53 Comments - John A Logan - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:00 am: The Supreme Court did the right thing today. On a side note, Rich, you do a good job moderating comments here. I’ve been deleted dozens of times. Sometimes I don’t agree with it, but if I want to say whatever I want, I should get my own blog. - Carhartt Representative - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:00 am: I hate comment sections and avoid them like the plague, but what responsibility does a newspaper (or Capitol Fax) for that matter to police their forums, especially if they’re moderated? - Wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:02 am: I’ve always been amazed at the willingness of newspapers and magazines to debase their brands by giving over their online editions to knuckle-draggers. They wouldn’t allow that garbage in tneir print sections. You can’t post an intern to enforce standards online? - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:04 am: Anyone willing to publically claim that one of their fellow citizens is a pedophile because they’ve announced their willingness to submit to the will of the electorate - needs to be seen as an assassin. - Liberty - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:10 am: But the first amendment rules… he will never be convicted– Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:13 am: ===Hustler Magazine v. Falwell=== That case, unlike this one, revolved around a clear case of satire, which is protected. This, however, is clearly not. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:16 am: ==But the first amendment rules== The First Amendment doesn’t protect everything. That’s a fallacy. - Downstate Illinois - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:18 am: Accusing a public official/figure of a serious crime without any basis is libel and actionable. - Rayne of Terror - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:20 am: I won’t even comment on Above The Law because the comment section is such a cesspool. It’s a loss for them generally because the quality of their content has improved so much over the last couple years that they could have a great & informative comment section if they put some work into moderating it. - Threepwood - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:24 am: I couldn’t agree more with this decision, and I’m pretty twitchy when it comes to restricting online speech… This was defamation. Being anonymous and online doesn’t change that. There are plenty of cases I’d disagree with…my “favorites” are businesses suing over negative reviews for defamation or some form of restraint of trade. Our libel laws could use some tweaking, though they’re nothing like the UK’s. And I think too many people are starting to see harsh, public criticism as persecution or substantial attack. But you don’t get to lie or make harmful claims without evidence. - A guy - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:24 am: ===And the Illinois Supreme Court thankfully upheld that viewpoint today.=== Here, here. The first amendment comes with the responsibility of taking ownership for what you say. I hate those comment sections too. They’re a coward’s paradise. - Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:24 am: I’m all for free speech, but I’m also all for having to live with the consequences of that speech. A good decision IMO. - Doofman - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:26 am: Just to clarify (since I read the whole opinion and am still not clear) this ruling only covers whether or not the commenter should be able to hide behind the anonymity and avoid being identified for a defamation suit, not the actual merits of that defamation suit, right? - Spidad60 - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:31 am: How fast would comment sections be cleaned up/moderated if the newspapers saw declining hits on those pages, resulting in decreased add revenue? - A Jack - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:32 am: So does Madigan have a case against Rauner? “Corrupt” without any factual evidence sounds like defamation to me. - PublicServant - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:34 am: Agree, Rich. Thanks for patrolling your blog. Everyone should be held accountable for the lies they benefit from at the expense of others. Now, if we could just apply the decision of the court in this matter to lies told in the political arena. - nona - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:34 am: Free speech should not be a license to slander with impunity. Public officials should have a right to sue for defamation with a reasonable prospect to win when the comments are false and vicious. - JoanP - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:43 am: Let’s be clear on what the decision was. It was NOT a ruling on the merits of the case. It simply said that the complaint was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to know the name of the pseudonymous commenter. - Shoe Searer - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:49 am: Merits of any potential defamation suit aside, I just cannot imagine feeling the need to bring a suit here. At least for the ostensible purpose of restoring one’s name and image (did he truly feel that his reputation would be tarnished by this?). Perhaps it was “wow this fuboy is a little sh*thead - I should make his life hell for awhile.” That I can kind of understand. Though still clogging the courts either way imo. - nona - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:50 am: === Let’s be clear on what the decision was. It simply said… plaintiff is entitled to know the name of the pseudonymous commenter. === Fuboy was fighting pretty hard to remain anonymous, as opposed to standing up and taking responsibility for his comments. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:51 am: Rich, I agree with you. There is a big difference between being upset and making nasty comments that are not destroying somebody or making up lies that can destroy someone. I can say that I do not like the Governor and make fun of him. However, it would be wrong, making false witness, for me to accuse him of things that are not true. This apples to any politician or person. You hit it on the head with the word satire. We can state opinions that are clear opinions but we should not try to destroy another with lies and deception. - Threepwood - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:52 am: A Jack: Politicians have some pretty broad legal protections to to lie. I wish I was kidding. Though I admit I don’t know all the details, the legal opinions may have been more about campaign ads…? But surely we all remember “Not intended to be a factual statement.” JoanP: I got that. I’m comfortable with releasing the identity to the court in this context. And indeed that’s mostly my point here: Internet anonymity is not some magic charm against being potentially liable for defamation. - Gooner - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:53 am: I also hate anonymous comments and the willingness of newspapers to allow truly racist comments. For years, any story about a black suspect would lead to several racist comments on the Sun Times page. Ultimately, the quality of the comments reflects on the author of the piece. If racist or deeply offensive comments are allowed, it means that the author is OK with it. Last note on this - I also question many using nicknames to post. There are times for it (i.e. a state employee posting something about state policy) but overall I wonder if it causes some lack of civility. A few years ago, I switched to a barely concealed name here (anybody who knows me outside this forum can pair it up without any real effort) and for me, it has been a positive. If I post something rude here I know my friends recognize. Not that it was ever an issue before, but for me at least it is a healthy reminder of the tone of what to post. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:54 am: Another example of the Illinois Supreme Court getting it right. - Doofman - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:05 am: A thought experiment: would the court’s ruling have been any different if we replaced “Bill Hadley” with “Denny Hastert” and “Fuboy” with “Individual A”? Should it have been? In other words, should anonymity protections be any different if the person in question is making an actual accusation as opposed to pure political bomb throwing? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:06 am: === In other words, should anonymity protections be any different if the person in question is making an actual accusation as opposed to pure political bomb throwing? === Truth is the best protection against libel suits. - Gooner - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:08 am: Doofman, in an online comments section? Absolutely. It is one thing to write a letter like to police asking for assistance. However, if you choose to make it in a public forum, you risk the consequences. - A Jack - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:19 am: Okay, I get it. You can publicly defame someone, but not anonymously defame someone. I guess that makes sense because you have the right to face your accuser. Although it seems to me that Hadley was spending a lot of time pursuing a commentator that no one would have taken seriously. If I were to sue every commenter that said state employees were lazy or overpaid, I would be spending all my time in court. - NotRichMiller - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:22 am: Relevant: http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2014/3/10/Good_Luck_I_m_Behind_7_Proxies.jpg - Skeptic - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:30 am: “You can publicly defame someone, but not anonymously defame someone.” Well, that was part of the case. fuboy claimed that Hadley’s case was invalid because Hadley was seeking the identify of fuboy, who doesn’t exist. The court disagreed saying that “fuboy” isn’t anonymous, just an alias. - Shoe Searer - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:32 am: ==If I were to sue every commenter that said state employees were lazy or overpaid, I would be spending all my time in court.== I believe one of the elements of defamation is that the statement is false. /snark - Gooner - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:35 am: “Lazy” and “overpaid” are opinions. As a general rule, opinions are not defamatory. Defamation requires a statement of fact. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:39 am: So does this mean that teachers can sue Arizona Bob? - The Way I See It - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:41 am: Comments sections are the home of internet tough guys. On the other hand, if you want to see the ugliest basest reaction to domething, you dont have to go far. I appreciate the quality of comments and the guidelines like nowhere else - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:59 am: Another local case of note - and one that is a good litmus test of the recent Facebook “threat” ruling by SCOTUS - is the Nokomis man who was arrested for meth possession and possible manufacturing. He decided to air his “grievances” on Facebook and essentially threatened the local sheriff and judge assigned to his case. Then, his friends & family thought it would be smart to do the same thing (minus the threats). I wonder how the local circuit court will handle that. - JS Mill - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:09 pm: =So does this mean that teachers can sue Arizona Bob?= I think you have a compelling thought there! - Keyser Soze - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:12 pm: Springfield’s SJ-R once had an anonyomous comment blog but it was policed to censor the FUBoys. It was then very popular and heavily used. But I think that budget considerations eliminated the blog police and the site was subsequently converted to a Facebook style blog. It’s not used very much these days. - Emily Booth - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:30 pm: I’m so happy to hear this. My favorite newspaper comments are at the NYT. A well educated readership who write thoughtfully. The Chicago Tribune ended up with a lot of fake Facebook commenters. At DNAinfo, I actually saw a commenter who must have had police or internet connections who called out a particular commenter because he didn’t live in the ‘hood or in the city for that matter. There are a handful of commenters here who I look forward to reading. - A Jack - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 12:49 pm: The problem is that there are many that take the opinion that state workers are lazy and overpaid as fact. So I think as a class state workers have been defamed and it’s the same as if a particular race or ethnicity were defamed. But that’s my opinion. - Harry - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 1:00 pm: People who place themselves in the public eye get less protection than anonymous “Everymans.” I would be surprised if Fuboy were to lose a libel suit if Hadley brings one. OTOH, Hadley does have a right to know who Fuboy is, so he can sue if he wants to. What Fuboy wrote was way over the top. - Gooner - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 1:02 pm: A Jack, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between “fact” and “opinion.” “Overpaid” could never be a “fact.” It is always a conclusion. You may not like that opinion, but you have no cause of action for defamation. - Kevin Highland - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 4:30 pm: Good! I’ve a 1st amendment right to say what every I want. I’ve also got a 1st amendment responsibility to face repercussions of what I say. IL Supremes got it right! - A Jack - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 4:57 pm: I don’t know. It seems like the definition of “libel per se” might cover a public employee bringing suit over being called overpaid. Not that it matters to me since I consider such suits as trivial. But if someone ever brings one, I will be rooting for them. - Amalia - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 4:59 pm: careful Rich. don’t encourage us to use the “M” word. I have the list posted on my computer in fear of you wielding your banning power! - Gooner - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 5:05 pm: A Jack, you really need to figure out “fact” v. “opinion.” - Arizona Bob - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 5:19 pm: @AA I don’t demean teachers, AA, just unions and the bureaucracies that make much of public education a failing institution! and to JSMILL…Yo Mama! - Arizona Bob - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 5:23 pm: One other interesting spin on this is who has the burden of proof for establishing that what a poster said was false and not subject to opinion or interpretation. Proving a case against a statement like “$120K per 174 work day teachers, with no requirements for optimal student outcomes, are overpaid” would make for some interesting argument! - Conusone - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 7:37 pm: On the other hand if Hadley were elected a Mayor, and Fuboy called his comments parody, What? It’s ‘Protected’? Like Peoria’s Mayor Ardis, much discussed, maligned here, as Mayor, you have the City use it’s position to ID the Twitter posters, THEN have your Police Force go in an bust em up? Fuzzy lines, for sure. Made more so, as a Public Figure/Politician you are the target of much abuse. Check the Lincoln Library for examples, hateful, disgraceful, and more, of ‘Ol Abe, from 150 years ago. Back to Peoria/Ardis, in case anyone has forgotten, here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/how-your-inbox-looks-after-becoming-internet-enemy-1/ And Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-hsVlPtFao&sns=em And then this also: An old Editor taught me years ago, if you are not willing to put YOUR NAME on it, it’s not worth reading - he routinely threw away “Letters to the Editor” (unsigned ones) without reading them. Many sites, DON’T WANT A NAME… including here. “And please take a half second to come up with a nickname.” So be it. Summarized by what? “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds” ? Oh, Oh, … here it comes … duck & cover - A Jack - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 10:45 pm: Gooner you seem awfully anxious to convince me what the far right has been saying for years now is just their opinion. Indeed maybe you should be trying to convince them of that since they have been repeating it as fact. But the real test if you remember from law class is whether harm, generally considered financial harm, was done through what was said. That is the most difficult part of a libel / slander suit to prove. - Shoe Searer - Thursday, Jun 18, 15 @ 11:39 pm: A Jack - It does not matter if some bonehead Republican accepts as fact that “state workers - via mass unionization - greatly inhibit the efficiency and productivity of state government, and in doing so, harm themselves and those most dependent on the state”. No matter how true this is, no matter how many rational people understand it and work to remedy it, it’s still an opinion and NOT actionable under tort law. Hope that helps. - Gooner - Friday, Jun 19, 15 @ 10:14 am: No A Jack, “harm” is not the test. There needs to be a statement of fact and not of opinion. Opinion is not actionable. - Qui Tam - Friday, Jun 19, 15 @ 12:13 pm: Rich, I was required to give the IL Attorney General my blog names form this post during a deposition in a whistleblower case. The offensive part about the AG pushing for disclosure was that they were defending law breakers in the case. Just so you know, people on this blog are exposed when the IL AG has an objective. - Guy - Tuesday, Jun 23, 15 @ 2:23 am: I don’t believe this is a statement of fact. I’m not a lawyer, and I think the Internet is a jungle that needs to be given more precise rules, but in general it is a place of “hyperbole, exaggeration, and rhetoric” just like the judge states. What the judge doesn’t do is explain why this particular statement is NOT hyperbole. It’s a bad person trying to get attention, trying to make some kind of crude joke. I’d assume a young male without a fully developed brain whose now the subject of a witch hunt. It wasn’t intended as a factual assertion. If I read that for the first time, I - a fairly reasonable person - would not be inclined to take it seriously. I take very little seriously on the Internet comment sections. Because, again, like the judge says, the Internet is filled with hyperbole. It’s pretty much a lot of satire and black humor. If these types of cases keep going against free speech, thousands upon thousands of comments will have to be litigated. Not because people are “bad”, but because they are mostly saying things without thinking in an attempt for attention. In other words, crude humor and hyperbole. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.