Lawyers For Guy Charged In Death Of 4 Year Old, Demanding IDs Of 300 Newspaper Commenters
from the anonymity? dept
There have been a lot of stories lately about those who feel wronged demanding the identify of anonymous commenters. The latest such story, sent in by Kent Newsome involves a guy, Lucas Coe, who was charged in the death of his girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter. The local news organizations in Houston wrote about the case, and the stories generated plenty of comments. So, Coe's attorneys are demanding the identifying information on approximately 300 commenters. They're defending the request by saying that "the specificity of some comments that made it appear they came from people with personal knowledge of the case." Really? All 300 said stuff so specific that it appeared they had personal knowledge of the case? Or... is it just that his lawyers don't like what people are saying? Trying to find out the identities of anonymous speakers seems like a clear attempt to stifle free speech through intimidation. Luckily, the news organizations are defending their commenters' right to be anonymous. Hopefully, the courts agree.
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
Filed Under: anonymity, comments, free speech, lucas coe
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can we be sure that they don't want the names and identities so the guy can come and kill their children too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (bang on the table)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll be the first to say it.....
PS - I got you IP address right here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courts will agree
Oh, and note to the lawyer (who is probably reading this): Just because I called your client a child killer instead of an alleged child killer doesn't mean I have any personal knowledge of the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Directed entirely at you Mr Lawyer:
You are a Twat, You're client is Satan's bum-buddy and you spend too much time on the internet. Go read a book, preferably one about Freedom of Speach and Anonymity Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good thing no paywalls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monster publicity
"In the days leading to her death, 4-year-old Emma Thompson suffered 80 contusions, a fractured skull, a brain hemorrhage and a vaginal tear.
About 12 to 24 hours before she died, the Spring girl was hit in the abdomen by an “unknown object,” causing blunt force trauma that killed her, according to court records filed by investigators..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
I'd much rather protect the guy's rights to a fair trial than to protect those who wish to claim the right to anonymously "slander".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society." -- US Supreme Court
You are allowed to make statements, but anonymous slander is not a protected right
No one is claiming slander here (besides, slander is spoken, libel is written).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the above poster: You're a pompous, arrogant, a$$. There isn't evidence of libel in any of the 300 users comments, at least none that was highlighted here by Mike. Even if there was it certainly doesn't justify a subpoena of all the users. Even if all 300 users posts were libelous in fact, no one here or anywhere connected to this story, argued that anonymous libel should be protected. Go look up basic logic and debate, and look up the term "straw man". You're intentionally misrepresenting the argument, either because you're trolling, have a vested interest in doing so, or are just an idiot, and I'm not sure which yet. Why don't you "Get Real", by getting your $hit straight, and getting a real argument, against something you can factually argue about. Until then...I think you saw this coming..it's time to stuff it. Go look that up if you don't know what it means by the way. A trial is for the courts. As is the concept of innocent until guilty.The public at large. has, can, and will continue to pre-judge all the damn well wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That could be one of the questions put on a jury form. It could be phrased as follows: "Have you responded/commented in any form (including, but not limited too: website, weblog aka "blog", forum) of public electronic communication regarding this case, and, or the participants?" If it later was discovered otherwise, the same potential re/mistrial and contempt of court issues/charges could then be handled. That's OK.
That doesn't justify the subpoena of the 300 commenters in this case however, or evidence "fishing expeditions" in general, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly Mike, you're slipping.
No Mike, the lawyer himself says, in between the quotation marks YOU wrote on YOUR blog that _SOME_ of those that left comments knew. Then you, 16 words later, have the gall to say "all". Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why are you putting words into his mouth?
Sometimes Mike you're no better than those you criticize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re-read the quote "dude":
They're defending the request by saying that "the specificity of some comments that made it appear they came from people with personal knowledge of the case." Really? All 300 said stuff so specific that it appeared they had personal knowledge of the case?
So Mike is clearly saying that while they're (this defendent's legal team/lawyer) only claiming some comments have relavence, or show "specific knowledge", they asking for a subpoena on all of the comments. If they weren't asking for all 300 people's info, Mike clearly wouldn't be asking this rhetorical question. Then again, you come across as the same person as "Get Real" with your selective CAPITALIZATION and all. Even if you're not, you appear about as dense as an oak tree, IMHO, to even suggest that any of that matters. The actions of the lawyer should be roundly criticized regardless of your editorial quibble. Sorry "Sean" to disappoint with facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coe attorney seeks IDs behind online comments
"Steinmann said he's sent subpoenas to media including The Houston Chronicle, the Conroe Courier, KHOU (Channel 11) and KTRK (Channel 13).
Those who comment generally use pseudonyms, and the lawyer has asked for identifying information on about 300 of them."
So "Sean" it looks like the lawyer has some explaining to do, not Mike. If only some comments are relavent, again, why the subpoena on 300 individuals? A duh..duh..stutter...duh... Crawl back in your hole now please, and take a book on reading comprehension with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puzzling comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_4787991
The incorrect link does not seem to be a plausible misspelling of the correct link, so this is rather weird.
That site is badly designed, though. For example, a search of it for "Lucas Coe" finds other coverage, but none of the articles has any links, even to one another.
And then, of course, there's this:
"Copyright notice: All materials in this archive are copyrighted by Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspapers Partnership, L.P., or its news and feature syndicates and wire services. No materials may be directly or indirectly published, posted to Internet and intranet distribution channels, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use."
Er, fair use, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]