Once Again, Public Official Thinks Its Illegal To Be An Anonymous Critic
from the the-right-to-anonymity dept
US Courts (unlike some other courts) have been quite good at recognizing that anonymity is part of free speech. Ruling after ruling after ruling by courts, specifically in dealing with things like anonymous blogging or forum posting have found that it's perfectly legal to be anonymous. That doesn't mean that you can defame others, but just being anonymous is not illegal, and an upset individual can't sue just to find out who the anonymous critics are.Apparently, the Police Director in Memphis is unaware of such first amendment rights. Slashdot points us to the news that Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL to find out the name of a blogger who has been critical of Godwin. Of course, being critical also isn't illegal. But sometimes that's hard to understand when you're the target of the criticism. Hopefully a court explains the law to Godwin in short order.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is this really suprising?
It's an emotional response and it doesn't matter that logically it shouldn't work. Logic falls by the way-side when emotions rule the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Godwin's Law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
THE BLOGGER WAS NOT BEING CRITICAL
You have the right in this country to defend yourself, to face your accusers. I think Godwin deserves this chance, but I also think someone other than him should be investigating those accusations and getting the blogger's identity.
This isn't as cut and dry as it appears to be when you just glance at it. I suggest you all actually RTFA in detail before pointing fingers. It makes you look like hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To call the officer a backwards ass country f**k is once again responding emotionally. To say that police are almost the most corrupt force on the planet is a generalization as well. I agree that the law is sometimes used as a logical means to further an illogical emotional response. Measures are in place in most cases to guard against this.
Even the above two posts show that we are an creature ruled by emotions and logic but unable to keep both in check.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Criticism is one thing, accusation is another
The blogger is clearing hinting that he knows much more about the situations mentioned in the blog. If there are ongoing investigations, talking about them from inside the department is a crime.
This is not a clear-cut case of First Amendment rights. Just because the sheep at /. are baying at something doesn't make it a wolf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who does this guy think he is?
(There you go, Godwin fans.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what are FA limits?
The FA is silent on the right of one person to take legal action against someone who knowingly and maliciously assaults with a lie. That's called libel when put in writing. The FA does not protect a libeler. I know all about how libel works because in a former life I sued a famous clothing designer who had lied about my own work in front of my peers of independent Sale Representatives, to avoid paying me commissions he owed me. It cost him big time.
The language of the FA has been studied under repeated challenges before the the Supreme Court, especially in the last 50 to 70 years. The results clarify what is, and is not, protected speech.
The most famous (and often misquoted opinion, confirming a conviction) says, you cannot cry fire in a crowded theater IF YOU KNOW THERE IS NO FIRE. (caps to emphasize the part often ommmited.) The issues there are truth and intent.
As long as the person in this story can establish that there have been lies published with malicious intent, there are tons of Supreme Court rulings to establish that this sheriff, red neck or not, has a right to protect his name, expose the libeler and put some financial hurt on him. Yes, there are some tricky side issues. The Courts repeatedly say that Famous people can't be libeled because they have access to media that can promote the truth. That may or may not apply to the Sheriff. But even then, his claim for damages may be severely limited because of his public visibility and media access but he still can get a favorable judgement if he can prove those two key issues.
Like it or, hate him or not, he too has his rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Better than Deep Throat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WE ARE ANONYMOUS
[ link to this | view in thread ]