Texas Judge Orders Identification of Topix Trolls 344
eldavojohn writes "Ars Technica has a story on a Texas judge who has ordered Topix.com to hand over the identifying details of 178 trolls that allegedly made 'perverted, sick, vile, inhumane accusations' about Mark & Rhonda Lesher. Mark Lesher was accused of sexually assaulting an unidentified former client (and subsequently found not guilty) which prompted the not so understanding discussions on Topix. Topix has until March 6 to give up the information. Let's hope the Leshers don't visit Slashdot!"
Strange Loop Troll (Score:0, Funny)
Now I demand that you hand identifying information of me to me for that slanderous comment I made about myself! You have two weeks to comply!
Re:Could this be the end of trolling as we know it (Score:5, Funny)
And if they were the RIAA, it would magically become 17 000 people.
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Funny)
The right to state your views anonymously does not extend to being a shield against liability if your statements are found to be actionable.
Personally I don't even remember if I had heard that this couple had been accused of anything. Now I will forever remember them as the couple who gave a flying fucking rats ass what was said about them on the second most pointless forum on the Internet, Topix.
Seriously, grow the fuck up morons. No one with 1/16th of a brain gives a shit what any Internet troll has to say and no one, and I mean no one, pays any fucking attention to Topix what-so-ever. There really has to be a better way for this couple to waste their money, right?
Re:Strange Loop Troll (Score:3, Funny)
Umm, it's not slanderous if it's true. And it may be actionable of you don't tell your partner. Oh, wait! This is /.
Close to the situation! (Score:1, Funny)
Never heard of Topix (lol Streisand Effect), but I do know the Leshers, personally. Too personally. I once caught Mark Lesher browsing 4chan, and he gave me a goatse to keep me quiet. It was terrible.
Does this mean ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Funny)
In the United States obvious satire is not actionable. Basically, a reader of normal intelligence would have to expect to believe it, while the person posting it does not have a good faith belief that it is true(which is also required in the US for libel).
So, if I made the statement "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!" it would be actionable, because to someone who is farmilar with Todd Knarr it would be believable that he had sex with 'farm' animals, but I don't have a good faith belief that the animals he has sex with were raised on farms.