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.'"
Here comes the Eula (Score:5, Interesting)
Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville (Score:1, Interesting)
Huh. I picked up coffee and an egg sandwich from that very establishment yesterday morning. The place was spotless. Then again, it was the first time I've ever been there.
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
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 precedent in the US which allows you to be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction you don't live in and possibly have never visited.
One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!
Cheers
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.
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.
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.
Re:Sorry Maryland (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give me their names. (Score:3, Interesting)
i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech. if that were the case, china isn't that different. while i don't think that one should be allowed to yell at people, for example, communication between consenting parties should be allowed regardless of its content.
in china, for example, you have (some) freedom to go onto a website and talk about tiananmen square. however, i hope you're ready to take "responsibility" four your speech.
i'm exaggerating of course, but that's not too different from having to take "responsibility" for a comment. a difference, you could say, is whether the speaker is on the side of truth or not, but in china, the tiananmen square massacre is generally not known to have happened.
anyway, the legal proceedings surrounding a lawsuit (or pretty much anything involving a courtroom) are quite a punishment. even if the accusation is thrown out, there is nontrivial inconvenience caused.
because of the difficulty of ascertaining what is 'true' in many cases (not to mention that i hope people will eventually learn to take things with grains of salt), i think that 'freedom of speech' should include 'freedom to lie'. it might seem convenient to live in a world where people never lie, that just isn't possible -- and our current implementation means that one's ability to speak depends on anonymity... or money to spend on lawyers.
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.
Re:Give me their names. (Score:2, Interesting)
There are websites designed just for complaining about services or conditions one encounters as a part of doing buisness. An obvious and well-used one is www.complaints.com
Maybe its the bit about it not being anonymous that keeps it out of litigaton?