backtop

Internet Judge Orders Google to Out Cyber Bullies
Tracie McDaniel - October 26, 2010 4:11 PM
Print 59 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 2 at 3:14 AM

  (Source: ABC News)

  (Source: Top News)
Internet giant forced to turn over harassers info to the victim.

The internet has been a refuge of sorts for people to post anonymously online, but in the very near future this may no longer be the case.

A new court ruling could change the face of the internet as we know it, thanks to an online harassment case involving Google, YouTube and New York business consultant and former model Carla Franklin. 

Franklin was interviewing for a job last year when someone posted an unauthorized student video on YouTube featuring the Columbia Business School graduate.  A user wrote degrading remarks next to the clips on the video-sharing site.

In August, Franklin filed a legal request that Google, the owners of YouTube, reveal the identities of the parties involved with posting the clips and comments.

Franklin said she isn't looking for money or attention, she only hopes to expose her online harassers.

"The Internet cannot become a haven for harassers and criminals. It just can't," she said. "This is not about me trampling on anyone's First Amendment rights. Speak freely -- just show who you are. And if you're going to commit a crime, and harassment and defamation are crimes, then show yourself."

It appears that in this online face-off, Franklin may have the last word. This week a Manhattan judge ordered Google to reveal the identity and contact information of those responsible. 

The Mountain View, California-based company must give Franklin the IP (Internet protocol) addresses, e-mail addresses, and other information of those responsible for the harassment within fifteen days.

"I'm so happy I'm finally going to be moving forward uncovering this person," said Franklin. "I feel so victorious. … It's definitely a weight lifted off of my shoulders. It's also a positive thing, in that people going through this type of defamation look at my case and they know, 'Wow, I can do this too.'"

According to Bennet G. Kelley, a specialist internet lawyer, while there is a First Amendment right to be able to speak anonymously, there is no First Amendment right to violate the law.

"People think: 'It's the Internet. I can do whatever I want.' But the law applies, online and offline," said Kelley.

Franklin plans to use an investigator to track down her online attackers. The video and the comments have since been removed from YouTube.

So far, there has been no comment from Google.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Is something missing from the article?
By mindless1 on 10/30/2010 7:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
Does she retain rights to the video clip? If yes then excuse my ignorance as this info was not provided to us, but if not, what right does she have, there was nothing to "authorize".

If you attend a baseball game that is broadcast nationwide, do you have the right to keep the broadcaster from broadcasting because you are in the clip? I feel the answer is NO!

Someone wrote abusive messages? What exactly? What if the messages are true and merely a case of the truth hurting?

I would believe a verbatim finding by the court including all actual texts but not this brief 3rd, 4th, or maybe even 20th party report about what happened.

Someone wrote she is a whore? What if she is? I have no reason to believe it one way or the other but I mean literally what if her actions through the definition of what a whore is, could be considered fair, truthful, free speech.

It seems quite possible she is in the right here that someone was harassing her, but at the same time I do not discount the possibility that this YouTube event is just an ongoing squabble where she didn't want her dirty laundry aired in public.

After all, she must have done something to tick off someone enough to do this, if she did then I feel both the person posting the video, writing the remarks, AND her character are not above reproach.

Lastly, if after doing something significant enough to someone else that they would do this to her, if she STILL wasn't 100% sure so she needed to discover who did it, JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE has she been pissing off to this extent to not know who it was?

I do think posting on YouTube crossed the line and yet that she may not be a nice person, that it is possible this is an understatement, and that if you spread bad karma around it eventually comes back to everyone eventually.




RE: Is something missing from the article?
By denvermom1 on 10/30/2010 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but your rationale sounds silly. You sound like you're justifying harassment and defamation, when a person is not nice. Is this what you would teach your children? Why are you taking this case so personally? The person doing this to her is a coward and a criminal. If they wanted to call her a "wh***", then they should do it in the open, not anonymously.

First, from what I have read, YouTube pulled down the clips due go copyright infringement, so obviously her stalker had no right to post it. Second, she said the stalker made a shrine to her using clips from a student production, there was nothing about having dirty laundry aired. But lets say that some jealous friend or jaded guy that she dumped was airing her dirty laundry - doing so would still be wrong and illegal, if done in a defamatory manner or criminal manner. Again, only cowards and criminals make nasty, pointless comments anonymously. This isn't whistle blowing, this is criminal malice.

Lastly, who cares if she is not nice or if this is an ongoing squabble, no one has the right to harass or defame her, or anyone else. Should an ex-husband be able to call an ex-wife "wh***" because she cheated on him? Should an ex-wife be able to call her ex a molester or an abuser because she is mad? The answer is no. Carla's stalker may just be crazy or hateful. You don't know. Your argument is so sad, but speaks to a larger mentality that is pervasive in our society. Blame the victim. No one deserves to be defamed or stalked. I hope she holds this person accountable and makes an example of her/him for people who think its ok to harass and defame because they "think" someone deserves it.


RE: Is something missing from the article?
By mindless1 on 11/1/2010 2:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'd teach them that everyone is entitled to their opinion, that you don't go suing (Or othewise attacking) someone for mere words, and to GROW SOME THICKER SKIN.

I would most definitely not teach them to be fail, to be weakened by mere words. You know the saying "sticks and stones..."?

Fact is, we DON'T know this person is a criminal, only that they are accused. I don't know about you but I believe in a couple of concepts, innocent until proven guilty and due process.

YouTube will pull a clip based on complaints, it does not have to actually be infringing.

No, it is not illegal to display evidence! If you think it is morally wrong to the extent you wouldn't do it yourself, fine. If you feel it is an excuse or reason to disapprove or dislike someone, fine, BUT you are thinking morally and not logically or legally if you can jump to conclusions about law without having all the evidence!

If you think it was cowardly, fine, but cowardly does not equal criminal in and of itself.

You write "I don't know". EXACTLY! Neither do you know, if it was actually criminal because we don't have the details which I already mentioned.

You jump to a conclusion about "defamed". Again I say, this lady did something bad enough to enough people that she doesn't even know which one it was for certain. Think about that for awhile. Average people don't have these kinds of problems because they don't do enough bad things to others to not even know who their attacker is.

I hope she is equally made an example of for what she did that precipitated all of this. You can't just blame the last person to do something you consider wrong, you have to look back at how it all started to apply justice fairly... and that is based on your moral perspective while I personally just want to know the detailed facts so we know when or IF it was illegal.

I do realize it is very convenient to just assume something without facts, but that is when the most injustice occurs.


RE: Is something missing from the article?
By denvermom1 on 11/1/2010 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you can argue that "we don't know that the harasser is a criminal", than why don't you realize that you don't know whether this lady did anything to deserve this. You don't know her, right? Or are you her harasser on here trying to stir up trouble?

People who are unhappy, unstable, and/or jealous harass. Period. Average people do get harassed in person and online. Go to any police precinct and ask for the statistics on complaints. I would argue that she is above average, in looks and education, so that makes her more of a target. Perhaps the people you know are below average and therefore not targets for any attention.

Raise your children anyway you like, but just teach them not to be cowards and criminals, and let them know that opinions have consequences. They can be sued or jailed for certain activities.

Its has been stated in several articles that the clips infringed on a copyright, and that is why they were pulled. YouTube does not pull clip just because someone doesn't like them. Your justification of evidence being displayed is sad. Who's to judge that it is evidence? You? Her crazed stalker? Her? A real judge has already granted her a court order. Hopefully another judge will make an example of her stalker. Normal thinking people with hobbies and lives don't post evidence. They don't have time.

No one is perfect, including this lady, but she doesn't deserve to be harassed or defamed because someone come unhinged and lashes out over YouTube, instead of getting therapy. No one does. Not even you.


By mindless1 on 11/1/2010 11:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, but I DO realize! This "lady" ( which is BS, she is not fit to be called a lady ) , brought it on herself,

and that makes her an idiot.


By mindless1 on 11/1/2010 11:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
So you don't care about facts, you will just attack people based on 3rd party gossip.

I'm glad for you that you don't have a conscience, but unfortunately I do.

And I advise that you refrain from this simpleton BS because we will eat you alive if you continue. Trust me, I don't have to do anything about it, this is what will happen but if you don't believe me, wait and see...


By mindless1 on 11/2/2010 3:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
She is not above average in looks, how she was a model is beyond understanding unless she used to be a crack whore who looked like a model only based on being skinny. I would vomit if she tried to do more than hit on me, and that says a lot since I generally go for skinny crack whore type people, lol, but really I mean people who exercise and eat right instead to stay at an ideal weight.


I have nothing to hide!
By Ammohunt on 10/26/2010 4:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
No more hiding for me! I will take full responsibilty for my posts online here is all my information!(so dailytech isn't forced to disclose it)

Name: Fred Flintstone
Favorite Pet: Dino
Email address: Freddyrawks@gmail.com
Physical Address:301 Cobblestone Way, Bedrock

I feel so liberated!




RE: I have nothing to hide!
By Camikazi on 10/26/2010 7:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yabba-Dabba Do!


defamation and harassment
By GoodRevrnd on 10/26/2010 4:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
somehow i don't think posting a video of someone doing something stupid qualifies as defamation or harassment. maybe if the poster started spamming the video to everyone the plaintiff knew you'd have harassment, but this sounds like some whiner upset she was outed for being a jackass.




RE: defamation and harassment
By Spivonious on 10/26/2010 4:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
According to most laws, it just has to be made available to a third party; it doesn't matter if that third party has any relation to the plaintiff.


The internets are serious business!
By MrBlastman on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: The internets are serious business!
By rcc on 10/27/2010 4:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
lol, trolls always attack for no reason, that's what makes them trolls. Otherwise it's just an argument between people. : )


I Hope...
By Flahrydog on 10/26/2010 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
I hope the person who posted the video made a free email account solely for posting this, and did everything from a public library computer.




I feel appeal coming on
By rika13 on 10/27/2010 8:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuS... is from the very federal district court she's in.

Since ABC does not claim it is the 2nd district, only claiming Manhattan, one could assume it was a friendly state court, and the same one that has previously went after Google for a very similar case, thus a possible conflict of interest.

Google could claim privacy laws (CA's OPPA is why we have privacy policies) apply, as the demand is for turning over information to an ordinary citizen, not a government agency, for non-defined purposes.

Now they can use that "harrassing, defamatory, etc." provision, but then again, such information is not needed to file a "John Doe" suit and turning over to a private person would not be consistent with such policies.

Lastly, one could easily have planted the information, similar to the Viacom v. YouTube where Viacom got busted pirating it's own materials. It is quite possible (not saying she did, just saying it is possible) to get a some throwaway emails, make a few throwaway usernames, and then bully yourself for money and the ever popular 15 seconds of fame. It could be done by any competent adult in under an hour.




Get a grip on reality
By Beenthere on 10/27/10, Rating: 0
wtf
By Chiisuchianu on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: wtf
By charrytg on 10/26/2010 5:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
I wont stand for your political slander and harsh words. You'll be hearing from the cyber police soon!


RE: wtf
By cmdrdredd on 10/26/2010 6:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yep...someone has serious issues if what someone says on the internet has ANY meaning to them beyond the virtual space. If what happens online affects you in real life then you have more problems that the courts and any laws cannot help you with. If you have self esteem issues, social issues, or trouble making friends that is not the fault of people who come online and say "I don't like her because <insert reason>"


RE: wtf
By gcor on 10/28/2010 6:30:52 AM , Rating: 3
Why is text on the internet different to text on any other medium? Online does not mean it's in a separate universe and it can't impact on peoples' lives. If I lost a job because some jerk sent a defamatory letter to my boss, you bet it'd seek recompense. If the same happened online, why is it different?


I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: I dunno....
By Flunk on 10/26/2010 4:39:57 PM , Rating: 5
I don't believe there is anything about right to anonymity anywhere. Right to free speech yes, anonymity, no.

What you're asking for is to give everyone free reign to be as irresponsible as they like with no consequences. No one ever promised freedom from the consequences of your actions. Otherwise why do we need a legal system?


RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: I dunno....
By wiz220 on 10/26/2010 5:14:06 PM , Rating: 5
I argue the exact opposite. Anonymity would be a shelter for defamers and trolls. You can't have justice against someone doing something illegal if that person has anonymity. NOT having anonymity is a great and simple check against the power of free speech, helping to ensure it is used responsibly.

As long as a court order is required and the court has ruled that the person in question has broken the law, then I am ok with this sort of action. That being said, if the courts started rubber stamping every request for information without doing the due diligence on the individual case, I would be against it.


RE: I dunno....
By inighthawki on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: I dunno....
By MatthiasF on 10/26/2010 6:40:52 PM , Rating: 5
Then don't break any laws when anonymous.

If you're in a situation involving legal action of any kind (defamation like mentioned or any other crime), you do not have the right to anonymity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judic...


RE: I dunno....
By omnicronx on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: I dunno....
By Samus on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/2010 8:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
she's a wannabe-famous model/actress type... i'd say whether or not the public care's is irrelevant, she's still subject to the same humiliations.


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: I dunno....
By rdawise on 10/26/2010 8:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
@Reclaimer, she accuses the "blullies" of defamation. She says that the posting could be harmful to her job prospects.

If she can prove this then she has a cases, simple as that. About time we take responsibility for our actions anyway. Isn't that what the conservative message is all about anyway....


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 9:13:38 PM , Rating: 5
Not sure how it can be called "bullying" when this was done without her knowledge at first across the Internet THROUGH a third party. Bullying? Bullying is direct confrontation.

quote:
She says that the posting could be harmful to her job prospects.


That's not enough to make a case. You have to prove you WERE, in fact, harmed. Has she lost a prospect?

Basically, from what little knowledge we have, it seems to me the legal system and the taxpayers money is being used to settle a grudge. Someone said something about her, indirectly, that she didn't like. I don't think anything more substantial than that has taken place here no matter what she's claiming.


RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/2010 9:19:06 PM , Rating: 3
but how can it be considered defamation if it is a comment, and only contains one word at that?

maybe they meant:

quote:
W h o r e, Definition 3: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

there's nothing particularly slanderous or defaming about that now is there? All the guy might be saying is that she compromised her values. How exactly could you consider this slander, defamation, or harassment?

the law doesn't exist to protect your feelings,

anonymity is important because it enables free speech, if all i want to do is columnify somebody, that should be protected too.


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 9:27:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the law doesn't exist to protect your feelings,


Bingo.


RE: I dunno....
By rdawise on 10/27/2010 6:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
anonymity is important because it enables free speech, if all i want to do is columnify somebody, that should be protected too.


How does anonymity enable free speech? Free speech is the ability to say (through whatever means) whatever you what. Just because you're not man enough to stand behind your words doesn't mean that your free speech has been violated. You have a right to say what you want just like I have a right to get angry about.

Oh yeah and @reclaimer, defamation suits have been around since around the American revolution. Look it up...


RE: I dunno....
By mindless1 on 10/28/2010 11:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
EXCEPT there is a gray area. If someone claims you defamed them, it may not be true that you did but you would have to supply evidence proving your allegations - no longer retaining anonymity.

Therefore I propose the current legal system actions are improper and the victim should NOT be given the information about the accused yet, instead the accused should have a private proceeding until such time as it is determined through a fair defense that they actually did break laws.


RE: I dunno....
By redbone75 on 10/26/2010 10:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Tyler Clementi thought he had privacy as well.


RE: I dunno....
By AlexWade on 10/26/2010 8:44:04 PM , Rating: 3
I think of it this way: Suppose I rob a bank wearing a mask to cover my face and gloves to hide my fingerprints. I want to remain anonymous. Should the police not try to find me because I want to remain anonymous? However, if I put up a fence and a no trespassing sign in my yard because I want to remain anonymous, is it okay for anybody to just ignore that? There are different circumstances. In the first, I have broken the law and thus lost my right to anonymity. In the second, I have not broken the law and thus still have the right to anonymity.


RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/2010 9:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
but have they broken any actual laws? I mean, in order to prove defamation you have to prove that your character was damaged in some way.

(correct me if you know the real number) but i'm guessing that maybe 100 people saw that word there before it was taken down, how can 100 random people from the internet possibly result in a damage to your character?

Her character has probably been damaged more by this story being reported, why isn't filing a news report considered defamation? (i know she probably gave consent, however i'm sure other situations have occurred where the journalists were protected and people didn't give consent.)


RE: I dunno....
By pg55555 on 10/27/2010 1:11:44 AM , Rating: 1
So anyone can can go to your house and tell that you are a thief, pederast and an homicide, but as only your family and your neighbors heard it (maybe 10 people) it is not a defamation? because if you go to court maybe another 200 people would now about the issue?


RE: I dunno....
By Motley on 10/26/2010 5:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
And I don't think there should be a right to anonymity. Obviously there isn't when laws are broken, but making sure that you can be held accountable may just change the attitudes of a few of the online people into being better mannered.


RE: I dunno....
By jhb116 on 10/26/2010 5:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your assertion is that you are assuming she posted the information about herself.

What if someone else grabs some bad pictures of you (lets face we all do something at some point we don't want exposed to the world), post those with your id for which companies (potential employers) can search and this info prevents you from getting a job? I'll bet you'll be siging a different tune....

That activity IS illegal and there needs to be consequences for such actions.


RE: I dunno....
By omnicronx on 10/26/2010 7:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
All depends, it could easily fall under fair use, especially if it was a public place.

Not like any money is being made here..

I'm going to guess it was the comments that made her case, not the video itself.


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 7:16:18 PM , Rating: 4
The Internet has always been a "sandbox".

I say let's keep it that way. Enough with the judges, stupid lawsuits, and Government interference. This case should have been thrown out. It WOULD have been thrown out in more sensible times.


RE: I dunno....
By omnicronx on 10/26/2010 7:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Its a very slippery slope. All it takes is one person to purposefully pretend to be someone else while posting something. (i.e ip spoofing etc).

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the comments being made, but where does it end?


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 7:32:05 PM , Rating: 3
Well I haven't seen the comments. All I've read is basically someone said something mean about her, not even directly TO her, so she gets to find out who they are and sue them?

As to the gentleman's statement about "nobody has the freedom to break the law"...have we really got to the point where being nasty is illegal?

Google should fight this all the way up to the Supreme Court and protect it's users identities, but alas, they became whores long ago.


RE: I dunno....
By wordsworm on 10/27/2010 7:58:24 AM , Rating: 1
So, what if it was someone who posted a rape video of themselves raping the victim? How about a murder case? Someone shoots someone else POV style with the camera. They upload it via Youtube. Will you argue that authorities should have no right to access the uploaders info in order to conduct their investigation? Or is that where you'd draw the line between privacy and giving the power to authorities to apprehend the offender?


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2010 8:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously comparing violent crimes to calling someone a whore online? I'll just pretend I never read your post.


RE: I dunno....
By wordsworm on 10/27/2010 11:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
You said to hell with the justice system, et al. Defamation, and potentially ruining someone's career is damaging. The law should apply online. You seemed to be promoting the idea that folks should be able to maintain anonymity. I was just wondering if you believed that in all cases. You said, "Enough with the judges, stupid lawsuits, and Government interference."

I'm saying that people need to be held liable for their illegal actions whether it's publishing online that someone is a whore (imagine someone did that in a small town newspaper, the effect that would have - are you saying that they ought not to be held liable and that media ought to have freedom to say nasty things about folks regardless of the truth?).


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2010 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
First off please stop with the exaggerations. First rape, and now I said "to hell" with the justice system et al? No I did not.

The Justice System does not exist to protect your feelings. And until you can produce something more substantial than that, this case is not relevant. Was she defamed? Was her career damaged?

quote:
are you saying that they ought not to be held liable and that media ought to have freedom to say nasty things about folks regardless of the truth?


Of course I'm saying that. Can you explain to me why Howard Stern is still on the air after years and YEARS of calling people names in vicious attacks? In fact he made it clear on several occasions that he purposely set out to "destroy" other people.

Show me where in the First Amendment it says you only have a right to speak "the truth". Where is it illegal to speak your opinion about someone else online? You're throwing around a lot of legal jargon, but I don't think you can even point to the law or precedence that covers this particular situation.

I call people idiot and moron on Daily Tech all the time. That's just as bad as calling someone a whore, isn't it? Do you honest believe that I'm breaking a law here? Come on!


RE: I dunno....
By rdawise on 10/27/2010 6:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
@reclaimer77

Because you know howard stern said it..

End of Argument...


RE: I dunno....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2010 6:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
End of argument?

So again, show me the law where someone can't anonymously state their opinion of you.

You're just being silly, again. I go out of my way to post good arguments and you counter with this silly watered down 10 word crap? And you dared to go on and on earlier about how people shouldn't down rate and should debate you...

Nice debating skills.


RE: I dunno....
By The Raven on 10/27/2010 4:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you're asking for is to give everyone free reign to be as irresponsible as they like with no consequences. No one ever promised freedom from the consequences of your actions.

I fire this right back at you. She should take responsibility for herself.

quote:
I don't believe there is anything about right to anonymity anywhere. Right to free speech yes, anonymity, no.

QFT, but the gov't should not be able to force a private company to give up your personal information. The private company should be the one to make the decision to release the info.

And BTW...
quote:
The Mountain View, California-based company must give Franklin the IP (Internet protocol) addresses, e-mail addresses, and other information of those responsible for the harassment within fifteen days.

Well, good luck with that one. I will laugh when it turns out to be a polite octagenarian at the end of the trail.


RE: I dunno....
By Spivonious on 10/26/2010 4:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
If she can prove (and I guess she has) that her reputation was seriously harmed by the comments, then that is illegal. She has every right to press charges.

As far as harassment, I don't see how that applies in this case.


RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/2010 5:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
harassment shouldn't apply here.

if she was receiving emails from this person then it would definitely be harassment.

Posting a comment on a site however is more of a thought than a method of speech, this should be up to the web admins who already regulate this stuff.

What this seems like it is about is the fact that this girl was offended, not that her character was damaged in any way.

Who's to say what's proper/improper? How do i know if somebody is going to be offended by something? Maybe this very comment is offensive to somebody and i just don't know it.

allowing people the right to sue for information when they are simply offended is a slippery slope. If they are being harassed through private messages, calls, etc then fine, but i find it hard to believe that you can harass somebody on a public message board. If you are really that offended by what's being said, you have the right to leave (or contact the admins and have the user banned)


RE: I dunno....
By GmTrix on 10/26/2010 6:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who's to say what's proper/improper?


... a judge.


RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/2010 9:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
how can a judge say whats proper/improper to say on a website owned and operated by a private company, accessed and used by the general public?

Calling somebody a whore in person could be harassment, however there is nothing on a the books (at least to my knowledge) that judges get to decide what language is appropriate on the internet. The only place they get to decide that is in their court rooms.

people are supposed to be over 13 when they get online because they might encounter these types of things. This is exactly why that law exists, because we acknowledge that nothing on the internet is going to be 100% kosher.

We can't pretend to have any sort of regulatory control over what people say here, it just doesn't work. You can't stop piracy, or punish 50% of the country either, you can setup conditions that deter it, but you can't stop or punish it.


RE: I dunno....
By lolmuly on 10/26/2010 5:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Looked it up on another news site, apparently all the commenter did was call her a:

quote:
w h o r e


in various single word comments.... all they did was use a single word...


RE: I dunno....
By omnicronx on 10/26/2010 7:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
She is a public figure, her reputation being seriously harmed is not enough. She has to prove that the commenter acted with malice.(which is quite hard to do)

Don't remember which ruling this falls under, but it goes all the way back to the 60's.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki