Judge orders ISP to release names of Wikipedia posters who slammed Facconable

Source: Denver Post

In a ruling that could have broader implications for online privacy and free speech, a federal magistrate judge in Denver has ruled that anonymity for Internet commenters goes only so far.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18296844

Stupid fucking judge

Personally, I don't think the right to free speech guarantees the right to anonymous free speech or the right to slander.

With no anonymous speech, people will have to live with the fact that parties who don't like what they say online will have the ability to punish them (openly or covertly) for their views.

If an employer, for example, finds out that an employee is expressing views contrary to the views of the company, or the company's bosses, then they will be able to pressure and/or punish that person (openly or covertly) for expressing those views.

Similarly, anyone with a minority view will have to face up to the fact that expressing their views may cause them problems with neighbors or others. As an example, people who expressed opposition to the Iraq war back in 2003 online were often only comfortable doing anonymously, since they feared being targeted, isolated and vilified for expressing opinions that may in the community thought were "unpatriotic" at the time.

That okay with you? Personally, I see a lot of problems with it. I'm more inclined to want to live with the consequences of too much free speech online, versus too little.

However, I recognize that current political and public opinion is not particularly friendly to free speech. If it wasn't already in the Bill of Rights, I don't think there is any way the First Amendment would or could be enshrined into law. I'm not even sure a majority of DUers would support it.

Not a good situation. All in all, though, I expect that authorities, cheered on by right wingers, will do their best to make anonymous online free speech disappear, or to be at minimum terribly difficult to do. It fits well with the antidemocratic coporate agenda.

Say my employer is BP. I should be able to freely state that I think they suck for drilling in the Gulf, or that they treat their employees like shit or that they are wrong to claim that offshore drilling is safe.

But I shouldn't be able to say "I'm an employee of BP and they hire illegal immigrant children to run drilling rigs", unless I have actual knowledge and proof that that is true. I don't have any great love for BP or a lot of other corporations, but to give somebody carte blanche to lie and protect them because of 'first amendment rights' seems wrong to me.

I think it's wrong that if I knew your full name and address that I could say "Joe Smith of 115 1st Ave in Boise ID molested my daughter" and post it anywhere on the interest where anyone could find it, and to say poor Joe Smith has no recourse against me.

You may think slander is a first amendment issue, but I sure as hell don't.

Like that?

:hi:

Only instead of HopeHoops posting your real name, address, etc. I'm pretty sure you or I wouldn't want someone to feel free to post libelous crap about us with no threat of repercussion.

Seriously, I don't think anyone cares if you say goofy, Monty Python-esque crap about someone, but to accuse someone, or even some corporation, and frankly, even someone or some corporation that I hate like Blackwater or BP, of doing something immoral or illegal, is wrong. It pissed me off to no end to see freepers accuse Clinton of child molestation and murder because he had a consensual affair with a 22 year old and because Ron Brown died in a plane crash.

There are a helluva lot of people from Cheney to banksters to Limbaugh, that I think probably belong in jail, but I don't think anyone deserves to be defamed for something they didn't do. I don't think I have a right to call Cheney a child molester with no evidence whatsoever, and I dislike that douchebag about as much as anyone I can think of.

People always seem to be trying to skew those topics one way or another on a continual basis. For pure factual stuff, it's great. For politics and religion, among others, not so much.

I recently listened to a discussion between some tech person and a former Wiki administrator. What he described was pretty strange; they've got Wiki site business being conducted in IRC chat rooms, for example. Decisions are being made by cliques behind closed doors and..... well, the end result is what you're complaining about.

Benjamin Franklin wouldn't have been able to write Poor Richard's Almanac and most of our founding fathers would have been silenced.

and it would ultimately be up to the posters to prove that what they had written was truthful.

<img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

but I'm reminded of the old days with the original Electronic civil disobedience crowd when you could download Floodnet software for group attacks. They emphasised that all should acknowledge they were ultimately reponsible for their own actions.

In the example you used it was largely determined by the outcome of the case of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson which determined what they could get away with. If anything is at fault its your own potty legal system.

seems to be a trend in America.

That can be good or bad, as Dumbsfeld said, "freedom is messy".