33 Comments - Richard Afflis - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:27 pm: ABSOLUTELY! While we have the right to free speech, we do not have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, people who are the target of defamatory comments have the right to “fight back.” No one has a right to slander someone and if they do, there are consequences. Speech is free, but not free to be anonymous. If this were actual coverage of an actual news story, or an investigation of some sort, that would be one thing. To make comments that are intended to harm someone with little or no basis in fact and are merely spouting an opinion should not be protected. It is nothing but cowardice to make negative comments about someone on a public forum and think you have a right to hide in anonymity from consequences of what is said. - Joe in the Know - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:28 pm: It’s a slippery slope, no doubt about it. But I would have to say yes, if the person is hiding behind a fake name, like I am here, and uses that fake name to slander someone, they should be held accountable. Maybe this will require people to think twice about saying something offensive about someone else when they lack the spine to post under their own name. So, yes, disclose their name if they defame. - Gregor - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:31 pm: That would be the death of your commentary section, I should think, if it went thru. And every other online commentary section in any newspaper online site. Way to kill off viewership/readership even more. If I was the paper I would fight this tooth and nail, same as they should protect reporters against having to reveal sources. It would remove all trust anybody puts in the Fourth Estate, if they just give you up to the complainer without a fight. It would put a huge damper on freedom of expression if everyone believed they could be singled out for speaking their mind and no longer had the cover of anonymity. Sure, it works both ways, and the anonymity lets some people be jerks. That’s why your site has to have a moderator that has good judgement, to filter the worst of the nutbars or obscenity. But that’s a far cry from getting back at someone for making a catty remark about a political candidate by ordering their identification. Newspaper web sites should be held accountable for keeping their online houses clean, just as you do yours, Rich, and no, they don’t do as good a job at it as you do now. But I think the paper has to assume responsibility, and it the PAPER you sue if you’ve been defamed online, not the commenter. And as of now, I’m changing my pseudo to “Rusty Shackleford”. - shore - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:35 pm: I’m not a lawyer but there’s freedom of speech here. Lots of people say mean nasty things, that doesn’t mean you unveil commenters. Ms.stone should learn to get a tougher skin if she wants to get involved in politics. - Joe in the Know - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:38 pm: Gregor, You are wrong, plain and simple. The case is about defamation of one’s character. Not some anonymous, innocuous comment on a political blog. Have you read any of the comments on an online newspaper site? They are out of control and make me quite sad actually at the ignorance of people. Put the words “Barack Obama” and discuss in a sentence and see what happens. The argument here is not about anonymity, it’s about people being held accountable for their actions. Something that has been missing lately. And by the way, it’s a court of law that’s releasing the name, not the newspaper. - Justice - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:39 pm: Comments that constitute liable should not be permitted the same freedoms afforded by the first amendment, i.e. free speech. If you choose to say it, then be willing to be recognized for it. - Irish1 - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:42 pm: Just a point, both commenters were anonymous. “Hipcheck16″ was commenting to “UncleW” - Betty R. - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:43 pm: What would that mean for whistleblowers? They’re “defaming” a company or agency by revealing unflattering things that company or agency doesn’t want made public. Does it then go to trial for a judge to determine whether the whistleblower is telling the truth? Or, who would make the distinction between when it serves the public interest and when it is just defamation? - Lake Voter - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:46 pm: If you believe that a person has the right to sue another person for slander/libel then you would want the case to go Stones way. Please leave out her wacky behavior from the issue at hand. Blogs are a new arena that the law has not caught up to. This case is the beginning of the law writing the rules in this new arena. The case is not changing the definition of slander/libel or the burden of proof before a court of law. The case is only saying the entity where the potential slander/libel was posted has to provide the name of the poster. The right to free speech does not change. My guess is that this ruling could clean-up the comments in the blogs. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:00 pm: Libel and Defamation of Character are crimes which have a fairly high burden of proof. One can be mean and tasteless without breaking any law. If someone with an pseudonym defames another person with a pseudonym, the it is not likely that a crime is committed. If what was said to the youth was not criminal, then the anonymity should be preserved. Anyone can sue anyone at the drop of a hat these days. It is not unusual to have frivolous suits filed to financially crush the opposition. We should not get in the business of unmasking the identity of bloggers unless there is a criminal act being committed. - Gregor - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:01 pm: It will have the effect of suppressing speech. People comment here with fake names because they would lose their jobs if true names were revealed. In Springfield, just putting a controversial or partisan bumper sticker on your car is a career decision, to be carefully considered, as it can cost you raises and promotions. So no, I don’t think that is an atmosphere we need to expand statewide or nationwide. Jerks and libel are part of the costs of a free press, and the libeled are free to comment back and correct the record, are they not? We certainly don’t take away FOX news’ broadcasting license, though they pull stuff like this on a daily basis. - lake county democrat - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:11 pm: Some of the commentators here are presuming guilt of the poster: remember there are defenses to defamation charges (truth, lack of deceptive intent, etc.). Given how incredibly bad attorneys and the judicial system are at preventing leaks, it could be the poster who is being defamed. And yes, the public interest in protecting/encouraging whistleblowing is huge here. That said, I’d favor a middle ground — there might be an extremely serious type of defamation (allegations a person has a disease or committed criminal activity) I’d pierce the veil of anonymity for, but others (”he’s gay”/”the baby isn’t his”/etc.) I’d leave alone. Also keep in mind: technology can make this a moot point. What if a person uses a proxy server that doesn’t store ip addresses for more than 24 hours? Weren’t fliers posted anonymously before the Revolutionary War? - Joe in the Know - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:16 pm: Gregor, You are talking about two distinctly different things. Hiding one’s identity to post his or her opinion on a blog to sheild themselves from political payback is one thing. Ruining a person’s reputation or character is another. And it’s illegal. “Setting the record straight” doesn’t unring a bell. If someone slanders or defames another person there are consequences. - Deep South - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:27 pm: If both commenters were using fake names, then ho harm, no foul. However, if one of the ocmmenters did use a real name, well, then you’d have an issue. In this case, the “victim” is underage, right? If so, that’s a whole different animal. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:50 pm: ===That would be the death of your commentary section, I should think, if it went thru. === Nah. People usually stay in line here. And in the rare instance when they do get way out of line, they’re either deleted right away, or I offer to cooperate, or both. I don’t mess around and I don’t suffer morons lightly. - Will County Woman - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 1:59 pm: yes and no. when the comments are untrue, yes. when the comments are true, no. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 2:02 pm: Rich, are you worried?! In cases of a true defamatory or bullying nature, it is imperative that websites give up the IP address for people who write anonymous AND libelous posts. However, my fear in a state such as Illinois boils down to politicians wanting such information when sites such as this have commenters who post opinionated statements against said politicians. When you open a pandora’s box, as could be the case in a border line civil suit, a judge must clarify that this outing would happen ONLY in cases involving serious, derogatory, bullying libel. - pjw1 - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 2:13 pm: wow Rich - my comment wasn’t “excessively rabid,” a “gratuitous insult” or a “rumor” - it was all 100% truthful and went right to the heart of people in politics trying to hide behind anonymity. (but in this case failed due to stupidity - which you yourself called it at the time!!) I’m very sad that you deleted my comment! - Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 2:25 pm: pjw1, it also had zero to do with the question. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 2:30 pm: == there might be an extremely serious type of defamation (allegations a person has a disease or committed criminal activity) == I believe that under Illinois law, four categories of statements are considered defamation on their face, unless proven true by a preponderance of the evidence presented by the defense: - Statements injuries to an individual’s business, trade or profession; - Statements that someone has a “loathsome” disease (STD, mental illness); - Statements that someone is sexually promiscuous; - Statements that someone committed criminal activity. I may be wrong, but I believe that defamation holds true in these limited cases even for public figures, although public figures would also have to prove malice. In other words, whenever someone says something on this or any other blog that is injurious to a politician’s career, Capitolfax could be compelled to turn over the commenter’s identity. The argument being that damage can be presumed, but the plaintiff has a right to discover the identity in order to prove malice. I think a higher threshold is necessary for alleged libelous publishings outside of these categories. In order to avoid a chilling effect on public debate — and the supreme court has specifically protected anonymous speech — the plaintiff should have to demonstrate to the judge that: 1) There was damage; 2) They are likely to show through a preponderance of evidence that the statements were untrue. Even IF statements were made about her 15 year-old son, I’m not exactly sure what damages they could hope to prove in this case. It would be interesting to see the filing. This seems very similar to the fishing trip that Alderman Helen Shiller’s allies went on against a local blog in Chicago, Uptown Update. That subpoena was recently dropped. Lorraine Swanson has a great write-up here. - pjw1 - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:00 pm: in the matter I referred to, the perpetrator’s own stupidity in letting the fake organization use the postal permit registered to his name is what tripped him up and blew his “anonymous” cover. My connection to the question at hand is whether it’s okay for a politician like Ken to hide behind anonymity in order to level defamatory and disgraceful untruths against an opponent. Yet, he was sent back to Springfield despite being caught doing something that despicable. - Just wondering - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:19 pm: I used to occassionally read a neighborhood blog where there appeared to be very little monitoring; lots of racist, angry posters. Not too long ago, someone posted that a neighborhood establishment and it’s safe to say, a Chicago landmark was closing because of numerous health code violations. The owner of the business contacted the blog operator and threatened to sue. The blog then instituted a new, much needed policy that all posters must be registered on the site. It really got rid of most of the crazies. Bottom line, people should not be allowed to hide behind computer screens and say whatever the heck they want with no accountability. - Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:28 pm: Wait a minute–”Hipcheck16″ defamed “UncleW”? How does a pseudonym defame a pseudonym? I’m gonna have to Bing this… (just doesn’t have the same ring to as “google this”) As far as the QOTD goes, I’ve always felt myself a First Amendment absolutist while acknowledging that all speech is not protected. Slander should be punished, and chasing the name out of an ISP or a newspaper isn’t outrageous. As Mr. Miller said in the Scott post earlier today, those newspaper comment boards are horrendous. They are also stupid and usually don’t approach slander, but if they do, the medium-in-charge has to own up to its role in it and give up the name. - dupage dan - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:32 pm: I generally don’t read other blogs because they are not monitered and filtered. This site is one where I can read and post and feel confortable. It is worthless to me to read the vicious, ignorant, bigoted rantings while trying to engage in civil discourse. Rich, I appreciate that you do monitor this site. Disagreement is one thing - gratuitous written violence is another. That said, I think much leeway must be given so that posters have a fairly free rein. I hope the court sees the need for restraint, coupled with the common sense to know when the line is crossed. The comment about anonymous postings by American revolutionaries is relevant. - Sue Everyone - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:38 pm: Why does Lisa Stone assume anyone reads and/or believes a blog commentator ? An anyomous comment has no credibility. - Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:38 pm: In my perfect world, people would have the ability to filter out information based on it’s value and credibility. Anonymous/pseudonymed comments about a person on a blog or newpaper comment section = 0 credibility. We shouldn’t have to limit free speech because people can’t analyze and prioritize information. We are all consumers of information, we need to develop the ability to know when Billy Mays is selling us snake oil the same way we need to know when politicians or media personalities are doing the same. - pjw1 - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:47 pm: On the other hand, posting anonymously is a learned, Pavlovian response that came from painful experience on Facebook with two of the Toddsters talking heads, who (after I posted disparaging comments about their guy’s hand in mismanaging the County) published personal details about where I lived and worked, organizations and committees I belong to, and pointed to my political contributions recorded online which then provides a step-by-step map to my front door! So, in defense of people who DO have credible things to say but who’ve been burned like I was, there is a certain measure of safety in posting anonymously. I learned my lesson the hard way. - Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:56 pm: There is no constitutional right to defame or libel someone. The US Supreme Court has made that clear. So how could there be a constitutional right to defame someone anonymously? So yes - the court should compel them to give up the name. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 3:59 pm: I’m going to have to include a South Park disclaimer to my postings from now on: “All characters and events mentioned in this posting–even those based on real people– are entirely fictional. Any lyrics and songs parodied here have not been pre-approved by the lyricists or songwriters, especially those who are dead. The following posting contains opinion only and any truth accidentially exposed should not be considered by readers as intentional, but as entertainment only.” - Anon - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 4:06 pm: ==We shouldn’t have to limit free speech because people can’t analyze and prioritize information. == The issue of free speech is not at issue here. It’s the issue of people slandering someone’s reputation (or that of a minor) using a name that shield’s their identity. There is a difference. Anyone who says differently, I am sorry to say, is wrong. - Anon - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 6:18 pm: I thought to eatablish a case of slander, defamation, libel, etc., a reasonable audience member would have to believe that the statement of fact (not opinion, which is not actionable) is true. Who in their right mind would believe some outrageous assertion made by an anonymous poster? When newspapers and tv stations get sued, its because most of the public views them as authoritative sources. - cynically anonymous - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 7:21 pm: I thought the whole reason for the request is because the post in question was not about Ms. Stone, but about her minor child - which I think changes the perspective. It’s one thing to pick on politicians, who choose to be in the public eye. It’s another thing entirely to start in on their children. - Free speech can be anonymous - Friday, Nov 20, 09 @ 11:51 am: The Supreme Court has already recognized that anonymous speech deserves the same protection as any other speech. This speech should be protected UNTIL it is proved to be defamatory. Nothing has been proved so far as Lisa Stone has refused to explicitly state the comments made against her son. This is a ridiculous violation of the defendant’s free speech rights. First prove that he actually libeled you and then prove that his First Amendment rights will not be violated and then you can have his name - NO SOONER. This judge is flying in the face of all the pre-established precedents in this area of law - this is nowhere near the first case in this specific area of law. Every other judge has sided with protecting the First Amendment like our founding fathers intended. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.