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!"
What happens if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:4, Interesting)
Having perused the Topix forum for my local community, I'm honestly not surprised.
Literally half of the posts there are personal attacks, bigoted remarks, or slander of some kind.
My first time reading \b was less harmful to my outlook on humanity...
The future of libel (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it's just me, but I see parallels between this issue and that of copyright. Both are laws designed long ago, before the semi-anonymous mass-communication that is the internet, and both are facing the fact that this new technology challenges the very foundation of these laws.
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Interesting)
Topix is registered in Washington and hosted in California. What happens if they refuse? Is the judge going to 'ban' them from Texas? What if the posters are in Indiana or Europe?
How do they plan on identifying people that are more than likely pseudonyms? Most forums I'm on I have a random name generator give me a name and it goes to a generic gmail account.
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:1, Interesting)
do you think every time some punk in WoW calls me a "faggot", I should be able to turn around and sue him?
IANAL, but yes, if you choose to do so. But if he says "I think you are a faggot" then you probably won't get anywhere. If he says that he knows for a fact you are a faggot, and assuming that being known as a "faggot" is a bad thing for you, and assuming a ton of other conditions apply, then maybe you could sue him and get some relief.
But, as with many legal options, practical financial considerations often drive the outcome, rather than strict rule of law. What would be your financial motivation to sue the person ("punk" is kind of libelous, don't you think?) that is calling you a "faggot" online? If I were his attorney I'd try to convince the jury that you are not really legally damaged in any financial way by this comment, and that you are trying to abuse the court system by suing over something that would be considered trivial to most people.
None of this means you can't sue - it just means that it probably wouldn't be such a good idea.
In this case, I'd guess the burden of proving actual damage would fall on the plaintiffs. This might be one of those court cases that will get settled for pennies on the dollar, or outright dismissed, and THAT story most likely won't make the wire service, because it doesn't really spark any debate like this one does...
Re:Strange Loop Troll (Score:2, Interesting)
First, it wouldn't be slander, it would be libel. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
Second, it's not libel (or slander, for that matter) if the person you're attempting to libel (or slander) has not actually been identified. Since you posted anonymously and referred to the object of your libel as simply "I", no one has any way of knowing who you're talking about, and therefore your reputation has not been damaged (which is a requirement for it to be libel or slander).
Third, as someone else pointed out, it's not libel (or slander) if it's true.
WTF is wrong with the Texas legal system anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
It strikes me as odd that Texas, a state many of us considered the "first and foremost in protecting the rights of its populace against tyranny of federal government", now seems to be on a rampage of trampling on people's individual rights.
http://your-philosophy-sucks.blogspot.com/search/label/gummint [blogspot.com]
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2324220,00.asp [pcmag.com]
http://www.infowars.com/texas-lawyer-takes-on-bloodthirsty-cops/ [infowars.com]
Re:Strange Loop Troll (Score:5, Interesting)
First, it wouldn't be slander, it would be libel. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
I've always thought that was a silly distinction for the law to make. The words are the problem, not the medium. What difference does it make whether it was spoken or written?
And what happens if I slander someone, and someone else writes it down? Am I guilty of libel now that my statements have been committed to paper?
Re:The future of libel (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a difference between offensive and libelous speech. I agree that there should not be any particular legal consequences for offensive speech, but I disagree that libel should be treated the same. Part of the legal definition or condition for libel is that harm is caused and that such harm is demonstrated to the Court.
Again, punishment is for the harm, not the speech.
No trolls! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:3, Interesting)
How does the old song go?
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Re:Strange Loop Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, in Australia we formally abolished the distinction several years ago for that exact reason.
Texas Libel (Score:3, Interesting)