| Author | Message | ||
     Dbird29 |
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/02/08/0243242.shtml "A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California (PDF) in Krinsky v. Doe H030767 overturned a lower court ruling and decided that the First Amendment right to anonymous speech protects internet trolls, too. Specifically, the ruling said that 'this juvenile name-calling cannot reasonably be read as stating actual facts.' And, even though some of the statements were crudely sexual and accused Ms. Krinsky of being among 'boobs, liars and crooks,' the statements were held to 'fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.'" | ||
| Froggy |
I hope Rocket dosen't see this. Well he is in the UK, so it wont apply anyway. ;) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The issue is that within a privately owned bulletin board, the First Amendment doesn't apply. Participation on the bulletin board, based upon the rules of the board, implies consent with a revocation of First Amendment rights within the confines of the board. You may stand on the corner and state what you like. You may open your own bulletin board and state what you like. You may NOT enter a private bulletin board and state what you like if those statements are against the rules and regulations established by the owner of the bulletin board. Public participation is not the standard by which the First Amendment is applied. Consider the source. The ruling is from California. It will be challenged and overturned. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on February 08, 2008) | ||
| Jaimec |
The First Amendment applies to the Government. Nowhere does it say what a private individual can allow within his own domain. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The First Amendment applies to the Government. Nowhere does it say what a private individual can allow within his own domain." You're flat wrong The first ten amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights. From the NATIONAL ARCHIVES web site..... "During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered." | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Freedom of speech is a dicey one. The liberal artist that painted an American flag on the porcalen of a urinal that was plumbed to run and flush during the exhibit, and porn for prisoners are all protected. yet the disparaging remarks that I may make here and there could end up being as slander or liable? wtf  | ||
| Hexangler |
The first amendment also give us the right not to listen.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ferris, What Jamiec is saying is that Freedom of Speech as enumerated under the First Amendment is speech that is protected against abridgement or criminal prosecution by the US government. The Supreme Court has long upheld the right for a private organization to establish and maintain standards of speech and conduct. If you attend Oral Roberts University and go on a cursing tirade, they have the right to expel you because your speech and conduct are in violation of school policy. By attending the university you agree to waive certain rights as a component of your free speech. You may say whatever you like without reprisals from the government, but there will still be repercussions within the private organization. If you cuss out your boss, you won't be arrested, but you still be fired. You are not protected from the consequences of your speech. You can state anything you want on an internet bulletin board. The Government won't arrest you, but you may have your posting rights revoked. The CA Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. Their decision will be overturned by the US Supreme Court. | ||
| Bill0351 |
Krinsky v. Doe has nothing to do with whether or not a person has the right to participate in an online message board. It doesn't in any way impact a list owner's right to kick a person off their list. It speaks to a person’s right to speak anonymously. That right is protected under the 1st amendment until the anonymous poster interferes with another person's protected rights or commits a crime. In fact, this isn't even a benchmark case. All the opinion states is that Ms. Krinsky didn't prove libel, so she couldn't force Yahoo to give up the real identity of someone who was trash-talking her on the Yahoo Business site. Bill | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Bstd, yes, that's true but I don't see how that applies to the case in question. This was a dispute between two individuals. Apparently, one took offense to what the other said online. The court ruled that while it may be in poor taste or immature it's not grounds for a lawsuit. I believe we've all seen the kind of behavior ,online, the court referenced. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
An example below of one of the more colorful postings cited in the lawsuit "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene." | ||
| Blake |
I sure wouldn't be surprised if that is just another far left liberal court ruling from Cali that is bound to be overturned. Note that the recent ruling overturns that of the lower court, so the lower court judges saw the issue differently. No one has any government guaranteed right to post anonymously on any discussion forum. A forum is a private domain. The granting or not of such a "right" is entirely up to the owner of that domain. Apparently yahoo is all for protecting anonymity among such malevolent types. The forum at www.cmraracing.com does not allow any form of anonymous posting. Every post is flagged with the author's first and last name, and only CMRA members are allowed to post. | ||
| Bill0351 |
It has nothing to do with left or right. It was just an overturned decision in a lawsuit. The lower court thought libel/defamation was proven and an appeals court disagreed. One of the reasons Yahoo had to protect the posters anonymity is that they allow anonymous postings in the first place. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Badweb does the same thing. I don't think the list owner has any idea who the real people behind names like Bill0351 are. All personal disclosure is voluntary. If anyone wanted to know our real names, they would have to file suit to find that out. Unless the person in question broke a law, that real name wouldn't be divulged. Badweb is very closely policed and well administered site. It has clear guidelines and a philosophy that wouldn't have ever allowed things to get as far as they got in Krinsky v. Doe anyway. The initial post sparked my interest so I just looked up the case and read through the PDF. It was an interesting read but LONG. It pays to know your rights. Plus, I have always loved Constitutional law. It’s the framework that makes our country great. Bill | ||
| Bad_karma |
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." Sounds to me like it applies only to the governments of the United Socialist States of America. It doesn't matter to me what liberal courts have twisted to mean. It seems straight foreword enough. Joe | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Bill0351, spot on. Take the time to read the original complaint and it becomes clear there is no foundation for the lawsuit. It isn't about Yahoo or Badweb's ability to monitor and policy their own web sites. This was a dispute between a group of individuals. A few used language against another which wasn't appreciated by the receiving party and that person sought to know the identity of those individuals by contacting Yahoo, claiming liable and slander. When Yahoo basically said, "f*** off", that person sued in court to obtain the names of those individuals. For example, it would be as if I called Bill0351 an ass**** and he subsequently went to the Badweb administrators seeking my personal information. While the BadWeb may choose to give him the information they certainly are under no obligation to do so. The Appeals Court ruled that while it is immature,etc. it is not slanderous nor libelous to call Bill0351 an "ass****. and therefore, the complainant has no right to the identities of the defendants. Bill0351, I wasn't calling you an ass****, for real, so please don't sue me  | ||
| Jaimec |
Anytime I see anyone post something about "it's another LIBERAL vendetta" or something like that, I immediately assume the poster is an ignorant jackass who spends far too much time reading Ann Coulter and listening to Rush Limbaugh and just ignore him/her. Everything is far more complicated than that simplistic point of view. Anyone who classifies it as a "Liberal" or "Conservative" issue isn't paying attention and has already made up their mind without truly examining all the issues. | ||
| Court |
>>I have always loved Constitutional law. How are you at doing homework?  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
You know with out Trolls, SPAM, Porn Cam hustlers, enhancement Rx ads and pyramid loan schemes, my in bin would be EMPTY. | ||
| Bill0351 |
Funny because I read the Krinsky vs Doe decision when I was supposed to be writing a paper for a psychology class. Doing homework isn't my strong point. Oh and Ferris? You will be hearing from my lawyer. Bill0351 vs Ferris_von_bueller the nation's first completely pseudonymous lawsuit. Bill | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
 ........... |
