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 mdogs444 on 2/12/2008 5:54:41 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
Sure you have not forgotten about Texas....and love to execute people?

Sure, it's your opinion if you want convicted murderers to be a leach on societys tax dollar by paying for them to live in jail for 50+ years. I however, only wish that executions, regardless of means (lethal injection, electric chair, etc), took place quicker so that it cost society less money.


RE: California.
By smitty3268 on 2/12/2008 6:59:27 PM , Rating: 3
Executing someone costs about 10 times more than leaving them in prison for the next 50+ years. You can argue that it shouldn't be that way, but it's reality.


RE: California.
By shabby on 2/12/2008 8:23:01 PM , Rating: 1
One bullet cant be that pricey... can it?


RE: California.
By Polynikes on 2/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: California.
By C'DaleRider on 2/12/2008 8:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm......no he doesn't. It is horribly more expensive to execute someone than it is to let them live out their lives in confinement. This is, of course, due to the fact that the death penalty carries with it an automatic appeal when the death penalty is handed down, and then the several other appeals that go onward after the mandatory first one.

And since, typically, it is a court-appointed attorney that carries on all these appeals, we, the tax-paying public, ends up footing the bill for the repetitive appeals, just like we pay for long-term incarceration. But, the appellate process has paid off for a few, esp. in cases where DNA evidence has ultimately overturned a guilty conviction.

So, we pay in either case, but it is indeed much more expensive to put someone to death than it is to house and feed them for life.


RE: California.
By Polynikes on 2/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: California.
By jtemplin on 2/13/2008 9:21:53 AM , Rating: 3
These public servants are on salary and get paid regardless. Your argument falls flat.


RE: California.
By Polynikes on 2/13/2008 10:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
Well, gee, then why don't we just stop putting people in jail, since it costs taxpayer so much money?


RE: California.
By mcturkey on 2/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: California.
By poohbear on 2/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: California.
By werepossum on 2/22/2008 7:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know, if we outsourced the process to China, we'd just be paying for the bullet. Shipping TO China is dirt cheap, since most of the container ships go back empty anyway.


Interestingly, I just spoke with a manufacturer's rep about that same thing. Turns out it costs exactly the same to ship a container to China as it does to ship one from China. ($500 per container if you're interested.)

The only thing I can figure is that those containers must be filled with cash on the way back. Well, cash and government bonds, since the cash has lost half its worth by the time it gets there...


RE: California.
By peterb123 on 2/13/2008 1:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't cost much if they let a mob execute them.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











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