Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTiger1 on March 02, 2011, 02:14:52 PM
-
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Judge-Star-IBJ-must-identify-anonymous-posters?odyssey=tab (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Judge-Star-IBJ-must-identify-anonymous-posters?odyssey=tab)
A Marion County judge has ruled, for the first time in Indiana, that news media outlets can be ordered by the court to reveal identifying information about posters to their online forums.
In rulings this week and last week, Marion Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid became the first judge in Indiana to rule on whether the state journalism shield law protects media outlets from being forced to disclose names of anonymous posters on their websites or other identifying information about those posters, said Kevin Betz, an attorney for Jeffrey Miller, former chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana.
The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit Miller filed last year. He is seeking to broaden the list of defendants in his case to include people who criticized him anonymously last year on websites run by The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Business Journal and WRTV (Channel 6).
The case is among a growing number of defamation claims nationally that target anonymous Internet posters to websites operated by news media and other owners.
"We are seeing more and more defamation lawsuits being filed, that's clear," said David Hudson, a First Amendment scholar at the First Amendment Center, affiliated with Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. Hudson said the public should be concerned if anonymous comments on public websites begin drying up because of the fear of lawsuits. "If this happens, then people will be less likely to comment" on public issues, he said.
All three Indianapolis media outlets fought the subpoenas served on them to turn over identifying information about posters to their sites.
The judge ruled that The Star and IBJ must turn over the identifying information, which typically tells a poster's Internet protocol address or Internet provider. Using that, an attorney can subpoena the Internet provider for the poster's real name.
The Star had fought the disclosure, saying in its 15-page motion that the shield law protects it from being forced to disclose names of anonymous posters on its IndyStar.com website, as does the Constitution and its guarantees of freedom of speech.
"Our practice is not to reveal the names" of people who post anonymously on The Star's website, said Star Editor and Vice President Dennis Ryerson. "We've long had a practice of protecting sources at all levels."
Ryerson wouldn't comment on the judge's ruling, except to say, "We now are reviewing our legal options."
The judge's ruling on whether WRTV also must turn over information about its posters is expected this week.
The IBJ has already turned over the information Miller sought, Betz said.
The posters identified include Kelsey Hanlon, described as a former staffer at Junior Achievement; James Leagre, who is called a friend of Junior Achievement's current chief executive; and Dave Wilson, vice president of corporate sponsorship for the 500 Festival Associates.
500 Festival Associates also was added as a defendant in the defamation claim, on the grounds that the defamatory comments supposedly traced to Wilson were sent on one of its computers.
Miller, whose wife, Cynthia, is a co-plaintiff in the case, initially sued Jennifer Burk, who is the current chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana; Brian Payne, who is president of Central Indiana Community Foundation; and both of their organizations.
The amended complaint adds as many as nine other people. They are listed in the lawsuit as "John Does."
Betz said he doesn't see the judge's recent rulings as weakening the state's shield law, which gives broad protections to news reporters from having to disclose names of sources who provide information used in news stories.
"This is not an assault on the shield law," Betz said. "In fact, it is well within the bounds of the traditional terms of the shield law. I don't think the media should be interested . . . in protecting the identities of cyberbullies. I don't think these people are advancing any cause of democracy or purposeful free speech.
"All it is is cyberbullying. And these kind of individuals need to understand there is accountability for that kind of behavior."
-
I'm torn on this one but I really do see the reasoning. Far too many people can and have done way too much damage hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard. I could sit here and say John Doe molests small boys and I know it for a fact. If I TYPE it with enough conviction, someone is going to take it seriously and word of said molestations will spread like wildfire.
-
Fan friggin tastic. About time. When somebody can damage another person through innuendo and get away with it from behind the cloak of being an anonymous source, then something like this needs to happen. Remember the old cardinal rule of citing your sources? Yeah, what the fuck happened?
-
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Star-must-identify-anonymous-posters-website-judge-rules
Newspaper forced to reveal real names of anonymous posters who criticized public figure in defamation suit.
Damn.
-
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/the_sga/judge_rules_paper_must_disclose_who_anonymous_posters_are_12821.0.html (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/the_sga/judge_rules_paper_must_disclose_who_anonymous_posters_are_12821.0.html)
:bar:
-
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Star-must-identify-anonymous-posters-website-judge-rules
Newspaper forced to reveal real names of anonymous posters who criticized public figure in defamation suit.
Damn.
An even more dangerous precedent would have been to allow someone to anonymously slander someone without fear of reprisal. The keyboard should not grant someone cover for libel and slander
-
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/the_sga/judge_rules_paper_must_disclose_who_anonymous_posters_are_12821.0.html (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/the_sga/judge_rules_paper_must_disclose_who_anonymous_posters_are_12821.0.html)
:bar:
I been busy.
So sue me.
Or combine this or whatever.
-
I been busy.
So sue me.
Or combine this or whatever.
You have and it's been appreciated. Keep fighting the good fight. If I had admin powers I would combine them.
-
An even more dangerous precedent would have been to allow someone to anonymously slander someone without fear of reprisal. The keyboard should not grant someone cover for libel and slander
Does that extend to "you're a homo"
I mean, 'cause we do it all the time here.
When you post something with the expectation of anonymity....
-
Does that extend to "you're a homo"
I mean, 'cause we do it all the time here.
When you post something with the expectation of anonymity....
If it were to rise to the level of Libel or Slander then yes. However this site is a little different in the fact that you are calling an anonymous person a homo. If you were to slander an individual to the point of doing harm on this board then yes they should be able to find out who you are. If what you are saying is the truth, you have nothing to worry about.
-
Does that extend to "you're a homo"
I mean, 'cause we do it all the time here.
When you post something with the expectation of anonymity....
(http://johnpaulgomez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/internet_serious_mf_business.jpg)
Seriously, I don't like it, but if someone that I don't know calls me a mommy part breath homo, I don't think I am going to off myself or get so mad that I would sue. People take the internet way too seriously.
-
Unless you are a freaking ISP genious, is anything online really anonymous any more?
-
If it were to rise to the level of Libel or Slander then yes. However this site is a little different in the fact that you are calling an anonymous person a homo. If you were to slander an individual to the point of doing harm on this board then yes they should be able to find out who you are. If what you are saying is the truth, you have nothing to worry about.
I called Mark Ingram a homo.
I don't know if that's the truth. Don't care to find out.
We are going to disagree here, so I suggest we either take it outside or just agree that we're not going to see eye to eye.
-
(http://johnpaulgomez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/internet_serious_mf_business.jpg)
Seriously, I don't like it, but if someone that I don't know calls me a mommy part breath homo, I don't think I am going to off myself or get so mad that I would sue. People take the internet way too seriously.
I'd be willing to bet that if someone spread lies and slander that did real financial harm to you or your family that you would be suing to find out who it is and get your well desrerved restitution
-
Seriously, I don't like it, but if someone that I don't know calls me a mommy part breath homo, I don't think I am going to off myself or get so mad that I would sue. People take the internet way too seriously.
Mutually exlusive. Unless you are a girl. Will need pictures to consider veracity if so.
-
I called Mark Ingram a homo.
I don't know if that's the truth. Don't care to find out.
We are going to disagree here, so I suggest we either take it outside or just agree that we're not going to see eye to eye.
Happy to agree to disagree, however, if Ingram can prove that you calling him a homo cost him money after it was proved not to be true then he has a case
-
Happy to agree to disagree, however, if Ingram can prove that you calling him a homo cost him money after it was proved not to be true then he has a case
Don't think there's any proof that any of the people who slammed the guy in the comments in the paper did any harm to him, either.
But... I don't care.
-
I'd be willing to bet that if someone spread lies and slander that did real financial harm to you or your family that you would be suing to find out who it is and get your well desrerved restitution
Yes more than likely so, there are actual damages. In this case some one posted in the comments that they thought the guy was a thief and greedy.
From another article
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110301/BUSINESS/110301006/Former-Junior-Achievement-CEO-broadening-defamation-lawsuit (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110301/BUSINESS/110301006/Former-Junior-Achievement-CEO-broadening-defamation-lawsuit)
The online statements that Miller considers defamatory include the accusation that he committed “most likely a criminal act,†a description of him as “the most greedy man I’ve ever known,†and a comment saying “somebody needs to call the state’s attorney general and investigate him,†according to the lawsuit.
I hardly see how those comments above are lawsuit worthy and it starts a slippery slope imo. I can say that Congressman X is the most greedy man I have even known, he is a criminal and should be investigated, does that mean that he should be able to get my IP and find out who I am to sue me?
There has to be a line somewhere, but I think this case, from what I have read is going down the wrong path. He can claim it cost him the job all he wants, but the Indy Mayor said he was never seriously considered as a candidate anyways. I just don't think that there was any harm done here.
-
(http://my.hsj.org/Portals/2/Schools/3035/Article286283_FirstAmendment.jpg)
-
(http://my.hsj.org/Portals/2/Schools/3035/Article286283_FirstAmendment.jpg)
I don't see freedom/right of anonymity on that list anywhere
-
I don't see freedom/right of anonymity on that list anywhere
No but the anime girl is pretty hot.
-
I don't see a problem. Basically, they're taking the same civil recourse available to people in real life and applying it to situations on the internet. Things said or done on the internet can have impact on the financials of a business or individual, so I don't see why not. I think this is a good thing. While the things we say are generally protected under the 1st Amendment, not EVERYTHING is.