RSS
Twitter
Texas Judge Forces Topix To Unveil Info About Anonymous Commenters
from the so-much-for-protecting-anonymity dept
While plenty of other countries don't provide very much protection to anonymous commenters online, US courts have time and time and time and time again found that it's important to protect the rights of anonymous speech online. That doesn't mean that you can say anything you want -- but it does mean that a court should be quite clearly convinced that the speech violates the law before allowing any progress in an attempt to unmask an anonymous participant.
Unfortunately, it looks like a judge in Texas has ignored all of that. Topix, the online news aggregation and local community site, has apparently been told by a judge to cough up identifying information on 178 formerly anonymous commenters on the site. The details are still a little unclear from the article linked here -- but it looks like the commenters were discussing a sexual harassment case that was happening in Texas. In that case, the defendants were found not guilty, but apparently the online comments on Topix got somewhat nasty. So the couple, fresh off being acquitted of sexual assault charges, sued 178 different anonymous commenters -- and the judge seemed to have no problem ordering Topix to turn over any identifying information it had on those commenters.
This is troubling for a variety of reasons, as it does not appear that the court spent much time in determining whether or not actual libelous statements were made -- it just ordered Topix to hand over the info. Previous courts have found that even if the commenters were being jerks and totally obnoxious, that doesn't take away their right to anonymity. So why is this judge so willing to wipe away anonymity? If there are truly libelous comments, then it could make sense to go through a careful process of trying to identify who they came from. But to give a blanket order to hand over the names seems to go against what so many other US courts have done in similar situations, and raises serious questions about the right to anonymity online.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Soooo....
I libel the shit out of people on Topix all the time... are my uppins finally coming?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Money grubbing lawyer
What about the Anonymous Cowards that went back after the acquittal and retracted their previous comments? What about those that defended him? It wouldn't matter to this guy he is a lawyer in a money grab. He's gotta get some cash to pay for the civil suit he is going to lose.
P.S. Wouldn't it be funny if all of the anonymous posters were his mom?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Can't the defense just point to precedent and move up the appeal chain, ultimately getting the whole mess dismissed?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Texas Courts
Texas courts dance to the beat of their own drummer, until they're knocked down by a higher court, and then they move glacially slow. Apparently, Texas, in general, doesn't seem to think it has to abide by the laws of the rest of the land.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Soooo....
Nobody should say anything bad here about the idiot judge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
only in texas
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Soooo....
Nothing that isn't true anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Texas Courts
Yeah, I have to agree, and I live in south texas, but this judge seems like a total fucked up retard. I would defend myself and waste a bunch of the sexual harassers money. It is amazing how fast people back down when they start to see their legal bills rise because of a rash of faxes (until the machine runs out of paper) to their attorney, every night of the week. It worked in the past and I bet the attorneys love it when they can bill for such foolishness
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That judge can kiss my (*&^
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not all Texas....
@dkp...no, NOT only in texas. Stupid crap like this happens everywhere. Although I really wasn't that surprised when I saw that it was an article in the dallas morning news, and that it was from Fort Worth. I live in Fort Worth and I have to say that this city has some pretty bad judges. We have really good ones too. The only reason this guy sued the 178 people is because they had their feelings hurt and when a lawyer gets his/her feelings hurt they sue people. Even if it's for a retarded reason.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"We do not just give up people's privacy," said the Web site's CEO Chris Tolles. "We're very, very careful about that."
So what information are they in a position to hand over? If they're "very, very careful" (and even half-intelligent) they didn't collect any information beyond what can be seen on the site. But he doesn't say that, so they probably did. And they will hand it over eventually. This is another of those security lessons that people never seem to learn: don't hold on to confidential information unless you really, really have to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
What Info ?
IP Address + Time = (for most cases) the ISP Account of who posted.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The comments were a lot more than "somewhat nasty." Judge for yourself; read the plaintiff's complaint at http://www.connordemond.com/LESHER-OMEGA_PETITION.pdf.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Texas Courts
Well, that certainly explains the willingness of Bush, Rove et al to violate so many national and international laws and Conventions, doesn't it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Who cares what anon said. This is just a big money grab, and they shouldn't be able to sue everyone because of comments on an ongoing news story.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You give up your right to be anonymous
When you go post on a public web site.
Want to stay anonymous? Don't post to the internet from your home or work computer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
IP Address + Time = (for most cases) the ISP Account of who posted.
That's idiotic. Identifying an account holder does NOT tell you who made a post.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Texas Courts
Down here in Texas we don't put up with that anonymous internet crap like you folks in other places do. You wanna go gettin uppity or shootin off yer mouth round here you gonna pay the price. Not like in California where they gots queers an all that other shit. Nope, down here in Texas we gots righteous judges.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I wish some people could read. They did not sue "everyone". They sued for the names and information for 178 usernames. Read the complaint.
"That doesn't mean that you can say anything you want -- but it does mean that a court should be quite clearly convinced that the speech violates the law before allowing any progress in an attempt to unmask an anonymous participant." --Defamation, even if it happens anonymously, is still actionable. The comments alleged in the complaint are defamation. Case proven; therefore the IPs should be released.
I'm not sure why people are so up in arms about it. The judge had to follow the existing law - you know the one that says you can't libel and slander? The one that exists in EVERY state?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The comments were a lot more than "somewhat nasty." Judge for yourself;
Seems somewhat nasty to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Texas, are you going to give them all the death penalty too? Sounds like the judge is power-tripping.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure why people are so up in arms about it. The judge had to follow the existing law - you know the one that says you can't libel and slander? The one that exists in EVERY state?
I don't know about every other state, but the law in Texas did not require the judge to order the revelation of all these identities. Check the law before you go shooting off your mouth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Subpoena First, Ask Questions Later
One of the virtues of the very earliest of the major rulings on the standards for Internet anonymity -- the Dendrite case in New Jersey -- is that the judge requires a showing of merit BEFORE any discovery was allowed. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions the tendency is not to think about anonymity at the outset but to allow the lawyers to serve subpoenas and then consider anonymity only if there is an objection to the subpoena.
We lawyers need to be arguing more for the strict application of Dendrite. There is in fact a Texas appellate state court ruling that requires an affirmative showing for discovery to identify anonymous defendants, In re Does 1-10, 242 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007), just as there are cases like that in California. Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, 72 Cal. Rptr.3d 231 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2008). But the problem is that the plaintiff comes in asking for discovery and it is just an ex parte proceeding with nobody to point out to the judge what the governing law is. It will be interesting to learn whether the lawyer who came into court ex parte called the judge's attention to the legal requirement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Trolling Issue
They want 178 trolls?
Oh my! 0_0
What shall I do?
I've read the case..
Never posted anything to a sexual site or trolled any opinioners on a sex site, except for Connor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mo der a tors
Moderators on Topix delete the Hell out of a lot of non-libelous messages on a regular basis. At least that is my experience in Valdosta, GA. There is too much subjectivity by the Valdosta moderator who acts on a whim to treat commentators differently.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
REFIK W. ELER P. A. SUCKS! || REFIK W. ELER IS A THIEF AND A SCOUNDREL! http://refikelersucks.t35.com/ MY CRAZY NEIGHBOR! :: RUNS WILD IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA http://mycrazyneighbor.do.sapo.pt/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Soooo....
Is this right to anonymity based on legislations, or on constitutional interpretations? If it's the former, the anonymity right can be diluted, if not overturned, by new laws to fine-tune it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I agree, if people want to slander other people on Topix. They should have to put their REAL name on the post. I have a similar problem in Missouri. I had a husband and wife come to my work and ask to speak with my boss and find out if I had wrote this stuff on topix using the company's computer. They are just trying to find out who wrote it, but is wasn't me. She has slandered my family. And she refuse's to stop telling others that she knows I wrote it, while the real people who wrote it or getting a free laugh on me...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment