet? Should someone who puts something on a message board or in a blog, do so with the knowledge that if another person chooses to interpret what has been said as some form of defamation, they run the risk of having the site disclose their personal identifying information to the person with a gripe? That can't be a good thing.

On the other hand, true defamation should not be allowed to just sit here on the Internet with no recourse for the defamee.

Interesting issue. How would you rule on it?

I oppose it. You're a public personality and someone is calling you a b-word, well, maybe you are. And if you're not it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that someone is lying about you.

Think about how corporations would use this to bust up their critics and silence them.

No thank you.

[pdmike]

So then you agree that your title of this thread, "Say Something Bad On The Net - Have Your Identity Revealed. Good Idea?" is much too broad, and no one should have their identity revealed for just 'saying something bad on the net'?

Yes. I should not have used the phrase "say something bad" in the title of the thread. Instead, I should have said, "say something defamatory."

Do you agree with the judge's ruling in the case of the model - where something clearly defamatory was said, as opposed to just something "bad"?

BTW - it could be argued that going from defamatory to "something bad" is a slippery slope, which was one of the aspects of this issue I had hoped would be discussed by those who are interested in legitimate discussion here, as opposed to mere nit picking for the sake of nit picking.

[pdmike]

I agree with you. An anonymous internet personality "flaming" another anonymous internet personality is not committing libel or slander.

Why? (I know the answer - but I would be interested to hear why you say what you say here.) Not trying to be a smart ass - I would truly like to hear your thinking.

[jimjames418]

Why? (I know the answer - but I would be interested to hear why you say what you say here.) Not trying to be a smart ass - I would truly like to hear your thinking.
Because an anonymous internet personality is not a person, and only persons can file suit. And before some jump on this, corportations are considered "persons" for the legal system.

[DLaw911]

I oppose it. You're a public personality and someone is calling you a b-word, well, maybe you are. And if you're not it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that someone is lying about you.

Think about how corporations would use this to bust up their critics and silence them.

No thank you.Ever try to prove a negative? That's why they have court awarded damages --- because SOME things that are said DESTROY the reputation of another and that person will always be the brunt of suspicion.

[pdmike]

Because an anonymous internet personality is not a person, and only persons can file suit. And before some jump on this, corportations are considered "persons" for the legal system.

Correct. However, consider this: I remember from law school, there are situations where someone will defame "the President of General Motors" (or any other person, by title). Technically, he has not defamed a person, by name. But, if the victim of the defamation is a "discernable person," damages will lie.

I must admit that I have not engaged in defamation law to any extent during my years as an attorney. It is a highly specialized area of the law.

[malnila]

If it were a criminal case, perhaps but this is plainly a civil case in Manhattan and the order is against Google which is based in Mountainview, CA. Does a civil case extend jurisdiction 3,000 miles? I don't think so.

But wouldn't this case be heard in Federal court because it's a national company/entity, thereby crossing state lines?

[Pudge]

Ever try to prove a negative? That's why they have court awarded damages --- because SOME things that are said DESTROY the reputation of another and that person will always be the brunt of suspicion.

I'm not opposed to ALL laws against slander and libel, I just don't think that because I say something nasty about, oh, Bill O'Reilly on this site, that he could in turn find out who I was and sue me for what I said.

Also, look into the McLibel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Restaurants_v_Morris_&_Steel) case and see if you really want such unfettered power for mega-entities to squelch small-time critics.

[chip]

Mike brings up a valid question however...


This case is so hilarious, this "model" posted pictures of herself simulating sex with a man at a party. A blogger called her a skank and she sues for defamation.

Too funny.

[GeorgiaLibertarian]

In a nation in which the government considers all that is within its vision its jurisdiction this was inevitable. That said, however, written speech can result in genuine monetary damages as anyone with a credit score less than 700 can attest to. When such monetary damages are the result of deliberate libel the anonymity of the Internet should be considered no more of a legitimate shield than a ski mask on an armed robber is.