Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against No Longer Anonymous Commenter... After Commenter Was Revealed
from the oops dept
Last week, I had seen the news that a defamation lawsuit from an ex-Congressman in NY against an "anonymous" online critic had been dismissed as an anti-SLAPP violation. This is good news, and we really could use a national anti-SLAPP law that prevents the filing of bogus lawsuits designed to shut people up. However, Sam Bayard, over at the Citizen Media Law Project, digs into the details on this case, noting that an earlier judge had already revealed the anonymous commenter. The whole thing is pretty odd, but basically, it looks like the first judge relied on a lower bar in determining whether or not anonymity should be allowed -- claiming that no actual malice needed to be proved. However, when the revealed commenter filed an anti-SLAPP claim, the new judge had to take "actual malice" into account, and couldn't find any, thus tossing out the case. Still, it does seem like an odd, and vaguely troubling, result to find out that an anonymous commenter was unmasked... only to have the case thrown out on anti-SLAPP grounds at a later date. Just the fact that the guy was revealed may serve as disincentive for future critics to speak their minds.
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, anti-slapp, comments, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And likewise in arguments against data retention policies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grammar Nazi Alert
Really?!
Michael, I am sure you can do better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HUH?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grammar Nazi Alert
Hmm. Not to get into a grammar debate, but what's the problem here? It's the past perfect, and I believe it's accurate. I had seen the news, indicating that I saw it, and then stopped seeing it. Just saying I saw the news had a different implication, which is less accurate. I was trying to note that I had originally seen the content last week, but had left it aside as not worth posting at the time. It's a distinct action that has been completed, and thus the past perfect made sense to me.
But I'm open to an explanation of better grammatical choices, though, I will say that grammar debates seem a bit silly to me. If you can get the point across reasonably, what is the problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it's significant, but there really is a line beyond which arguing about it is just silly. likewise spelling.
[the difference is the point where people start objecting compared to how good i am at them,really :D]
grammatically, i don't see a problem with 'i had seen'... i think.
but 'i saw in the news last week that' reads more easily.
he saw me
i saw him
he had seen me
he knew i had seen him
the news saw me [silly :D]
i saw the news
the news had seen me [also silly]
i had seen the news...
ah! i think i have found the problem, such as it is. it's the 'last week' bit. somehow, that little timing statement goes with 'i saw' but not 'i had seen' get rid of it and the problem goes away, or at least massively reduces.
i still couldn't explain in any detail why though. I'm not good at remember the names of the different things involved.
right, that great big ramble aside, i should say something about the article itself, shouldn't i? :D
this kind of screw up happens all the time. the only way to really fix it is to have strict guidelines with no flex in them at all about what can and can't be filed in the first place... and i don't see anyone going along with that, somehow.
of course, the next question is this: is it possible for him to sue ... err... someone that actually makes sense... over the fact that his name was revealed? if he did so, and won, that'd discourage such events arising again, I'd think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I aplogize
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grammar Nazis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Back to the point
The unfortunate detail about TOR is that it bounces your signal around, in and out of the country, giving the CIA the legal grounds to spy on you (Patriot, Military Commissions Act). That is not to say I don't believe that if they wish they will do whatever they want regardless of the legalities. What is the solution to maintaining privacy?
Stay off the net? What about freedom and dissent?
Whooo! It sure is chilly in here. Brrrrr!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Need for National Anti-SLAPP With Sanctions
We do need a strong national anti-SLAPP law and we also need to address section 230 end runs using trademark claims. The law needs to contain provisions which attach significant sanctions and fines for lawyers and their clients who are found to have abused the process of law.
I suggest that the first lawsuit an attorney brings which is found to be a SLAPP should result in a $10,000 fine for both the client and the attorney. The second should result in a three month suspension of the attorneys privileges and a $100,000 fine for the client. The third and subsequent infractions should result in a one year suspension and a $1,000,000 fine for both the client and the attorney.
Attorneys should be required by law to disclose to clients past rulings and the potential downside to bringing SLAPP cases :)
Good for you Mike for backing a righteous issue. I keep telling people that you don't have your head stuck where the daylight doesn't shine all the time. It is unfortunate that your positions on patents, which are in all likelihood driven by your kissing up to clients or potential clients are so outrageous. Perhaps you will wise up at some point and recognize that so called innovators would not have any inventions without the inventors who produce them and that inventors are entitled to compensation just as he expects to be compensated by his clients.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR act PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]