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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... the users posting these comments gave their neighbor's information when creating an e-mail address to register at Topix and posted from their neighbor's insecure wifi?
Could this be the end of trolling as we know it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Odds are good that the company will turn over the records, and nothing will come of it after that. Can you imagine them going after 170 people at once? I can't, unless they are the RIAA.
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: (Score:2)
But that would be because 50 of them used broadband, which is like using 100 56K modem lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Texas, I can indeed imagine it.
Wait . . . did I miss the Beowulf cluster part of the joke?
Re:Could this be the end of trolling as we know it (Score:2)
They don't have to go after 170. They can go after as many or as few as they want. If whoever they pick thinks that others should have been picked, that person can bring the others in.
Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Informative)
Seems like they're following the correct procedure here. They've identified specific posts, shown them to a judge, had the judge determine that they have a cause of action based on those specific posts, and now are proceeding to ask for the identities of the people who made those posts so they can proceed with legal action. That's in contrast to other cases where the demand is a blanket demand not based on showing that specific posts are actionable.
The right to state your views anonymously does not extend to being a shield against liability if your statements are found to be actionable.
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: (Score:2)
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?
Apparently, the court system is Texas *does* give a shit what someone says online.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the court system is Texas *does* give a shit what someone says online.
This is also the state where patent trolls go. I guess they only like one type of troll down there in TX.
Re: (Score:2)
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:WTF is wrong with the Texas legal system anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF is wrong with the Texas legal system anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Texas likes to protect its citizens from the tyranny of federal government so that the tyranny of state government has someone left to act on.
Re: (Score:2)
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"...
Not anymore. That distinction now belongs to New Hampshire: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html [state.nh.us]
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I never heard of them either (and will, no doubt, forget their names quickly enough). I also don't give a rat's ass what was said about them anywhere.
But they obviously care if vitriolic untruths were spread about them in a public forum. Perhaps the next time one of them applies for a job, or tries to rent an apartment (for instance), that vitriol will come up in the google search. It is significant for them now and in the future.
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
What's Topix? Some kind of forum I gather. Does it have a moderation system? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I complained to my daughter's principle that my daughter's teacher was a racist and wasn't doing her job -- and promptly received a "Cease and Desist" order from the teacher's lawyer accusing my of "Interfering with [the teacher's] business relationships" and "defamation"! Let's face it -- ANY comment made online could be c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I still believe my right to free speech extends to offensive speech
The key words are "I" and "believe". That's just not how things work in the real world (libel, slander, etc).
Note that the Internet generally has intersected with the real world very loosely, which is part of many problems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Informative)
"I believe" is exactly the root of the issue. You are free to state your opinions up until the point where it might be actionable under hate speech laws, and need have no fear of reprisal. Saying, "I think this guy is a total piece of shit and I hope he dies" is fine, because you can stand up in court and say, "I'm anonymous coward, and I support this message."
Saying, on the other hand, "This person is guilty of x crime" when that person has been proven innocent in a court of law...That's a falsehood, and actionable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does the old song go?
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL. "I think you are an asshole!" is not actionable as it clearly states an opinion. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!" is actionable (unless you can show it to be true!) as you make a clear statement of fact. IANAL.
Having had a similar discussion with someone in the past I'll share what I learned with you. On the topic of the second statement it's still actionable in some parts of the world (the UK notably) where truth is not considered a defense to libel. IANAL yada yada yada.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
of course, by 'actionable' I mean libelous. grrr...
Re: (Score:2)
What qualifies as actionable? What the judge says is actionable. Note that that doesn't neccesarily mean it'll be found to be libelous in the end, but it's been shown to an independent judge and he's found it's sufficient in itself to provide grounds to go forward.
Your own examples show the point. In none of your cases were the actual statements put before a judge to rule on whether they're actionable or not. In all of them, only the complaintant (the teacher, or you) is making a claim and no judge has rule
Re: (Score:2)
How about if I make the ridiculous claim that "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!"?
From here [criminal-l...source.com]:
A number of Supreme Court decisions have made a plaintiff's defamation case more difficult to win. A defamation case can be dismissed if the statements that were made were opinions rather than fact; were true, or are considered "fair comment and criticism." Defamation must also be believable in order to be considered damaging to a person's reputation. In many defamation cases the plaintiff must prove that the def
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't particularly like the idea of pursuing anonymous posts as libelous, but your post is just ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think no one should be responsible for what they say or do, so long as they are anonymous?
Your belief is a huge part of what is wrong with society.
Re: (Score:2)
Sex with farm animals? Oh, you mean like the the Mesa deputy fire chief case a while back. Anyone that thinks this is not "believable" is missing a huge chunk of current events. Of course it is believable!
Re: (Score:2)
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.
For what it's worth, I seem to recall reading that opinions cannot be slander/libel.
"I think you have sex with farm animals" would be seen as a "fact" and potentially be slander/libel.
"I think you're an asshole" or "You're an asshole" would be seen as an opinion and not be slander/libel.
Unless a judge decided to interpret that as me saying that someone literally is an anus.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, next time file similar action on behalf of your daughter in the courts against the teacher. As our society has become more and more litigious, it seems to be the first person to "draw blood" in the court room is at a legal advantage.
Lame, lame, lame...
Re: (Score:2)
Your first example is not actionable, simply because it's not an objective statement; it makes no specific objective claim or accusation about a person. Your second example, however, is quite specific and objective, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a judge declared it actionable.
I have long thought it stupid that anyone thinks they should have an absolute right to complete anonymity, whether it's online or anywhere else. You'd better be prepared to own what you say, especially if you're screaming it
Re: (Score:3)
What qualifies as an "actionable" post? If I say "I think you are an asshole!", is that actionable? How about if I make the ridiculous claim that "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!"?
....
I complained to my daughter's principle that my daughter's teacher was a racist and wasn't doing her job --
Actually, there are answers to these questions. Yes, I am a Lawyer. "I think you are an asshole" is an obvious opinion and not a statement of fact. Not actionable. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals." Actionable if it might be believed and not of obvious ridiculousness based on the facts and circumstances. Possibly actionable. Note if we change "farm animals" to "Martians", it would not be actionable. "Teacher is a racist and not doing her job" -- actionable if untrue since it disparages her in h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you just witnessed was the result of teachers unions giving their members free legal representation. That being said, in most states, if you make an allegation that screws with someone's profession, that allegation is automatically considered defamatory. That's what the lawyer was probably talking about when he/she said the teacher would not need to show damages.
Of course, if you could show that the teacher in question in fact is a racist, and in fact was not doing her job, then you could not be guil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there some specific reason why this rule does not apply to people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?
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...
Re:Seems like the correct procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the site keeps no information from anonymous posters (and I think /. doesn't keep info on ACs, though I could be wrong), what can you do? Without timestamps and an IP address (or some other identifiers), I don't think you can do much more than drop the case (which sucks for those being libeled or otherwise trolled), or get mad at the site for allowing anonymous cont
It wouldn't be a bad thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should have to have all communications monitored at all times.
You already do? Oh wait I wasn't supposed to say- [gunshot]
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech has limits.
So does the justice system. So does government authority. And so does the patience of its people. Since when were libel laws written long ago applied to a conversation between friends in a public place, or semi-public place (like say a bar)? Unless you're conspiring to commit a crime, you can say whatever the hell you want to your friends.
Only because some lawyer wants to consider "THE INTERNET" and anything on it as "print" do they want to
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no law against being an ass hole, and there never should be. Period. As Rowan Atkinson once said - the right to offend is far more important than the right to be offended. Anyone who takes what they read online so seriously that they become offended don't deserve to have a modem. Anyone who tries to start legal action based on said offense deserves to be shot. Who cares what a bunch of trolls said on some site or other. Turn the machine off and walk away.
It's not the same if
Re: (Score:2)
Would you feel the same if a Google search for you turned up nothing but pages of people discussing how you were obviously guilty of kidnapping and rape, and it's too bad you got off on a technicality? I don't claim to know the answer, but I can see why this guy isn't laughing.
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.
This would be why... (Score:2)
Does this mean ... (Score:5, Funny)
I kind of have to agree with the Leshers (Score:3, Informative)
Free speech doesn't give unlimited protection to libel.
Ars Technica (TFA) claims that the judge's order ignores previous rulings, yet the ones it cites are not on point. They involve politicians and business executives.
These involve purported libel of private figures acquitted of a crime.
Good luck getting their ID (Score:2)
most trolls use free web mail accounts and use Tor or some other proxy server to hide their IP.
You'll most likely get a list of Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail, and GMail accounts and fake names like John Smith and Jane Doe going to proxy server IPs.
If any of those Topix Trolls had any sense, they'd quit trolling and give up their accounts that got them into trouble and generate a new account to avoid being caught, which I suspect they will. Then change the email address of the Topix account they trolled with to biteme
Yet another lesson on the Streisand effect (Score:2)
Whoa... (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward and Cowboy Niel are sweating bullets!
No trolls! (Score:4, Interesting)
Texas Libel (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look up the word "defamation". There is actually something of a right not to be talked badly about in some very specific cases.
Re: (Score:2)
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution, so doesn't the right to free speech over-ride the "right" not to be defamed?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. You have the right to say it. I have the right to recover money damages for the harm you've done me.
Re: (Score:2)
or abridging the freedom of speech
From the bill of rights. By putting a cost on certain words you are abridging my freedom of speech as I would be limited by the amount of money I am willing and able to spend on putting forward my words. No limitation on speech is legal. Just as conversely if one is to assume one has the right to not hear things one cannot be forced to listen to them in any form. Thus mandating a form of communication is also illegal as it would put people in the position where they may be forced to listen to something they
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should just use your interpretation instead? Yes, I know, yours isn't an interpretation, it's the obvious meaning of the words. Good thing nobody else thinks that; well, nobody who isn't obviously wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution, so doesn't the right to free speech over-ride the "right" not to be defamed?
I am not a lawyer, and am going purely on common sense here: I think that the right of to not be defamed (I didn't put those sarcastic quotes of yours) is a basic human right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Either way, defamation isn't a criminal statute. Nobody is going to be put in jail for this, either way.
On the other hand, I've been defamed recently, and was incapable of taking legal action because the person in question isn't likely to be believed, thus eliminating any ability to prove liability.
I don't think anonymous posters to a website would meet the standard of believability, and thus would be 'libel proof'.
That said, I lie every time I join a forum. "Oh sure, my name is Bob Dylan, and I'm from Beve
Re: (Score:2)
But the "right" to not be defamed is not defined in the constitution, so doesn't the right to free speech over-ride the "right" not to be defamed?
What made you think the bill of rights is in any way complete? It's perfectly reasonable to make it illegal for someone to spread damaging disinformation about you.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Well the right to free speech isn't unlimited according to current law. There are laws regarding defamation/libel/slander, for example, that could leave you open to a civil case. In this case, it's not really the government itself silencing you, but the government handling a dispute between two private parties.
But also, there are rules against "speech" that recklessly endangers others, the classic example being yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Also, encouraging others to commit a crime or helping to plan a crime is not protected as "free speech". Conspiracy to commit murder, for example, is a very serious crime even though the action may have only been "speech".
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh.
The ability to sue for libel, slander and general defamation does not infringe the right to free speech, because it does not restrict speech. It just does what most civil law is intended to do: hold people accountable for harm they cause.
To see an example, suppose you're a programmer looking for a job, and a company is about to hire you. But then someone at the company reads a post I've written about you on the Internet where I make (false) claims that you don't know anything about programming, that you were incompetent and cost my company lots of money, etc., and as a result they decide not to hire you. My post has caused actual harm to you (loss of a job opportunity), and you could bring a lawsuit against me to recover damages. Not a lawsuit forbidding me to write things, or forbidding me to say what's on my mind, but simply to compensate you for the harm my words caused. This is really no different from, say, being forced to pay to replace a window if I throw a rock through it.
And that distinction -- between regulating the act of speech, and holding people accountable for the consequences of the action -- is what makes all the Constitutional difference (a law forbidding you to speak would be unconstitutional -- the term is "prior restraint"). In other words, it's the difference between saying, before the fact, "you aren't allowed to do that" and saying, after the fact, "you must make amends for what you did". The former, when speech is involved, is called prior restraint and there are very few cases in which it's allowed. The latter is simply called a civil suit, and is as common as weeds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be hung up on a misunderstanding: rape is a crime, and is handled by a criminal process whereby a government official prosecutes you and, if convicted, you receive a sentence from the government as punishment. Defamation (which includes libel, slander, etc.), on the other hand (in this type of case, and in the US), is not a crime. The government does not prosecute people for it, a
Re: (Score:2)
You have no right to stop someone from saying something. But so too do you have a right to not listen to it. You can always close a page or otherwise obscure the free speech of another for yourself. You don't have to listen or read it. But that right does not extend so far as it stops someo
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment does not preclude punishment for what is said. It only precludes Government censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
To troll for a moment,
So, you know what you are about to say is stupid?
Yes. that's the point of free speech not to be superseded by any government law.
Unless you are pre-pubescent (in which case, "why are you here??") or an imbecile, you should know full and well that "freedom of speech" is not absolute, and it never has been.
You have no right to stop someone from saying something.
That's a priori suppression, and is almost always unconstitutional. But even then, there are exceptions that SCOTUS has deemed
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Brother Orion, you share my first name.
Free Speech is not unlimited, slander and libel laws allow people to sue in civil court and that puts a damper on free speech.
In this case the written word is libel. The only defense I know about it is if those words were written in parody or part of a joke, like Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler.
Watch what you say about others, as they can turn around and sue you for it. The only ones we can honestly say anything about are politicians in our government, and even then there ar
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous libel/slander does not equal free speech.
And it's kind of funny you posted AC.
You misunderstand Bill of Rights and Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to see if the secret B.O.R. gives you the right to not be made to feel bad by someones free speech.
You misunderstand both the Bill of Rights and Free Speech.
First: The Bill of Rights is a set of limits on government and its officials, not on other people. (And it solely recognizes preexisting rights and warns the government to not to try to take them away, rather than creating them.)
Second: The right to free speech that the Bill of Rights recognizes is a right to not be blocked in advance, not a right to be immune from a claim for restitution for any damages or losses to others that your speech caused.
Just as the right to bear arms isn't a right to shoot innocent parties without expectation of punishment and the right to free exercise of religion isn't a right to perform human sacrifice of unwilling victims, the right to free speech isn't a right to destroy someone else's valuable reputation with lies without having to pay him for the damage you caused.
(It IS a right to destroy his valuable but UNEARNED reputation with TRUTH. In the United States truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation. But you'd better be prepared to back up your claims - in a civil court, where the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".)
(And the obligatory IANAL.)
Re:The Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=define%3A+cad [letmegoogl...foryou.com]
Although, from what little I know of the situation, I disagree with the assertion that the judge is a cad. At face value it looks like he is doing the correct thing. He was presented with specific posts that are legally actionable and he is continuing the action on those posts.
-Rick
Re:The Judge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
It is important to note that a decision that appears bad or stupid may well result from a perfectly smart and competent judge correctly interpreting a bad or stupid law.
When a judge says the law says something you don't like, don't blame the judge unless you really think the law says something different than they do. Cases where there is good reason to disagree about what the law says are not nearly so common as cases where the law clearly and unarguably says something dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a lawyer here, maybe someone can help.
Question:
If you have an observation/opinion/speculation about someone and wish to discuss it with others via. internet communication -- and that speculation involves things of 'perverted, sick, vile, [and] inhumane' nature -- how do you go about it?
What if you express your idea artistically? (I'm only guessing people might have made images to represent ideas since the internet often has this trend.)
What is the difference between discussing an idea about someone an
Re:The Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid this judge actually visit part of the internet
Excessively bad behavior by a large (or active) enough minority will destroy a free and civil society by causing "everyone else" to defend themselves by enacting more and more laws to try and tamp down such disruptive behavior.
Re: (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 /.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not slander anyway, it's libel.
And the test of truth happens in court, in front of a jury, which is why they're trying to find the people making the statements so that they can bring them into court and test their veracity.
Re: (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
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is that the spoken word (unless recorded) is gone once it leaves your mouth, but something on paper (or the internet) sticks around.
Re:Strange Loop Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The broader term is defamation.
When it was originally developed the distinction between the form probably made more sense. Because there was no other, more practical way to mechanically record and reproduce the spoken word, libelous material was naturally easier to distribute than slander.
Several hundred years later, not so much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, in Australia we formally abolished the distinction several years ago for that exact reason.
Re:Two differences (Score:5, Insightful)
You are absolutely free to voice or write an opinion. You are even absolutely free to voice or write an absolute falsehood. But, if you write a falsehood that harms another person, you are responsible for that harm; that is what slander/libel laws are about.
Imagine that there was an amendment that says "Americans have the right to throw bricks". If you throw a brick through some one's window, you'll still have to pay for it. If you throw a brick at some one's head and kill them, you will be charged with manslaughter.
Just because you can throw bricks, doesn't mean you can cause harm to others and escape punishment. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want and avoid the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you've never heard of 4chan.