Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Internet should remain anonymous simply because they will use these kind of situations to implement laws.

Even though i think we are all being watched on the net. The net is the only thing we have that connects the entire world properly.

Like another member said, what will happen if a major company you talked bad about or insulted sues you?

Or if the Goverment accuses you of being a terrorist because you insulted them?

I think the bully thing is pathetic. There are so many pathetic people out there thats for sure.

Once these laws are made then you can say its the begining of the end for internet freedom.

Lets say im watching a video posted by someone on youtube, the video lets say is of a gang of nazis speaking about their ideology and i want to make a comment, a negative comment because i dont believe in those things, should my name be posted. Then should i worry about my life?

Keep the internet anonymous.

Did you read the article?

NO ONE is suggesting an end to anonymous posting.

This is about LIBEL and SLANDER online. Neither of those are forms of 'protected' speech.

Originally posted by IzzycomesinPeace
could you imagine what would happen if her work found that? Her friends or family? A future employer? An adult woman being called a whore wouldn't look good to any of those people.

...why would people that already know her think differently of her just because someone called her a whore?... if thats how shallow her friends and family are, she needs to dump them and find more intelligent people to associate with...

...as for what a future employer might think... they could see "it" as malicious gossip and base their opinion of her on how she handles herself under pressure... being a whiner or sue-happy person would probably have more of a negative effect than the malicious gossip...

reply to post by justadood


They aren't!? Omg... Am I seriously losing my mind? Am I seriously reading things and forgetting about them then re-reading them but reading something entirely different!? I'm going to read that link again and go get some sleep. Hopefully my mind will come back tomorrow!

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Considering our laws about backround searches for jobs, why couldn't a whore as announced on the internet, be denied employment, when they are allowed to deny people that payed their debts to society by serving their sentance?

reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace


Cyber Bullying Laws by state (pdf format) copy/paste the link (below) into a new window...

www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws_20100701.pdf

Really nothing to do with this case (as far as implementing new law) what has to do with this particular case is the precedent that may be set with regards to court ordered IP reveals of those accused of stalking/harassing/slandering, etc.

I'm not a big fan of google. I am not a big fan of online bullies. If they didn't threaten her life though, then I really wonder what is going to cross the line of online bullieism. After you open the flood gates to stuff like this unless it was a direct threat on her life, then you have to be careful with free speech.... Some government figures want to take our free speech sooooo bad... So be careful what you wish for...

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace

 

Cyber Bullying Laws by state (pdf format) copy/paste the link (below) into a new window...

www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws_20100701.pdf

Really nothing to do with this case (as far as implementing new law) what has to do with this particular case is the precedent that may be set with regards to court ordered IP reveals of those accused of stalking/harassing/slandering, etc.

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

You can *67 a phone call and not be shown on caller ID, if you call someone and cuss them out and call them a few names I don't see that as a threat or crime neither does the law. Now If you say your going to kill them or harm them in some way, or if you call in a bomb scare, threaten a life, or overly harass them they can call the police and have them find out the number who's callling. Then you can get a restraining order after they had been WARNED by the police if they call you again you will go to jail. They should get warned if it is crossing harassment if they do it again online lock them up.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace

 

Cyber Bullying Laws by state (pdf format) copy/paste the link (below) into a new window...

www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws_20100701.pdf

Really nothing to do with this case (as far as implementing new law) what has to do with this particular case is the precedent that may be set with regards to court ordered IP reveals of those accused of stalking/harassing/slandering, etc.

Good stuff LadySkadi,
a star for you.

If I may wax philosophical.
This is about Lawyers who realized that
the good advice they Gave Blizzard cut them out
of millions of dollars in legal fees for slander lawsuits.

I have to ask. Why isn't our dear slandered girl in the OP,
just given the ability to ban users from commenting on her account?


David Grouchy

Problem is, in our society today anonymity is essential for free speech, and this IS a blow to free speech, all emotions aside.

If a black football player from the university of idaho can be arrested and imprisoned for 13 months in maximum security as a "witness" (no trial), with no charges pressed against him, just because he converted to Muslim (speech/freedom of religion), as a full blown US Citizen, and with FBI agents going to the homes of protesters to interrogate them, and people being on watch lists just for being a part of the Tea Party, or having their children taken away for "teaching their children not to trust the government" then obviously it IS required for free speech, since free speech of an un-anonymous nature will get you arrested and illegally #ed with by the government if you say anything they don't like.

When actual free speech is eliminated (it already is) then the only remaining course of action is anonymous speech.

Problem is, in our society today anonymity is essential for free speech, and this IS a blow to free speech, all emotions aside.

If a black football player from the university of idaho can be arrested and imprisoned for 13 months in maximum security as a "witness" (no trial), with no charges pressed against him, just because he converted to Muslim (speech/freedom of religion), as a full blown US Citizen, and with FBI agents going to the homes of protesters to interrogate them, and people being on watch lists just for being a part of the Tea Party, or having their children taken away for "teaching their children not to trust the government" then obviously it IS required for free speech, since free speech of an un-anonymous nature will get you arrested and illegally #ed with by the government if you say anything they don't like.

When actual free speech is eliminated (it already is) then the only remaining course of action is anonymous speech.

Originally posted by justadood

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.?

You didnt understand me:

if they can identify someone who is bullying online, they could identify someone who does ANYTHING online. So, if you say Obama is a muslim, well, you may get identified, if you say 911 investigation is a joke, you could be identified ...

thats the problem, if they can identify one group of users, they could do to any type of group of users. You need to understand that its impossible to say: "well, only people who bully other people will get identified", it doesnt work like that. When the first person get identified, then every other request will stand.

Google should just ban people that bully online, and thats how it should be ... otherwise, we will have a lot of political problems.

Lets be realistic ... if someone wants to hurt you, they can do in ways they could never be identified, so, this will probably hurt people that are doing the right thing, instead of bullies, since, they will simply evolve and not get detected anymore ...

And another thing: come on, how someone records you and posts on youtube, you need to be stupid to not know who recorded or whatever. We dont know the context, so, its hard to predict, but, man, this looks like its just an attention %&*@& case ...

wait so let me get this straight this little princess got her feeling hurt because someone called her a whore in the comments section of a youtube video of her from school and she sued Google to get the persons IP and contact info?

Has she sued everyone that she doesn't know the identity of that has ever called her a whore in real life? If not then she doesn't have a leg to stand on and this judge was wrong to rule in her favor to force google to reveal the ID of the person that called her a whore.

If she hasn't sued to get the identity of anyone that has ever said anything bad about her before this issue, then why sue now? Just because someone left a comment on a youtube video doesn't increase the chance a perspective boss might see it anymore than that same boss hearing it on the street from a someone walking past him..

I'm sorry but alot of people in this world really need to grow a thicker skin and quit suing everyone because they say something about you that you don't like! and this lil princess better grow a thinker skin pretty damn quick because she has no clue how bad the storm is going to get for her after this stunt!

wonder if i can sue her for being an ugly whiny lil princess that just set a very dangerous precedent that will be used and abused by every lawyer in the country

reply to post by davidgrouchy


all she had to do is disable comments on the video if it was on her channel!

If she would have done that then no one would see those comments after that.

personally i think she just wants her 15 minutes of fame, and just wants some money for the emotional distress the person did to her.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

If harassment and slander can be prosecuted in "the real world" than it absolutely should apply to the "internet" as well. Simply because the laws have not caught up to this reality, does not mean users are not still accountable and actions potentially prosecutable.

True yes a coward should be exposed and justice should be served but... in my opinion the internet is its own entity and no state/nation court system should be allowed to rule on internet related issues... a new system for the internet should be in place.... the internet is the new world

reply to post by Mercenary2007


correct

its all about the 15 minutes of fame ... that was my conclusion too

This is an out of the blue inquiry I have, but if somebody online can be prosecuted for defamation and slander, then couldn't a protester who protests abortion and who calls women who have abortion operations performed on them murderers and sinners, and just about any other insult you can think of, couldn't these protesters be prosecuted and sued as well?

I mean, there are fewer things worse than having someone accuse you of being a murderer, right? Yet here is a woman being called far less and she managed to take it to court.

It's basically a moot point. IP's can be spoofed through a number of methods. I do it myself, regularly and recommend others do the same.

A couple of examples:

Tor

Virtual Private Networks


-TheAssoc.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...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?...

Nope.

Obama is a public figure.

See Flint v Falwell for an official ruling.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
It's basically a moot point. IP's can be spoofed through a number of methods. I do it myself, regularly and recommend others do the same.

A couple of examples:

Tor

Virtual Private Networks


-TheAssoc.

What you're not revealing is that everything you do leaves a trail. If someone wants to find you bad enough, all the spoofing in the world won't hide you.

Originally posted by sremmos
Problem is, in our society today anonymity is essential for free speech, and this IS a blow to free speech, all emotions aside.

If a black football player from the university of idaho can be arrested and imprisoned for 13 months in maximum security as a "witness" (no trial), with no charges pressed against him, just because he converted to Muslim (speech/freedom of religion), as a full blown US Citizen, and with FBI agents going to the homes of protesters to interrogate them, and people being on watch lists just for being a part of the Tea Party, or having their children taken away for "teaching their children not to trust the government" then obviously it IS required for free speech, since free speech of an un-anonymous nature will get you arrested and illegally #ed with by the government if you say anything they don't like.

When actual free speech is eliminated (it already is) then the only remaining course of action is anonymous speech.

Slander is not a part of free speech. Anonymity is only essential for cowards who know they are doing something wrong and are trying to hide.