Interesting Precedent
 

Seems that someone posted an offensive comment regarding a Vogue Model. She has won the right to force a web-blog to reveal the identity of the offensive poster.

While not necessarily applicable to us here at APC, it could certainly change the routine and abrasive activities that occur on the Internet.

Vogue model Liskula Cohen wins right to unmask offensive blogger

A Vogue cover girl has won a precedent-setting court battle to unmask an anonymous blogger who called her a “skank” on the Internet. In a case with potentially far-reaching repercussions, Liskula Cohen sought the identity of the blogger who maligned her on the Skanks in NYC blog so that she could sue him or her for defamation. A Manhattan supreme court judge ruled that she was entitled to the information and ordered Google, which ran the offending blog, to turn it over.

Remainder of article:

Vogue model Liskula Cohen wins right to unmask offensive blogger - Times Online

A skank? I've seen much worse than that here. More power to her.

Libel and Slander are not protected speech in any way. If you get sued, a subpoena will force any web host to cough up your info...unless they are willing to sit in jail for contempt on YOUR behalf.

Yeah, but when you put yourself in the public spotlight you relinquish the right to most libel cases. At least that was the way it was explained in my single business law case in college. In no way do I have any idea what I'm talking about lol.

This forum's Terms of Service are written to spur a productive dialog as well as protect users (and APC) from legal action. Read our privacy policy, in a nutshell it says that we will not divulge any user info for any reason unless compelled to do so by a court order.

Forums have enjoyed protection from suit as publishers, however going after users is relatively new. I'll be interested in the outcome.

Be careful what you say on APC
 

This might set the precident for things to come.

Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler - CNN.com

This is nothing new. Many "anonymous" message boards have been sued for a member's IP address and email address. Most simply comply with the request to avoid a costly legal bill, throwing the poster under the bus. Yes, be careful what you say, especially here on APC. Unlike the others, you don't need to be a member to read the comments here... they even show up on Google. Anyone and everyone can read everything we write here.

On here, we're not really completely anonymous anyway. I know for a fact more than a few people know who I am.

My identity has never been a secret to those who know me.

Okay APC. I want the address of VQ2 Spanky so that I can sue him!:D

How about I just ban that trouble maker for you! :D

USMCFLYR

D'OH.......roflol:D

True this is not a truly anonymous site and the mods have stated quite often that they will comply with court requests for username info. Its not quite throwing you under the bus if they make their actions known before a situation you caused arises.

Calling Vagabond
 

I believe the landmark court case limiting the rights of public figures in this area is "New York Times v. Sullivan".

Does this mean that Jonathan Ornstein and Chuck Colgan can sue everybody on this forum?

Calling someone a "skank" sounds more like an opinion to me.... And I wonder what her damages are?

Public figures can still sue for defamation, but they must show actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth in addition to the other elements of defamation. At least that's what I remember from the law school days.

That's not quite how it works...

The plaintiff sues the poster, not website operator. The plaintiff is then entitled to gather evidence to support his case.

Usually the "request" would be a subpoena/discovery order...those are not requests, they are court orders which you must comply with. The website operator is not usually getting sued, so he has to comply or face contempt charges...most will not sit in jail to defend some random forum poster whose mouth got the better of his brain.

It would be difficult and unusual to mount a legal defense against a subpoena...you would need to show that the request was not lawful, or that the judge was in collusion with the plaintiff or something like that.

Yep, it would take maybe a second or two for someone to find out who I am and most all SKW posters on here already know me by name. I make no effort to conceal my identify so when someone says I or someone else is hiding behind a screen name I can't help but laugh.

Bounce it off the tor network if you want to be anonymous.

You have to know the identity of someone before you can sue them. Duh! How do you think someone learns the identity of an anonymous poster/blogger? They have their lawyer write a scary letter to the host website asking for their information, and threatening a lawsuit for hosting defamatory comments if they don't. The website then hands over the information and washes their hands of the matter. I know this from personal experience as a mod at FI for 8 years and a friend of the deceased FI founder.

Well, I've never flat out revealed my identity on this forum but somehow the chief pilot at TSA figured out who I am and called me about one of my posts on here. It was a friendly informative call but a bit puzzling how he'd know who I am. So yeah, watch what you guys say.

Despite their repeated requests.......




kidding, kidding.....

I'm not a legal expert (the law bores me terribly), but if someone calls you a skank and you sue them, don't you have to prove that you are, in fact, not a skank?

A lot of the advice on here is good. Instead of not revealing your identity, how about just don't say stuff that could get you in trouble. To me that seems to be the easiest route. Don't defame or call names or anything like that. If there's money to be had by suing then someone will end up suing.

Yup, the CP contacted me too. Ever since I have run all my thoughts through a "is this post going to get me in trouble?" filter. Invariably the answer is "possibly," at which time the filter inhibits my ability to type. From now on, my thoughts are my own. :cool:

So since i dont have anything original to contribute ill just quote from Enemy of the State...

"Privacy's been dead for years because we can't risk it. The only privacy that's left is the inside of your head. Maybe that's enough. You think we're the enemy of democracy, you and I? I think we're democracy's last hope."

Will Smith and Gene Hackman...now thats a combo!

No. If the slanderer had good reason to make the accusation, he should be able to demonstrate that his info is correct. If you can't reasonably prove it, better not say it (unless you are a gossip mag, in which case you make enough money to keep a bunch of lawyers on retainer).

I suspect that the lawsuit in question will go nowhere. Slander and insults are generally two different things.

You can call someone a jerk, and that's just your opinion, insulting though it may be.

But if you accuse someone of actions or behavior that they did not actually do, that is slander/libel. If they actually DID what you say they did, then it's just gossip.

"Skank" could go either way. The plaintiff may claim that skank = slut and that the defendant needs to prove she actually IS a slut...which he will probably not be able to do. The defendant might claim that "skank" is a general term which means "low class" and is just an opinion thing.

I think there is ambiguity to keep the defendant safe...but he still has legal bills which is probably the point of the whole exercise. Big people (and companies) can suppress perfectly legal commentary from the peanut-gallery merely with the threat of lawsuits and huge legal bills.

Another corporate trick: File a frivolous lawsuit against "John Doe" internet posters...for the sole purpose of obtaining their identities during the discovery process. If it turns out the posters are employees...instant termination. A few of those will tend to stiffle anonymous public dissent from the ranks.

And before someone with a sixth-grade understanding of the constitution starts blathering on about "freedom of speech", please remember that freedom of speech protections apply ONLY to the government...ie the GOVERNMENT (Federal, State, or Local) cannot restrict your right to speak your mind. But this in no way applies to any private parties or corporations, your employer can fire you for bad-mouthing the company, or for saying anything else they don't want to hear. Best to be aware of that if you're going to frolic on the net.

You're a Beech 1900 FO, furloughed EMB145 FO.

1900 operators are pretty small, so your CP could pull a few resumes and narrow it down. especially if you mentioned your domicile or other geographic information.

I'm surprised that any CP actually has time to do that kind of crap...I'm pretty sure mine don't.

I'd like to come out and admit that I really dont work for an airline, I am a college girl. I am a computer geek, and love browsing forumns. I have nothing to hide and my name is Heather. I live in South America, on the northern coast along the ocean, right in the middle of the country.:D

Now thats what I call mis-information:p

<fillerfiller>

<fillerfiller>

How would they prove who actually typed the offensive message. I mean just because it was written under my screenname desnt mean I typed it. Somebody could be using my screenname . Seems to me it would be hard toprove.

I believe "skank" would not be considered libel.

On the other hand, "I did that skank" or "That skank stole my dollar" could be considered libel.

At least that's what I'd say if I was a lawyer.

It wasn't you, right? :D

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

An IP Address ties it back to the computer that was used to make the post, presumably. They could always say that it wasn't them, but then they would have produce an alibi, again, presumably.

Also, I just heard that she now has the name of the person who did it but is not naming them, rather, dealing with it out of the public eye. At least that's what was just reported. Whether it remains the case is yet to be seen.

two things i thought id never read on here. :D

Here's another example:

The coming-out stories of anonymous bloggers - CNN.com

It would not hold up in a criminal case, that is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the standard is lower in a civil case...preponderance of evidence.

Basically I'm sure the assumption would be that you maintained control of your account and are responsible for it. You could use that defense successfully I think only if you could show that it would have been hard for you to actually make the post...ie you were working a flight at the time the post was made or the IP address was in outer mongolia. You might also get off the hook if the post was completely out of character based on your posting history.

But it will still cost $20-30K in lawyer fees if it goes to trial...the way the system works, whoever you insulted can punish you by simply insisting on a jury trial ($$$). They don't have to win, just have a case that is barely good enough to not be considered frivolous (otherwise they might have to pay your legal fees).

This is such an obvious and blatant assault on our rights in a supposedly "free" country. It's incredibly dangerous. If it's successful then America can no longer identify itself as a free country. We've been slowly losing our freedoms for the past 30 years or so. Our opinions and thoughts have to conform to whatever the ruling American oligarchy (degenerate, arrogant rich people and scumbag lawyers) dictate to us.

This IS a freedom of speech issue. Even taking the interpretation that freedom of speech only applies to the government restrictions, that means only a private entity can restrict your speech (such as your employer telling you not to say certain things) . Are the courts a private entity? No, they're government! They have no authority to tell people what they can/can't say. Anything less and we will be the Soviet Socialist Republic of America.

The First Amendment is the reason the founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment. Sic semper tyrannis

Yeah, I know it would be somewhat possible to figure out who I am based on that info alone, but I still found it pretty odd that anybody would go to that much trouble. I am not the only furloughed TSA pilot flying a 1900. Funny because during the phone call he more or less asked if I was flying anywhere. I had a feeling he already knew the answer but oh well. Like I said, the phone call was friendly, but the fact that it happened is curious.:confused:

I'm glad we don't have to worry about things like this at ASA. Despite all the complaints about our managers, they aren't tyrants who want to bust people for things said off campus. How petty and insecure.

Generally the litmus test in a defamation lawsuit is if the hurtful speech caused monetary harm to the "victim". In other words, did publicly calling her a "skank" hurt her reputation such that she lost career opportunities. This is why it's usually easy to defend defamation lawsuits, because it's extremely hard to prove the comments caused harm in all but the most egregious cases.

So sad that companies have to be this insecure and petty. But yes, it does happen... frequently. Jonathan Orenstien comes to mind...

Amen to that. I am SO SICK of hearing people on message boards claim their 1st Amendment rights ("free speech") are being violated. The 1st Amendment only applies to public speech against the government! And in addition to that, a privately owned forum is not a public venue!