Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

reply to post by Mr Mask


LOL at the "people call me a whore all the time".

I think it's sad that now we have to worry about a backlash by practicing our rights. The one thing I do not agree with that you said is about the age. A 10 year old knows right from wrong. My 2 year old knows not to disrespect an adult. If a kid who is capable of knowing what is wrong from right if they choose to do wrong then they are just as inclined to take responsibility for their actions as anybody else who knows right from wrong. Thats just my opinion. But then again you're right about the backlash from those certain people who love to ruin reps. That's so sad that we have to worry about that now.

...so, theoretically, obama could file suit against those who have posted ugly things about him, as well as those who have created and/or posted unflattering pictures - and - he should win because those ugly things could possibly impact his current job or ability to get a good job in the future?...

...a president wouldnt do that, huh?... okay, so, what if its someone thats not a politican (martha stewart)?... what if its a corporation (mcdonalds)?... who would this ruling apply to?... who wouldnt qualify?...

...this could turn out to be a very steep slope coated with goose squirt...

Why is it illegal to bully over a distance of thousands of miles,
with no threat of physical harm, while it is legal to bully a fellow student in the presence of a teacher.

All these issues are important.

I would just add this one forgotten promise.

If we are to do away with anonymity, I say let the famous go first. Publish their home addresses and the addresses of their parents and family. Lead by example. Show us how much better this way is. Then after every famous person is exposed, and only then, we can start making individual citizens famous one at a time.

"Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes"
-Andy Warhol


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


this isnt about doing away with anonymity altogether

it's about holding people accountable for what they say online.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

She has every right to do whatever she deems necessary to protect herself and her reputation and that includes a lawsuit to obtain IP's of those harassing her. Frankly, dangerous precedent potential or not, I applaud her for standing up for herself and support her choice.

edit on 22-10-2010 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

I applaud her for standing up for herself.

Online bullies are however nothing compared to real life bullies.

You can ignore words on a computer screen but not people physically in your face as easily.

With one exception.

Hackers/crackers, "crackers" being criminal hackers, they are the scum of the Earth.

Sooner or later both online bullying and crackers will be linked to acts of terrorism.

Personally, I enjoy taking on bullies, by out-thinking them because they are generally stupid as Hell.

As well I enjoy teaching others in how to take down bullies by themselves without involving lawyers or violence.

the problem of naming bullies, is that they will start naming people that dont agree with the current political system, people that present evidences of corruption ...

so ... it begins!

Originally posted by Faiol
the problem of naming bullies, is that they will start naming people that dont agree with the current political system, people that present evidences of corruption ...

so ... it begins!

I fail to see the correlation. No one is being dragged to court for disagreeing with someone's politics. They are handing over names of a person who was harassing someone. Libel is not a new concept.

Did you read the OP and link, or just the headline.?

The bully issue shouldn't be legislated. There should not be laws regarding it. It's an ethical issue, parental issue, teacher issue, but not a government issue.

As far as the anonymity issue of posting comments online?

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Don't let the behavior of children online be a cause for the government to erode your rights. It's a slippery slope.

Furthermore, libel and slander? I think it's about time those laws get ruled unconstitutional, citing:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Definition of ABRIDGE 1 a archaic : deprive
b : to reduce in scope : diminish
"attempts to abridge the right of free speech"

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


What are you talking about? Politicians and Celebrities sue for this type of stuff all the time

www.people.com...

www.florencenewspaper.it...

Those are just two examples....Google and you'll find plenty....

reply to post by againuntodust



Wow.

Have ANY of you folks read the article or just the headline?
slander is NOT protected under the first amendment. I am NOT allowed to slander your name in print. Why should I be able to?

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Neither the story nor the lawsuit is really about "doing away" with web-anonymity, but it is about ensuring that people who are being harassed (directly) and having their lives interfered with to the point they are worried for their safety (as this woman claims) having recourse and action to take against those aiming to hurt her (in whatever way that may take form...)

reply to post by againuntodust


The right to free speech does not include harassment and slander. That's prosecutable and should be.

post by LadySkadi


Yes Ma'am.

I hope your analysis is more accurate than mine,
and I want to agree with you. Maybe I'm just being paranoid
in seeing this as one of those behaviour chilling precedents
that serves no one that it claims to serve. But it's
probably got nothing to do with anonymity.
So yeah, I'm overreacting. Famous
people can slander America all
they want and we can't ask
their mom to make them
stop it. But yeah,
someone used
the word
whore
so...


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


You really should read the article before commenting.

It would improve your relevance by a factor of 7.

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by againuntodust

 

Wow.

Have ANY of you folks read the article or just the headline?
slander is NOT protected under the first amendment. I am NOT allowed to slander your name in print. Why should I be able to?

You should be able to say what you want because it is your right to think whatever you want, and say whatever you think. If your intent is malicious and you want to ruin my reputation with your lie, then I will expose you as a liar and ruin your reputation with the truth. The government in a free society has no place to pass laws that interefere with conscience, expression and association. If you want a government passing laws to protect you from yourself or protect you from the thoughts and ideas of others, you're not for limited government, which is what the Magna Carta and the Constitution stand for.

Originally posted by againuntodust

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by againuntodust

 

Wow.

Have ANY of you folks read the article or just the headline?
slander is NOT protected under the first amendment. I am NOT allowed to slander your name in print. Why should I be able to?

You should be able to say what you want because it is your right to think whatever you want, and say whatever you think. If your intent is malicious and you want to ruin my reputation with your lie, then I will expose you as a liar and ruin your reputation with the truth. The government in a free society has no place to pass laws that interefere with conscience, expression and association. If you want a government passing laws to protect you from yourself or protect you from the thoughts and ideas of others, you're not for limited government, which is what the Magna Carta and the Constitution stand for.

Sigh. Repeat after me: Slander is not protected speech.


The Magna Carta and the Constitution do not afford you the right to defame someone in print. 'Free Speech' is not a free pass to say whatever comes to your mind. This is basic civics 101.Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject first.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Switching back to this particular case, here you go:

Franklin has said she didn't press her suit to make money – she did it to make a point. She says that she has been "been dealing with ongoing obsessive and harassing behavior since 2006." Her lawyer has said they suspect they already know who is behind the posts, but need the evidence to move forward in stopping the abuse. (1)

It was about more than just being called a "whore" once on youtube...

People have called me all kinds of things online, from faggot lover, to homophobe. I really don't care, people that know me, are not going to care. People that don't know me, think what you want. I think this is all getting out of hand, people care way too much what others think and say about them.

Originally posted by TKDRL
People have called me all kinds of things online, from faggot lover, to homophobe. I really don't care, people that know me, are not going to care. People that don't know me, think what you want. I think this is all getting out of hand, people care way too much what others think and say about them.

Yes, but have you ever been the target of a long, repeated attempt to defame your REAL NAME?

Because that's what this woman was dealing with.

Would you not want someone of authority to step in if some anonymous guy was posting images and video of you, calling you names, etc?

Topix is a great example of that kind of speech, and there are already numerous cases in the courts of people being taken to task for slandering people online.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by againuntodust

 

The right to free speech does not include harassment and slander. That's prosecutable and should be.

I believe it does, and the constitution backs my opinion up on that. Harassment by youtube comments is petty. It's a case of parents not raising their child properly and monitoring their internet use, not an issue of legality. Tell a woman who has been stalked by an ex-husband that a youtube comment equates to harassment. Slander is a malicious lie fabricated to ruin a reputation, and there is no victim, as it generally equates to gossip - most people use discretion about what they hear, as the saying goes, "Don't believe everything you hear." It's not an issue the government needs to legislate. The day we let the government protect us from the speech of others is the day we lost our protection to speak for ourselves.