Your Posts Here May Not Be As Anonymous As You Think

[masquerade]

I'm probably just paranoid but I first got politically active when Clinton was president and it consisted to calling into talk radio and writing letters to the editor which got published with a high degree of frequency.

At that time I was living in Bayside Queens (No, I'm not "Frank from Queens") and one day there was a garbage pick up, except that they only picked up at one house and then promptly drove off. Then a few weeks later my car was stolen right out of my driveway. In all the years we lived there ours was the only car stolen on our block.

So, you think you were targeted? Perhaps it was just that you had the best car on the block. Did you ever think of that Frank? I mean really ... the political world doesn't revolve around you CF. It revolves around Obama.



You know what 'they' say about paranoia ... right?

Yeah, well the car can be explained away because it was a relatively high car theft area but I never could reconcile why the garbage truck would only picked up from my house.

I'm just a regular guy who might look at things in an unusual way .

And I'm just your average woman, giving a regular guy a hard time. *wink*

 

[Conspiracist]

Even saying someone deserves to die, though it is a horrible statement, really does not deserve a lawsuit.

 

[George Costanza]

I think it is pretty weak to go after someone for a post on a board like this unless you can demonstrate a real harm (or a strong likelihood of one), but it can happen.

I agree completely. Let's face it - I'm sure that most Internet lawsuits over being flamed have a hidden agenda. The plaintiff is simply mad at the defendant and brings the lawsuit to "get" him or her. There isn't any real damaage - it's just a technical cause of action, proseucted out of anger toward the jerk on the other end of the flame posts.

 

[Ravi]

According to an article in this morning's L.A. Times, lawsuits against Internet flamers are on the increase.

Some postings have even led to criminal charges being filed:

Be careful what you say:



Web sites themselves are generally (but not always) exempt - but don't think you can defame and remain anonymous:

This latter point is the main one. It is all right to express an opinion, even a nasty one, such as "he's a jerk" or "she's a nut case." But presenting false information as fact, such as "he's an incompetent doctor," or "you're a prostitute," crosses the line and can subject the author to personal liability.

Here's the entire article. I recommend reading it all the way through:

Blogger beware: Postings can lead to lawsuits - latimes.com

"The first thing people need to realize, they can be held accountable for what they say online," Baron said. "Before you speak ill of anyone online, you should think hard before pressing the 'send' button."

I would venture to say that more than a couple of posts on this very board would be actionable. A word to the wise.

Isn't it different, though, when you are calling an anonymous poster a name?

For instance say a poster named CornBoar called a poster named Cornelius a pedohpile, it would only matter if the true identity of Cornelius was known.

I think the true Cornelius, whatever his true name was, could maintain the suit.

How would Cornelius's real life persona be harmed if no one knows who he is in real life?

Or are you saying just the psychological damage Cornelius experienced in his own mind would be enough?

 

[George Costanza]

Isn't it different, though, when you are calling an anonymous poster a name?

For instance say a poster named CornBoar called a poster named Cornelius a pedohpile, it would only matter if the true identity of Cornelius was known.

I think the true Cornelius, whatever his true name was, could maintain the suit.

How would Cornelius's real life persona be harmed if no one knows who he is in real life?

Or are you saying just the psychological damage Cornelius experienced in his own mind would be enough?

You will notice I deleted the post from you are partially quoting here, because I wanted to reconsider my response. You raise a most interesting question. I think the anonymity of the defamed person would not be a defense, and he/she could still sue. In real life, I am pretty sure that if I pup up a big billboard that says: "The President of the Acme Company is a Crook," I would be liable for defamation, even though I did not mention him by name.

The anonymous Internet plaintiff is close to that - but not quite there. Let me think about that one a bit.

 

[Ravi]

I think the true Cornelius, whatever his true name was, could maintain the suit.

How would Cornelius's real life persona be harmed if no one knows who he is in real life?

Or are you saying just the psychological damage Cornelius experienced in his own mind would be enough?

You will notice I deleted the post from you are partially quoting here, because I wanted to reconsider my response. You raise a most interesting question. I think the anonymity of the defamed person would not be a defense, and he/she could still sue. In real life, I am pretty sure that if I pup up a big billboard that says: "The President of the Acme Company is a Crook," I would be liable for defamation, even though I did not mention him by name.

The anonymous Internet plaintiff is close to that - but not quite there. Let me think about that one a bit.

In that case though you didn't use his name everyone knows who you meant.

In the case of Cornelius, no one knows who he/she is...

 

[MikeK]

Is it demonstratably possible to undetectably hack into someone else's on-line system and post a message on an Internet forum?

 

[JBeukema]

Given my sympathies with certain leftist ideologies/movements and my condemnation of this nation's war against the White race, I wouldn't be surprised to find I were on several lists.

 

[JBeukema]

Is it demonstratably possible to undetectably hack into someone else's on-line system and post a message on an Internet forum?

Sure. is it practical? Not for most people.

 

[uscitizen]

Is it demonstratably possible to undetectably hack into someone else's on-line system and post a message on an Internet forum?

Yes, however it is illegal to do so. Breaking into someone elses computer that is.
Remote access is entirely possible thru several means.

Undectedtably now is another matter. Undectable by the majority of users, yes.

 

[AquaAthena]

According to an article in this morning's L.A. Times, lawsuits against Internet flamers are on the increase.

The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

"It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet," said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.

Some postings have even led to criminal charges being filed:

Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, faces up to 10 years in prison for posting a comment that three Chicago judges "deserve to be killed" for having rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge to the city's handgun ban in 2009. Turner, who also ran his own Web-based radio show, thought it "was political trash talk," his lawyer said. But this month a jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., convicted him of threatening the lives of the judges on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Be careful what you say:



Web sites themselves are generally (but not always) exempt - but don't think you can defame and remain anonymous:

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster's identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

This latter point is the main one. It is all right to express an opinion, even a nasty one, such as "he's a jerk" or "she's a nut case." But presenting false information as fact, such as "he's an incompetent doctor," or "you're a prostitute," crosses the line and can subject the author to personal liability.

There's a false sense of safety on the Internet," said Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. "If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment" before posting a comment, she said.

Here's the entire article. I recommend reading it all the way through:

Blogger beware: Postings can lead to lawsuits - latimes.com

"The first thing people need to realize, they can be held accountable for what they say online," Baron said. "Before you speak ill of anyone online, you should think hard before pressing the 'send' button."

I would venture to say that more than a couple of posts on this very board would be actionable. A word to the wise.

Great "food for thought" George. Lawyers must love their power....

 

[uscitizen]

LOL, posts on here are searchable thru web search engines. How anonymous is that?

 

[uscitizen]

BB web administrators have been subpoened before for customer information by Homeland security and others.
Homeland security does not even need a subpoena in many cases.

 

[uscitizen]

That pesky patriot act that so many supported.

The net and BBS's are not protected by the same laws as telecommunications.
Actually not protected by very many laws.

 

[manifold]

This is why I have a disclaimer in my sig-line.

Everybody should have one.

 

[uscitizen]

This is why I have a disclaimer in my sig-line.

Everybody should have one.

Just never post anything about killing the president or any elected official, Overthrowing the govt, etc Disclaimers will not help with that.

Most other things someone will have to sue you over in civil court.
So far anyway. I expect laws about the net to change though.

 

[George Costanza]

How would Cornelius's real life persona be harmed if no one knows who he is in real life?

Or are you saying just the psychological damage Cornelius experienced in his own mind would be enough?

You will notice I deleted the post from you are partially quoting here, because I wanted to reconsider my response. You raise a most interesting question. I think the anonymity of the defamed person would not be a defense, and he/she could still sue. In real life, I am pretty sure that if I pup up a big billboard that says: "The President of the Acme Company is a Crook," I would be liable for defamation, even though I did not mention him by name.

The anonymous Internet plaintiff is close to that - but not quite there. Let me think about that one a bit.

In that case though you didn't use his name everyone knows who you meant.

In the case of Cornelius, no one knows who he/she is...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and reverse my previous opinion. I don't think an anonymous poster could successfully maintain a defamation action against someone who -posted defamatory material about him/her on an Internet message board. The reason for that is, how is "Lexicon3322" damaged by a post that says he is a crook who molests small children? No one knows who Lexicon3322 is - not really.

Now - if Lexicon3322 is hounded into an insane asylum or commits suicide or has a nervous breakdown because of Internet harassment from someone (or someones) on an Internet message board, there might be a cause of action against the flamers, for emotional/physical harm caused by their Internet flaming of Lexicon3322.

You will notice that the L.A. Times article only covers cases of clear defamation (not emotional distress) which are directed against known entities, not anonymous poster names. To clarify - if a post is put up which mentions an actual person (or business) and then contains defamatory statements about that person or business, clearly a lawsuit can be maintained over something like that.

I see now, on closer scrutiny, that this article does not cover the situation where one anonymous poster defames another anonymous poster. Rather, it only covers those situations where an anonymous poster defames an identified and known person or business. The point of the article is that, when this happens, people who put up such statements thinking they are safe because they are anonymous, should think again, because the Web site can be forced to turn over their identity as part of the any legal action brought by the wronged party.

Edit Note: I Googled, and could find no case involving an anonymous VICTIM. There are lots of cases involving anonymous POSTERS who post junk, but it is always against a KNOWN victim, who is mentioned by actual name on the Web site.

 

[manifold]

This is why I have a disclaimer in my sig-line.

Everybody should have one.

Just never post anything about killing the president or any elected official, Overthrowing the govt, etc Disclaimers will not help with that.

Most other things someone will have to sue you over in civil court.
So far anyway. I expect laws about the net to change though.

I would never threaten anyone or call for anyone's death whether I could get away with it or not.

But I do recall Madeline threatening to sue me for libel because I said she was a liar.

That's some damn funny shit indeed.

 

[Synthaholic]

This just reminded me: what's the status of that huge internet spying project that Reagan crony and criminal John Poindexter was heading up? Nobody ever mentions that anymore.

Damn 'Liberal media'!

 

[uscitizen]

Carnivore? It was just renamed and is still alive and well if that is what you are talking about.
It was upgraded a lot.
I was never allowed in those rooms.