I actually kind of dig it. Can't wait to see the impact & implications to the "Keyboard Warriors" who's vitriol will now have to be tempered, as it would be in normal conversation.
^^^^ that was my first though. that is why its a blog! just like tv, if ya dont want to see it, turn it off-because some of us enjoy when keyboard warriors point out the facts!
I'd like to see the day where if such a case is pushed for defamation or whatnot, that you got to meet these "cyber tough guys" in person. For alot of them, I'm sure it'd be a humbling moment...was that transparency running down your pants?
If you're "man enough" to call someone names on the internet, then you should be "man enough" to do it in public, face to face.
Hiding behind a keyboard without fear of reprisal is being a coward, plain & simple.
So, if you can't say something degrading in public for fear of getting slapped w/ defamation suits, why should you be given a "shield of anonymity" because you can peck out the same words on a keyboard?
Skank? She's suing over skank? I wonder what this will do to the topix website I hear so much about. I understand locally anyway it's nothing but trash talking and name calling.
Some of you are missing the point. The point is that no longer is it an impenetrable refuge to post via pseudonyms on the internet. If you aren't willing to reveal your identity yet you are willing to go out of your way to wage unprovoked, hateful personal attack, then you are a coward and need to be revealed for it.
No "Anonymous" poster here has ever waged that kind of attack. Plenty of posters disguising themselves via pseudonyms have.
The article stated that this may open up a whole new can of worms reguarding anonimity. If a company like HD wanted to find out who posted what on a message board...could they? If this keeps moving forward, I'd say yes.
It's going to leave "attack" pretty open to interpretation.
People who speculate like Scott describes are nothing but miserable gossip hounds.
Throwing out an insult is not the issue. As Scott says, it is the false information coupled with an intent to defame or do harm that will get you in trouble.
If one client saw that blog & she lost work due to a dumb client & even dumber blogger, then yeah, she's got a right to know who's spreading the crap about.
If you have any sort of influence over someone, no matter how small, you have to accept responsibility for your actions.
It's very simple.
In answer to your question Spike, it's the blogger.
Got something to say? be man enough to openly state your opinion & put your name to it, is my view.
If the blogger had put his/her name on it & a disclaimer at the beginning, stating that all views expressed were his own opinions, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on;