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