Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity 409
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.'"
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.
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.
"the most...I have seen" (Score:2, Informative)
I don't understand how this could be a problem. He didn't falsely claim the store poisoned him or anything, he just simply stated out of the stores he's seen, it was one of the most dirty. That's just an opinion, and as far as I know we're still allowed to voice our opinion.
Re:Someone Post Pictures Now! (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:Someone Post Pictures Now! (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.
Re:Citation needed? (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 "unsanitary-looking" at the time the defendant saw it. And IANAL but I think the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the defamatory statement was false.
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.
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.
Re:Prove the allegation first (Score:5, Informative)
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Here comes the Eula (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.
Re:Anonymity (Score:2, Informative)
Your "party" analogy doesn't really hold up. It's unlikely that "calling you a jerk" could ever be prosecuted as defamation, even if you knew who the guy was. Defamation can come into play when the statement is public and is presented as factual...
Correcting for that... If a stranger at a party declares publicly that you are a jerk who beats his wife, and you find your way to pursue the matter in court, then parties with information that can identify the stranger may be compelled to reveal it, actually.
I don't really believe that "free speech" is the key issue. I think people like to conflate every legal issue in a case that involves someone saying something, with free speech. There may be a free speech issue at stake -- and if so it should be framed as a challenge to the defamation laws in general, rather than an attempt to end-run around them via anonymity.
Who does or doesn't have a responsibility to identify the person who did this or that, is much more general than defamation. It comes up routinely in copyright cases lately, for example.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Here comes the Eula (Score:3, Informative)
And in all honesty, I bet most people don't have a clue how franchising works, and I would certainly disagree with statements that start out "Most people are smart enough", because in my experience, most people aren't smart enough.
Re:Hey, Zebulon J. Brodie!!! (Score:3, Informative)