dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
16

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ

2 edits

AVD to FunnyBones

Premium Member

to FunnyBones

Re: When you are no longer anonymous

While I agree that you should be responsible for what you say, whether in "real life" or online, look at this similar case where the subpoenas were squashed on appeal.

»www.infomercialscams.com ··· ssor.htm

I only make statements of fact when I have proof and if I am stating opinion I say so. Also I always assume someone is innocent unless proven guilty.

As long as there is a subpoenas are signed by a judge, the isps and website will reveal the info.

FunnyBones
Premium Member
join:2004-01-22
usa

FunnyBones

Premium Member

said by AVD:

While I agree that you should be responsible for what you say, whether in "real life" or online, look at this similar case where the subpoenas were squashed on appeal.

»www.infomercialscams.com ··· ssor.htm

I only make statements of fact when I have proof and if I am stating opinion I say so. Also I always assume someone is innocent unless proven guilty.

As long as there is a subpoenas are signed by a judge, the isps and website will reveal the info.
Only problem is don't work that way anymore it is now more like guilty until proven innocent.

DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium Member
join:2001-07-23
Bristol, CT

DrStrange to AVD

Premium Member

to AVD
These cases aren't similar.

One involves a consumer complaint board where customers of a business related their [presumably real] negative experiences with a business. The other involves a local news commentary forum where one or more individuals engaged in a campaign of obscene and libellous commentary about an individual.

To my mind [again, I'm not a lawyer], the former is not actionable while the latter clearly is. I'm not surprised that the subpoena in the Video Professor case was quashed. If there were a reasonable suspicion that the posters to the complaints forum were making false statements, then it might have held up.

See a discussion of Federal case law on this subject here:
»cyber.law.harvard.edu/st ··· net.html