Slashdot Log In
Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:58 PM
from the when-first-grade-never-ends dept.
from the when-first-grade-never-ends dept.
Cornwallis writes "In a First Amendment case with implications for everything from neighborhood e-mail lists to national newspapers, a Maryland businessman argued to the state's highest court yesterday that the host of an online forum should be forced to reveal the identities of people who posted allegedly defamatory comments. The businessman, Zebulon J. Brodie, contends that he was defamed by comments about his shop, a Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville, posted on NewsZap.com. The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.' Talk about a Negative Nellie! At least the article didn't say the shop was the 'most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Anonymity (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymity is the bane of a civilized society and should not be tolerated on the Internet.
You just got served by humor (Score:5, Informative)
The original poster was clearly making a joke by posting it anon. irony is thick and funny in that post.
oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative.
Parent
Re:You just got served by humor (Score:4, Insightful)
"oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative."
Want to play it that way?
This post is
30% Funny
10% Insightful
20% Overrated
and should be modded as such.
Parent
Re:You just got served by humor (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that it causes disruptions, but those disruptions are not always deteriorations. Any time there is oppression, there is a need for anonymity so that the oppressor's acts are brought to light (and hopefully remedied). Even in societies which consider themselves to be ethical there are oppressions both small and large.
Parent
-1, Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are at a party and a stranger calls you a jerk, is the host required to tell you who he was?
If you can get a subpoena, then yes... yes you can. If he just called you a jerk, well you probably won't be able to convince the judge to give you a subpoena, but if the remark rose to the standard of defamation, I don't see how you couldn't.
Anonymity in the US, aside from some very specific circumstances, has always been something of a "catch me if you can" situation. And, in my opinion, that's the way it should be. As long as when you need anonymity (and I mean really need anonymity, like from the govern
+1 Missed the point in a funny way (Score:5, Funny)
Utini sits at his desk, pina-colada in hand, surfing Slashdot. Occassionally taking a pull from his -- slightly too effeminate -- cigarette holder, containing a Gauloises cigarette. Its dark, heady odour fills the room, while thick smoke hangs in layers, waiting to be disturbed by a draught.
All is calm like this for several minutes, then suddenly, outraged by what he sees as a crime against free expression, Utini is forced to down his drink and cigarette upon the table. He must fight against those who would destroy the anonymity the Internet affords. He writes furiously and ceaselessly for several seconds, penning a Slashdot post he is sure will make the original poster repent from their stupidity, and save anyone swayed by the flawed argument.
He finishes writing, diligently presses the Review button, before submitting the post. He is certain this will do good, he may have even saved the Internet as we know it! This is a good day.
Almost immediately after pressing the Submit button, he hears a dull roar in the distance. It's beyond his log cabin, beyond the small garden with its piles of wood and lumberjack's tools. He strains his ears before going outside to look over the tops of the trees surrounding the mountain retreat.
The noise is increasing in volume, the source of it is getting closer. Utini squints as a shape begins to define itself, turning at first from a dot, to a blob, then taking shape as some sort of aeroplane. He has time to observe that the plane must be moving at phenomenal speed before it has practically overtaken him; with a mind-shattering screech, and noise of engines, Utini sees that, somehow, the plane is the post he replied to. Puzzled he reflects that it must have been a trick of the mind. The anonymity argument must have really bothered him. He thinks this until a piece of paper drifts down from the sky, landing at his feet.
Seeing the paper is folded, Utini opens it up, and not without some trepidation. Upon it is written a simple message, so simple it seems bizarre that the Anonymous Coward went to such lengths to get it to him. The paper said:
"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."
Parent
Re:+1 Missed the point in a funny way (Score:5, Funny)
"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."
Have no fear... AC has come up with an even more roundabout way [slashdot.org].
Parent
Here comes the Eula (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here comes the Eula (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true. Maybe the standards of the person who posted are higher than his store's standards. Maybe he is mad because he is being called out on something that he does not want to admit. Or maybe he does have a case and his is a clean and proper store. That is the first thing that needs to be determined. After that, if there is a case at that point, then talk about revealing who it is.
I have worked in the food industry. I have seen what some places will let pass and it is disgusting. There are several restaurants in the local area that I tell people to avoid due to the sanitation and quality issues.
I don't know whether or not the owner has done this, but the proper response of the owner would have been to contact the person via the board (if possible) and discover what the experience of that person was. We call this customer relations/service. A law suit like this is likely to only harm the reputation of the store owner. It will cause people who visit the store to focus even more on the same issues the *anonymous* party is focusing on.
InnerWeb
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Defamation is definitely not protected speech. That's why there's a legal definition for it. Now, he would be laughed out of court because the speech in question is not defamation, but not the other way around.
Give me their names. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
Re:Give me their names. (Score:4, Interesting)
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
Parent
Re:Give me their names. (Score:5, Informative)
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
No, if you want to say some shop is dirty, you just say it. If someone wants to sue you for libel, the burden of proof is on them, not you. For libel cases, the burden of proof is usually very high. Generally, you need to make a false statement, you need to know it was a false statement, and you need to intend harm with your false statement, and the plaintiff has to prove all of this. A shop owner would have an almost impossibly difficult task proving that his shop wasn't dirty, the patron knew it wasn't dirty, and the patron intended to harm his business.
Parent
Re:Give me their names. (Score:5, Informative)
"This place is filthy" is an opinion. It is protected speech. "This place is disgusting" is also an opinion, and as such protected.
"This donut shop has been cited by the health department for health code violations fifteen times" when it in fact hasn't been IS a statement of "fact" and libel, and as such unprotected.
The hospital is FILTHY. Why else is it about the only place you can contract MSRA (flesh eating bacteria)?
There is no such thing as "clean". The donut shop owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Parent
Re:Give me their names. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
This is where it gets sticky.
The store owner is claiming that they defamed him. The store owner (just like every other American) has legal protection from slander and libel. The only way to (legally) know for sure is to take the speakers to trial. It could be that they are not guilty of anything, or it could be that they are guilty of liable. But the only way to know for sure is to allow the shop owner to sue them.
But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it? Libel I believe is just a tort, a civil crime. So no one is going to be arrested, and it is unlikely that an over worked DA is going to do a whole lot for you.
Was it Jefferson who said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"?
Same basic deal, your right to free speech ends when your words impead other peoples rights.
Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" != You can make false statements that harm another person.
Or if you'd like to switch it up a bit, I can exercise my 1st amendment rights as many people around here seem to think of them to inform your family, coworkers, significant other, x-girl friends, and neighbors that you are actually an un-register sex offender that has aids.
I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right? /sarcasm
-Rick
Parent
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't know opinion was liable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Competitors aren't allowed to have opinions?
Personally I don't see how it would be possible to diminish the reputation of Dunkin Donuts further than it already is... but that's just me.
Parent
Good luck with that privacy thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we have lost that right for the most part. Or rather we have been giving it away at every turn.
No mention however (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheap lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ego gets so many people into trouble that way. Ego does not care about cost, only about feeling good (revenge?)
InnerWeb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why fix the problem when you can stifle the criticism?
Cheers
Re:No mention however (Score:5, Informative)
That's not how it works.
The business has to be able to prove that the comment caused financial damage, and sue for recovery of that damage. It is difficult to win that kind of case. Just ask anyone who tried to sue for negative feedback received on Ebay, claiming the negative hurt their business - so far no one's ever won.
Parent
Someone Post Pictures Now! (Score:4, Funny)
"The question of the state of cleanliness is a material fact in the issue. Someone please post ZoeTroped pictures of the restaurant so that we may see its condition. It's only defamation if it's false."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if presented as fact; which it was not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You would need to see all the food service places the commenter had seen, and rank them according to "dirty and unsanitary-looking"ness and then determine where the cutoff is for "one of the most".
The language is so vague it is meaningless...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if it is pretty clean or pretty dirty, the original poster is safe since he stated it in relative terms to his personal experience of other establishments. Just because he normally eats at 4 star restaurants and wandered into a DD by mistake does not invalidate his opinion.
Maybe... (Score:3, Informative)
he should be more worried about the actual conditions of his store. I'm not naive enough to think that people don't use the internet to cause trouble, but if the comment is echoed throughout the forum, he's most likely got a problem on his hands. He may not like someone coming out and saying that his store is filthy, but if the comment is true, then this falls under the realm of informing citizens.
Somehow, I doubt he wants the poster's name and address to send him coupons.
what constitutes defamation in Maryland? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm actually ticked at my local health inspector because they don't make this easy for my city. It's easy to look up this sort of info at other places
http://www.txkusa.org/health/Food_Report.pdf [txkusa.org]
Here is the real slashdot test. What did this guy happen to score on his local health inspection and how easy is that for his usual customers to obtain and see his results?
I actually think the judge needs to throw this right out. This is an opinion about a food serving place and it isn't even that harsh. If he doesn't want to hear what his customers think of his place, then he doesn't need to listen to them. Maybe, just maybe he needs to clean up his shop and present a better public image for his customers?
I wouldn't be surprised if his competitors are eating him alive.
Citation needed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Opinions are not statements of fact, something that apparently escapes even the highest court in Maryland. Slander and libel are passing off false statements as fact. This is why in the newspaper you always hear about the alleged crime, or how the government may be involved in massive surveillance domestically, or that the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) could be real.
Hopefully the court will realize that one person making his/her own opinion known in a public forum (anonymously or otherwise) does not constitute a malicious attempt to degrade the reputation of another. If not, we may have to bump Florida from the 2008 dumbest judiciary system award.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The highest court hasn't ruled yet. And the question isn't about the merit of the libel claim anyway; it's about whether the plaintiff should have to demonstrate that merit before obtaining the identity of the defendant.
IMO, even if taken as an absolute factual statement (which it was not), the claim is not provable either way -- there's no way the plaintiff can show the restaurant was not dirty and "
Where does the judge get his/her authority here? (Score:3, Interesting)
NewsZip.com is registered in Delaware, and this is a state court from another state, attempting to impose a court order outside of its jurisdiction. What, pray tell, gives them a basis to even think about doing this? I'd like to see the federal statute...
Re:Where does the judge get his/her authority here (Score:3, Interesting)
Increasingly (and scarily) jurisdiction is being extended through some pretty tenuous reasoning.
That whole Lori Drew case was a woman in Missouri being sued in Los Angeles -- because the servers are located there.
Sadly, the internet seems to have created cases where lawmakers still say "well, you're guilty here" -- which is kind of scary. Just think, there is a
Tortous interference? (Score:4, Informative)
That is usually what it is called when you are doing something that affects a business in a negative manner. Slander and libel are problematic because even though we are all "journalists" now, the publishing of an opinion probably doesn't carry that much weight.
The question is more likely can you have an unmoderated forum of nothing but negative comments about businesses without ever incurring legal liability? For most of the history of the world, the answer has been no, you can't. Today, with the Internet the operator of the forum may be hard to find, too hard for an assembly of people with torches and buckets of tar to locate and deliver punishment.
I'd think that the operator of the forum can either shield participants and take all the heat or serve up the participants and hope nobody actually sues them. In today's world, betting you will not be sued is a very risky bet.
Sorry Maryland (Score:3, Funny)
Personal Opinion (Score:3, Informative)
Note to anonymous poster: Next time document your comment with a couple shots from your camera phone. Truth is an excellent defense in the USA against such charges. Also add the words, "In my opinion..."
In Britain, however, this would be an entirely different matter.
Was litigation the smart play for Zebulon? (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:5, Funny)
Man that guy is an asshole. And I've been to his DD it sucks. The kitchen is nasty, and the people behind the counter are all fat kids, and there's never any waffles!
Good thing I posted this on the internet where people have learned to take everything with a grain of salt and realize that I could be from ukraine and be posting this having never been to mary's land or where ever.
Parent
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife worked at a Dunkin Donuts once...for about two hours. The little old Chinese lady running it asked her to go get some donuts out of the back, and when she turned on the light of the storeroom, she saw roaches scurrying all over them. When she told the old woman about it, her attitude was "Phah, just knock them off."
She left and called the local health inspector. That shop closed the next day.
Sometimes criticism is GOOD.
Parent
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if he would have included the age if she'd been young.
Or the gender of she'd been a he. :-)
Parent
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:4, Insightful)
I call bullshit.
Nobody defamed a person, they mentioned their opinion about the condition of a business which this man apparently owns.
They owe him NOTHING.
Additionally, what he is likely to get from all of this is a little case of the "Streisand Effect," where now anyone who reads this story (which will get much wider coverage than the original posting) will now wondering the following:
1. Whether or not they want to chance eating at this establishment.
2. Assuming they decide they would, whether or not they want to support somebody who is fighting against anonymity online.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Zebulon" is just his alias.
Re:Elephant in the room attack! (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, if the owner just cleaned it up, he could use that as GREAT marketing.
But, instead, he chose to sue, so now he looks like a dick.
Parent
Re:Legal Innoculation? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm also wondering why, if the allegation is that untrue or that actionable, the franchise company doesn't come to his aid??
Seems to me if there was really a case here, Dunkin' Donuts Inc. would be first in line at the legal office.
Parent
Re:Prove the allegation first (Score:5, Informative)
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. [wikipedia.org]
Parent