2 edits | When you are no longer anonymous FORT WORTH — Hundreds of people who posted their opinions of a sexual assault trial in an online forum are now the targets of a lawsuit.
The authors of those comments on a Web site thought they were anonymous, but this week, a judge ruled their names should be revealed.
»www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent···105.html
Some proof that what you say online will have repercussion's and you might find yourself in a court room eventually and some thought they had 1st amendment right to say anything they wanted.
Not really as you could be doing what could be considered a vile accusation and you will be sued and exposed.
All the more reason to proxy your connection. 
--
Fb:2009 The nightmare men have returned. |
|
 nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 | I have never assumed that I could be completely anonymous on the net. |
|
 jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:19
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to FunnyBones
I have never said anything on line that I wouldn't stand behind, for one thing. Secondly, I have never thought that I was completely anonymous on line. Anyone to think so is foolish, IMHO. But, I still don't wear a tinfoil hat and hide in a closet. The Net was never private nor will it ever be. |
|
1 edit | said by jaykaykay:I have never said anything on line that I wouldn't stand behind, for one thing. Secondly, I have never thought that I was completely anonymous on line. Anyone to think so is foolish, IMHO. But, I still don't wear a tinfoil hat and hide in a closet. The Net was never private nor will it ever be. While I will agree with that assessment.. What about your first amendment rights? Or heck how about your 4th amendment to with all the spying on phone calls and email.
Tinfoil is your way of escaping the topic but you will have to stand your ground or let the raping commence.
I don't hide in a closet but I know some that do. 
--
Fb:2009 The nightmare men have returned. |
|
|
|
alfee
join:2006-05-12
Toledo, OH | reply to FunnyBones
I have never used a proxy and never will. I don't post what I would not say in public or directly to someones face. |
|
| My thoughts exactly. If person is writing something on forum that (s)he would not dare to tell it somebody in the face, then (s)he "hides" behind the internet. |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by tomazyk:My thoughts exactly. If person is writing something on forum that (s)he would not dare to tell it somebody in the face, then (s)he "hides" behind the internet. +1
If the government oversteps your rights, becoming more anonymous is not the answer. |
|
Robdale
join:2009-01-23
Wingett Run, OH | reply to FunnyBones
I don't understand how is it possible to find out the exact person who did that?
Moreover they can find the ip but if we are making comments from different places then how is it possible?
Can anyone explain? |
|
| reply to tomazyk
said by tomazyk:My thoughts exactly. If person is writing something on forum that (s)he would not dare to tell it somebody in the face, then (s)he "hides" behind the internet. That would be true and nothing new about libel in this particular case but I must admit I don't like the idea behind this tactic as it really proves you can say what you want but then you might be sued for it. 
I guess the problem I have with this is really the internet was made to have an openness to share ideas and a be a communication's medium.
Another issue is we should be able to sue our government for libel »www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29040299/ but lots of luck winning on this issue.
I have to admit I have trashed a few threads against our government and maybe a few anonymous handles as we all are anonymous right now at this very moment and I'm sure if I look I could hold a few for libel.
The problem with open discussion is some of us tend to get a little mad and go off topic and not everyone is perfect and I'm sure if you look over some of your own post you will find this to be true.
I think the down side is forcing someone to give up record's of their users but this still shows you never really have privacy with just using your ip and that was my main point.
I don't disagree with all the comments but I have a problem with them trying to hold the bloggers or forum posters with the same standard as you would with a big media outlet.
--
Fb:2009 The nightmare men have returned. |
|
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 | reply to FunnyBones
What about your first amendment rights? I am not aware of any first amendment right to anonymity on the net.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.5 |
|
| said by nwrickert:What about your first amendment rights? I am not aware of any first amendment right to anonymity on the net. I was talking about freedom of speech but many courts have trashed this around like an old piece of gum and they have done the same with many other amendments over the years or do you disagree?
--
Fb:2009 The nightmare men have returned. |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:2
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to FunnyBones
First Amendment rights apply to a right of free expression in public... but they have never been an accepted shield for libel, slander, public endangerment, etc. which involve infringement on the equally valid rights of others. And in that sense, anonymity has nothing to do with it, other than to shield individuals from the consequences of damaging others. Every Constitutional right comes with a corresponding responsibility to use that right properly... which means not to use it as a battering ram against others' rights. In this case, as in all too many other similar ones, anonymity is being mis-used as a protection for irresponsible use of free speech. Or at least, that's the contention of the lawsuit on behalf of those who assert their rights were violated by irresponsible speech on the anonymous defendents' part.
While there certainly are exceptions where anonymity may be needed to avoid institutional persecution or retribution against one's political or similar speech, the best rule of thumb is generally not to say things anonymously that you wouldn't say with your name attached. It's called responsible behavior.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to FunnyBones
I was talking about freedom of speech but many courts have trashed this around ... "Freedom of speech" in the first amendment is a prohibition on government from enacting laws to restrict your speech. The courts have usually upheld this. Perhaps you have a particular case in mind where you think it was trashed.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.5 |
|
| reply to FunnyBones
said by FunnyBones:...but I must admit I don't like the idea behind this tactic as it really proves you can say what you want but then you might be sued for it. I agree with you but this is a problem of courts and judges. I do believe in freedom of speech but I don't think one should hide so (s)he would dare to speak out. |
|
 DaMan666Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle?Premium
join:2004-09-17
Minneapolis, MN | reply to FunnyBones
Rights are basically just rules, and were meant to be broken.They are just left in the hands of the interpreters agenda. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
1 edit | said by DaMan666:Rights are basically just rules, and were meant to be broken. ... Fortunately for many of us, others have seen it quite differently.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted along Men..." Declaration of Independence
"...the right of the people..." Constitutional Amendments 1, 2, 4, 6
"The right of citizens..." Constitutional Amendments 15, 19, 24, 26 --
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
 chrisretusnRetiredPremium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Blackbird
What Blackbird said! This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is about irresponsible behavior. |
|
2 edits | reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:First Amendment rights apply to a right of free expression in public... but they have never been an accepted shield for libel, slander, public endangerment, etc. which involve infringement on the equally valid rights of others. Yeah, but slander, libel, calumny, etc., are not criminal offenses. They are meaningless where the first amendment is concerned since one cannot be jailed for them (one can't even be jailed for refusing to pay a judgment). These civil infractions are between two private parties and are merely mediated by a court. It's simply a way for the courts to avoid wasting resources and jail space.
Look at O.J.-- he didn't pay a dime of his multi-million dollar civil liability and was never punished. About all that can be done in recourse is for the other party to use their attorneys to harass the individual into paying (looking for assets and trying to get them garnished, but if the guilty party either cannot afford to pay or has hidden the assets, nothing can be done). There is no "debtors" court in America anymore. You cannot be forced to pay debts, even debts decreed in a civil proceeding (unless the court garnishes wages, but this is an exercise in futility when the person is indigent or is greedy like OJ and hides assets in the Caymans).
The problems with this story is:
1) Truth is an absolute defense in these matters. Therefore, if any of these "anonymous" posters can prove the truth in their statements, they can rest easy. Anyone can sue anyone, regardless of the veracity of the suit.
EDIT: I just read where the accused of the sexual assault were found not guilty. I suppose this kills any truth defense.
2) The Internet. An IP address only traces to a home/business/location. It does not trace to an individual. Perhaps some court somewhere has set a precedent on this matter of IP addresses being sufficient proof of an individual's guilt? |
|
| reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:First Amendment rights apply to a right of free expression in public... but they have never been an accepted shield for libel, slander, public endangerment, etc. which involve infringement on the equally valid rights of others. And in that sense, anonymity has nothing to do with it, other than to shield individuals from the consequences of damaging others. Every Constitutional right comes with a corresponding responsibility to use that right properly... which means not to use it as a battering ram against others' rights. In this case, as in all too many other similar ones, anonymity is being mis-used as a protection for irresponsible use of free speech. Or at least, that's the contention of the lawsuit on behalf of those who assert their rights were violated by irresponsible speech on the anonymous defendents' part. While there certainly are exceptions where anonymity may be needed to avoid institutional persecution or retribution against one's political or similar speech, the best rule of thumb is generally not to say things anonymously that you wouldn't say with your name attached. It's called responsible behavior. While I agree to a small extent due to the fact this road leads to a more closed and censored internet. Adults should be more responsible but this current path could eventually lead to more comprehensive censorship.
If you think about the whole system of our current internet they are removing your right to just about everything that was cool about the internet and I'm sure some would disagree but the fact of the matter is we have now become a society that is a little more closed as we have things like the riaa breathing down our neck when music was meant to be shared otherwise your vcr and tape recorder should have been banned years ago.
I have seen web pages systematically remove users for posting the truth about things going on in politics and from youtube censoring videos for just using a small snippet of audio and hell of a lot more and where you are considered the terrorist by our government for doing absolutely nothing.
I have seen rights being violated right in front of my own eyes and yet we are criminal's for small internet postings of text, video ,audio.
I think your point is valid and I will give it the respect it deserves but I see a much larger picture emerging from the depths.
Its been awhile I don't really remember when the first case of libel was in play around 1999 maybe but with that said the veil of anonymity is changing and its nothing new where they have discussed maybe making some sort of digital passport before you sign on line like a fingerprint.
I think there is to much control and this will eventually lead to more resistance by then we will be considered the new form of terrorist. 
--
Fb:2009 The nightmare men have returned. |
|
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| While I agree to a small extent due to the fact this road leads to a more closed and censored internet. Adults should be more responsible but this current path could eventually lead to more comprehensive censorship. You need to take of that tin foil hat.
If you think about the whole system of our current internet they are removing your right to just about everything that was cool about the internet ... In a way, you are right. I was on the internet when it was mainly academia. And now it isn't as cool. But the "they" who removed rights are the masses, probably including most of the members of dslreports. It wasn't government.
we have now become a society that is a little more closed as we have things like the riaa breathing down our neck Now is the time to write your congress critters, and ask for more sensible intellectual property laws.
I have seen web pages systematically remove users for posting the truth about things going on in politics and from youtube censoring videos for just using a small snippet of audio and hell of a lot more and where you are considered the terrorist by our government for doing absolutely nothing. What you have mainly seen is private site owners exercising their rights to control their own sites. That's not censorship, that's editorial discretion.
I think there is to much control and ... So far there is very little control.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.6 |
|
