Your Posts Here May Not Be As Anonymous As You Think

[Ravi]

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.

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

 

[George Costanza]

So ... if I say something like ....

George Costanza wasn't in the pool! He really does have a small penis!

I could get in trouble for that?

Grin.

Not very many people know that Masquerade actually played the girl who went topless in that particular Seinfeld episode. I believe it is called, "The Hamptons."

Also, not very many people know that, before I played George Costanza on Seinfeld, I played the male lead in a number of porn films under the screen name of Miles Long.

Now - who can sue whom here?

 

[George Costanza]

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

Not stupid at all. It doesn't matter who is saying it - if it is libelous, and if it causes damage, then it is actionable.

Suppose "Lexicon3322" finds out your true name and address. He then posts that you (true name) are a hooker, a bad check writer and that you have been convicted of embezzlement on four separate occasions. A potential employer of yours happens across the post, reads it and refuses to hire you for a job you badly needed and wanted.

If I were you, I would want to know who Lexicon3322 was, so I could sue the hell out of him/her.

If Bush saw to it that such a rule came into effect, I say good on him! (God, I NEVER thought I would EVER be saying something like that!)

 

[Ravi]

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

Not stupid at all. It doesn't matter who is saying it - if it is libelous, and if it causes damage, then it is actionable.

Suppose "Lexicon3322" finds out your true name and address. He then posts that you (true name) are a hooker, a bad check writer and that you have been convicted of embezzlement on four separate occasions. A potential employer of yours happens across the post, reads it and refuses to hire you for a job you badly needed and wanted.

If I were you, I would want to know who Lexicon3322 was, so I could sue the hell out of him/her.

If Bush saw to it that such a rule came into effect, I say good on him! (God, I NEVER thought I would EVER be saying something like that!)

I will have to think about that. I would hope to not ever need employment from someone so stupid.

 

[uscitizen]

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

Not stupid at all. It doesn't matter who is saying it - if it is libelous, and if it causes damage, then it is actionable.

Suppose "Lexicon3322" finds out your true name and address. He then posts that you (true name) are a hooker, a bad check writer and that you have been convicted of embezzlement on four separate occasions. A potential employer of yours happens across the post, reads it and refuses to hire you for a job you badly needed and wanted.

If I were you, I would want to know who Lexicon3322 was, so I could sue the hell out of him/her.

If Bush saw to it that such a rule came into effect, I say good on him! (God, I NEVER thought I would EVER be saying something like that!)

On a past board I frequented we had a couple of posters who found information on other posters and tried to get them fired and such.
Both of the offenders were right wigners for what it is worth.

 

[George Costanza]

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

Not stupid at all. It doesn't matter who is saying it - if it is libelous, and if it causes damage, then it is actionable.

Suppose "Lexicon3322" finds out your true name and address. He then posts that you (true name) are a hooker, a bad check writer and that you have been convicted of embezzlement on four separate occasions. A potential employer of yours happens across the post, reads it and refuses to hire you for a job you badly needed and wanted.

If I were you, I would want to know who Lexicon3322 was, so I could sue the hell out of him/her.

If Bush saw to it that such a rule came into effect, I say good on him! (God, I NEVER thought I would EVER be saying something like that!)

On a past board I frequented we had a couple of posters who found information on other posters and tried to get them fired and such.
Both of the offenders were right wigners for what it is worth.

See? SEE??? Thos damn right wingers . . .

 

[uscitizen]

Not stupid at all. It doesn't matter who is saying it - if it is libelous, and if it causes damage, then it is actionable.

Suppose "Lexicon3322" finds out your true name and address. He then posts that you (true name) are a hooker, a bad check writer and that you have been convicted of embezzlement on four separate occasions. A potential employer of yours happens across the post, reads it and refuses to hire you for a job you badly needed and wanted.

If I were you, I would want to know who Lexicon3322 was, so I could sue the hell out of him/her.

If Bush saw to it that such a rule came into effect, I say good on him! (God, I NEVER thought I would EVER be saying something like that!)

On a past board I frequented we had a couple of posters who found information on other posters and tried to get them fired and such.
Both of the offenders were right wigners for what it is worth.

See? SEE??? Thos damn right wingers . . .

extremeists of any stripe are wrong.
However it seems that right wing extremeists tend to be meaner.

 

[Conspiracist]

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.

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

I agree, but that shit is still in practice. Do you find it unnerving the statements of campaigning Obama and actions of President Obama have become two separate entities, meaning they are nowhere near the same?

 

[Middleman]

I don't log out of this site on my home computer. So, someone could break into my house and post something in my name, and it wouldn't be me. Or mischievous teenage kids of mine, for that matter.

 

[manifold]

That's a pretty weak defense Diddleman.

 

[Middleman]

What's your excuse, manualdildo?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

I have to admit I had an unfair advantage over you. A few years ago, under the Bush administration, it was made legal that an anonymous poster could be persecuted for defaming someone if the someone in question was known.

Seems rather silly to me as it is extremely stupid to believe what someone says from behind a curtain of anonymity. But hey, I do not understand most of what Bush and the Republicans did while they were in charge.

I agree, but that shit is still in practice. Do you find it unnerving the statements of campaigning Obama and actions of President Obama have become two separate entities, meaning they are nowhere near the same?

Unnerving no dissapointing yes, but not unexpected. Just like Bush not being into nation building nor for the US being the police force for the world.

Remember political advertisements are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising laws.
Why I prefer to look at past performance as opposed to future promises.

 

[masquerade]

So ... if I say something like ....

George Costanza wasn't in the pool! He really does have a small penis!

I could get in trouble for that?

Grin.

Not very many people know that Masquerade actually played the girl who went topless in that particular Seinfeld episode. I believe it is called, "The Hamptons."

Also, not very many people know that, before I played George Costanza on Seinfeld, I played the male lead in a number of porn films under the screen name of Miles Long.

Now - who can sue whom here?

I'll see you in court Miles Long!

 

[MikeK]

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.

[...]

Then if it is indeed possible for a sufficiently skilled individual to access someone else's online computer and send an email, or post something on a message board, or edit a message, without the surreptitious access being detected at a later time, that fact exists as a virtually automatic defense against being prosecuted or sued for something one allegedly emails or posts.

No?

 

[daveman]

Law schools keep graduating attorneys and they need jobs too.

Maybe sissy bedwetters need to grow the hell up.

But what would the Republican party do with no members?

That would be funny if it had any basis in truth.

 

[daveman]

Law schools keep graduating attorneys and they need jobs too.

Maybe sissy bedwetters need to grow the hell up.

Just out of curiosity, do you EVER post anything on this board that is not rude, insulting or negative?

Yes.

And thanks for proving my point.

 

[Missourian]

That's why I only post from the library two counties away from my house, using a library card I acquired under an assumed name...when they come for me Engelbert Humperdink's in for a BIG surprise.