backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by werepossum.. on Feb 22 at 7:34 PM

A California judge reversed decision allowing anonymous persons on net to remain anonymous

A California judge in the Sixth Appellate District in Santa Clara County last week ruled that anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to stay anonymous.  Along with remaining anonymous, Internet trolls are able to say what they like, by exercising their First Amendment rights, no matter how belittling is it.

 According to Reuters, the appeals court reversed a decision from 2006 that would have subpoenaed ten anonymous posters on Yahoo’s message board by the COO of a drug service company, Lisa Krinsky.

The 2006 court case held that ten anonymous message board posters left quite a few harsh comments on the Internet regarding Krinsky, her company, and two officers at her company. One comment referred to Krinsky saying, "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene."

Doe 6, a tag given to the anonymous posters, days later moved in superior court to quash the subpoena.  The defendant claims that Krinsky had “failed to state a claim sufficient to overcome his First Amendment rights for either defamation or interference with a contractual or business relationship” and that her “request for injunctive relief was an invalid prior restraint”.

In 2006, the superior court proposed that the statements made by Doe 6 had the intent of driving down the price of Krinsky’s company to manipulate the stock price.  The court, even with the claim and information, decided that Doe 6 was protected under their First Amendment rights.  Due to the context of the statements, they are not actionable under Florida’s defamation laws.

The controversy over Internet anonymity will continue to be fueled by contexts of libel and First Amendment rights but will, at least, allow the contexts of these actions to be narrowed down.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: California.
By TomZ on 2/12/2008 5:10:47 PM , Rating: 4
How is this ruling "idiotic"? Seems to me that it helps reinforce our expectation of privacy and our ability to freely express ourselves without fear of intimidation through abuse of the legal process. What's bad about that?


RE: California.
By Lord Evermore on 2/13/2008 7:41:57 AM , Rating: 4
Seems to me that claiming someone's medical degree is fake is actually libelous. The rest of it is just unsubstantiated idiocy.


RE: California.
By kkwst2 on 2/13/2008 8:17:39 AM , Rating: 1
Oh come on. It was an anonymous rant. Would you actually believe some ass who says someone's degree is fake right after they use the word Queef?

To me, the fact that it even went to court is outrageous, unless there is more to this story than what is posted here. Is it now a crime to be an asshole? We've become a society of complete pansies!


RE: California.
By clovell on 2/13/2008 12:28:54 PM , Rating: 1
Though there would be less assholes if it wasn't a crime to land a hard right hook on them. There's a sort of imbalance that has allowed assholes to proliferate - because we are pansies.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki