Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

OK let's try this.

Let's separate the story from the plaintiff from the bully and now substitute A very large retail establishment and the Bully who is simply griping about their services.

One could imagine how this may end up....

reply to post by SLAYER69


That's kinda the point I was getting at: people are still going to post whatever they want to anonymously (which can be done, despite what other, more paranoid people may tell you) via various methods of identity concealment; therefore, all this is going to do is set a dangerous, easily abused precedent that's going to end up doing more harm than good.


-TheAssoc.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
OK let's try this.

Let's separate the story from the plaintiff from the bully and now substitute A very large retail establishment and the Bully who is simply griping about their services.

One could imagine how this may end up....

edit on 23-10-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

LIibel laws have existed for a VERY long time. It prevents you from muddying someone;s name unfairly.

it does not protect people from speaking the truth.

your example falls flat.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Anonymity is key to the internet. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out the kitchen.

This is not a total refutation of anonymity. It is the enforcement of existing defamation laws. This si nothing new. This is not a new precedent being set. IT is merely holding the innerwebs to the same standards as all other forms of media.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1] In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[4][not verified in body] False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[5] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is she in addition to suing the person posting up a video of her, also suing someone who called her a whore on the internet? If also, she kind of threw her credibility out of the window.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Anonymity is key to the internet. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out the kitchen.

Disagreed completely.

Anonymity is the bane of the internet.

Im glad to see this shift, actually. Hopefully, one day, everyone will be known by their real name and face ID...it'll certainly make little 14 year old twerps think twice before posting some trolling comments on our favorite conspiracy website!


That, and we'll finally see that the ol' "6'4" fireman muscular build" actually translates into balding and overweight with a grotesque fear of human contact.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Google works for (and is a private contractor of) the CIA.

Why would a court have to order this? Couldn't the CIA just have stepped in and said- "don't worry, we got that info right here! Hell we have secretly been spying on you with our puppet-company Google for years now! Here ya go!"?

Eh...go figure.

.[/url]


S&F for the OP

edit on 22-10-2010 by Mr Mask because: Cus I can!!!

so the lawyer for the girl can get that info. If the cia has the info that doesnt mean the lawyer does for the girl. If the lawyer calls the cia and says hey who posted that? Their answer? click.

so he needs a judge to order google to give it to him.

So you think current libel laws are innapropriate?

Or are you merely unfamiliar with them?

yea they are inappropriate

and I really truly do not care

I say whatever I wish under anonymity

course I am what most would call a despicable person anyhow so I don't mind what others may think.
I pirate, post anonymously, in town where I am I use a beam wifi antenna and at the moment I have 15 unsecured hotspots, 5 being fast food joints, then another 6 WEP encrypted that the password has been cracked with backtrack.

now what does this provide? nothing full proof, but allows me if I wanted to speak my mind, regardless of how offensive I can (course In places I tend to go for that purpose, I normally stick to forum rules )

But I just posted to let people know yea they can discuss this all they want till blue in the face... will it stop us, no. will it slow any of us down? nope

pirates will continue non stop, heck the new torrent clients don't even require a tracker anymore thanks to DHT and peer exchange trackerless torrents

and public hotspots, poorly encrypted wifi, Tor network, anonymous proxies, etc will all ensure at least for long while to come that true freedom of speech, no matter how offensive, will continue as it should.

If someone is afraid of slander or online bullying then they shouldn't put themself in a place to be bullied...

for example if I'm afraid of bullies, then I will stay the heck away from 4chan, zoklet, somethingawful, encyclopediadramatica, etc...

alternatively if I have a thick skin and can dish out and take it, and enjoy full uncensored, unedited discussions then yea I can jump into forums that are only modded to stop advertising spammers but everything else goes.

it's like the story of "Jessie Slaughter" was supposedly bullied online and it was mentioned on CNN, (google it btw) they claim that was a case of internet bullying and that laws should be tougher, but they failed to mention it started with her making threats first and going nude on stickam, she was noticed by someone that knew her and knew she was underage and getting nude on stickam so of course the "internet hate machine" rolled into full force to teach her a lesson cause her parents seemed to have failed to do the job


but yea, it's cool everyone has different opinions on the topic, that's what makes us human, the sad part is those that wish to dehumanize us under the guise of political correctness, which only strives to make everyone think alike, use their buzzwords, and that there is never any losers only winners...

reply to post by maluminse


...uh, no - thats not whats going on in this case... the woman already knew whodunnit but she couldnt prove it because they posted the alleged insults under a screenname, not their real name... now, due to that judge's ruling, she's got what she needs to file suit...

Originally posted by Snarf
we'll finally see that the ol' "6'4" fireman muscular build" actually translates into balding and overweight with a grotesque fear of human contact.

...the only way you could determine that is to spy on them... that distinct possibility is exactly why many people are opposed to abolishing anonymous identities online...

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by SLAYER69
OK let's try this.

Let's separate the story from the plaintiff from the bully and now substitute A very large retail establishment and the Bully who is simply griping about their services.

One could imagine how this may end up....

edit on 23-10-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

LIibel laws have existed for a VERY long time. It prevents you from muddying someone;s name unfairly.

it does not protect people from speaking the truth.

your example falls flat.

Not at all. His point is that google can abuse this information.

But it raises the bigger question. Should anonymity be allowed on the net? Thats the basic premise here.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Google works for (and is a private contractor of) the CIA.

Why would a court have to order this? Couldn't the CIA just have stepped in and said- "don't worry, we got that info right here! Hell we have secretly been spying on you with our puppet-company Google for years now! Here ya go!"?

Eh...go figure.

PS- Cyber bullies targeting kids and making them cry/die/sigh are scum and should be dealt with as criminals.

Google is CIA tool. Don't forget that.

Also, in case some of you are unaware of what is going on within your CIA these days, heres a link to the Washington Post's exposé on said subject. (17 pages of HOLY WHAT THE HELL!!!>?)
Learn this NOW or remain ignorant of it.


S&F for the OP

edit on 22-10-2010 by Mr Mask because: Cus I can!!!

Whether or not your claims are actually true, the reason a court was involved was to perpetuate the illusion that due process is still part of the greater legal process of the Country.

But the covert deconstruction of the legal system is itself a conspiracy theory, and about as credible and refutable as the notion that Google is actually controlled by the CIA.

Funny, many complain about internet regulation and worry about tyranny but welcome the idea of targeting those who are guilty of "bullying?"

Intriguing.

while they are naming them, I'd like to suggest they add names like: TMZ, Perez Hilton, Access Hllywood, the View, just to name a few

reply to post by space cadet


OK you made a funny

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Snarf
we'll finally see that the ol' "6'4" fireman muscular build" actually translates into balding and overweight with a grotesque fear of human contact.

...the only way you could determine that is to spy on them... that distinct possibility is exactly why many people are opposed to abolishing anonymous identities online...

wow...you didn't read that very well did you? I said "we'd see their real name and picture ID"

you know? Like when you go to write a check. Or cash a check. Or open a bank account. Or sign up for swimming lessons.

Spying? Paranoia man.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Funny, many complain about internet regulation and worry about tyranny but welcome the idea of targeting those who are guilty of "bullying?"

Intriguing.

requiring people to go online as "themselves" instead of "XxXBob69XxX" is not regulation I take exception with, and it's CERTAINLY not tyranny.

I welcome it with open arms.

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Anonymity is key to the internet. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out the kitchen.

That's very easy to say. Now in this case she was not the one posting the video. When you deal with a bully/stalker it's not like you're actually joining them and inviting them to turn your life into living hell or anything like that. They are the ones that shall stay out of the kitchen.

I think that woman is very brave doing this. Even this is "only" the tip of the iceberg. If there only were a easy solution as some here already suggested, no need to change the law. Just there ain't no easy, simple or right solutions. You can (hopefully) control your own actions. But you can not control another persons doings. In particular when hiding behind a screen.

So while "terms of privacy" is a must these days, and should be respected, of course, it just can't be acceptable that full grown men got to be protected by the law. I'm not referring to the standard comments on YouTube. The question is where to draw a line ?

If people have not been down this road themselves, they can't imagine how it's like. People who have, know that there ain't no simple answer or advice. Everything that involves this issue... It be the internet or real life or both is a world of grey.
In any case. A supershield of humor, from the dark side can always become very handy. And it doesn't cost anything

edit on 23-10-2010 by flymetothemoon because: (no reason given)

Well in this case, obviously HER privacy was being violated in such an egregious manner that it was unacceptable, even on the internet. I can understand her case, but the notion that EVERYBODY should have to reveal personal information on every part of the internet is a stupid/dangerous idea in many ways.

lady,

you should change the headline to: "ATS ZOMG!ers think Defamation laws a evil communist plot put in motion by Obama"

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Funny, many complain about internet regulation and worry about tyranny but welcome the idea of targeting those who are guilty of "bullying?"

Intriguing.

not of bullying.

of being in violation of existing defamation laws.