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.'"
Re:Anonymity (Score:1, Insightful)
Give me their names. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't know opinion was liable.
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)
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.
Re:Someone Post Pictures Now! (Score:3, Insightful)
And if presented as fact; which it was not.
Cheap lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
what constitutes defamation in Maryland? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:1, Insightful)
I didn't know opinion was liable.
What if the person who wrote it was the owner of a competing donut shop, and his/her intent was to diminish the reputation of the establishment.
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.
-1, Fail (Score:5, 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.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:-1, Fail (Score:1, Insightful)
yup, missed the joke.
point still stands.
Nothing sacred about speech on the internet. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cheap lawyers? (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
You can't pay a janitor with contingency fees.
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
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
Re:Anonymity (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 government or evil corporate overlords), there exists some way to get the word out, the right to free speech has not been abridged, in my opinion.
Today, using the internet, anonymity is easier to obtain then ever before. If the people voicing their opinions on that web-forum really wanted to remain anonymous and insulated from the consequences of their actions, there are simple steps they could have taken so the host wouldn't even know who they were.
Re:Cheap lawyers? (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:Cheap lawyers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why fix the problem when you can stifle the criticism?
Cheers
Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
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. :-)
Re:"the most...I have seen" (Score:3, Insightful)
The case is not about whether or not a person is allowed to state an opinion. The case is about whether or not somebody can use the power of the courts to find out who is "hiding" behind a nom de plume on the internet.
This is the part where I am speculating: Presumably the person who was hurt by the opinion wants to attempt to bully the opinion writer (probably by having a lawyer send some kind of threatening letter) into deleting the opinion or perhaps revising it. But if the bully cannot find out the name and address of the opinion writer, the bully is stymied. The bully cannot get the host of the forum to reveal the necessary information, but perhaps the courts have the power to do so.
Maybe He Doesn't Eat Out (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL but from what I recollect this guy is going to have a hard time justifying his demand for the poster's information to a judge.
My understanding is that in order to prevail in a legal action of this kind you must demonstrate that you have a case, e.g., give good reason to believe that the person may have defamed you.
The problem with the quote mentioned in this article is that it's not defamation if it's true. So without knowing who the poster is how do they hope to establish that the poster has been to less clean food-service establishments?
Re:Here comes the Eula (Score:3, Insightful)
But if he attached a qualifier "...that I've ever been too", meaning the claim might be truthful, and not defamation. IANAL but if a statement can be true, it isn't defamation. If I call Ted Bundy a murder it isn't defamation, if I call Ted Smith one (with no evidence) then it is, but if I say "In my opinion Ted Smith is a serial killer", then I'm in the clear.
Also can't dirty be a subjective term? If I say that something is dirty, it doesn't make it defamatory.
Re:Sorry Maryland (Score:3, Insightful)
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade. Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do.
Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK
Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
VICTOR
You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, after all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
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:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe
(while wearing my Star Wars t-shirt with Darth Maul on it, and sipping a mocha soy late as I recline in my blue chair that I bought at office despot on a cloudy June afternoon)
that all detail is relevant, you insensitive clod!
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.
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.
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, I wonder if you would have included the ethnicity of the manager if she'd been white.
That being said, I'm glad your wife called the health inspector.
Interestingly, i wonder if you would have said anything if the poster HAD mentioned she was white. Or if you would have noticed. Or if this person had been a man. Or a marmot.
-Taylor
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really that hard to keep up with a thread for 30 seconds?
You must be new here. ;-)
Re:Not as funny as you probably thought.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Deterioration is a non-countable noun.