As I have discussed in my earlier posts, it is rather difficult to determine the identity of an individual that has defamed another anonymously, but this may be changing. The courts are very hesitant to force internet service providers to provide the identity of an anonymous poster for the fear of the "chilling" effect that would sweep throughout the internet. There are however some very startling and sad cases of cyberbullying where it seems hard to justify keeping the identity of the person anonymous that posted the harmful words.
Merriam-Webster defines cyberbullying as "the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person (as a student) often done anonymously." There are currently varying degrees of punishments for students that are involved in cyberbullying, it can range from a trip to the principal's office, all the way up to criminal action. The punishment depends on the laws in that state as well as the end result of the bullying. The question of anonymity also arises in this instance just like in libel cases. It is very hard to come to the conclusion that cyberbullying has any positive effect in our society and that the author should remain anonymous, therefore the standard that needs to be satisfied to find the identity is lowered.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Is anonymous speech a right?
In my last post, I talked about the 2TheMart.comInc. case where disgruntled shareholders let their gripes about the company be know anonymously over the internet. In that case the court came up with a four-part test that would allow for subpoena to be issued in order to find the identity of an anonymous poster. This was the test: “(1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose; (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or defense; (3) the identifying information that is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source.”
2TheMart.com was denied the request for the subpoena because it was determined that if the identity of the posters were determined, it would only lead to intimidation in order to keep them quiet. It could also put their role in the company in jeopardy.
If a defamatory claim is made, the plaintiff must prove that the statements are in fact defamation. Once this is done, the four part test above must be satisfied. This test does seem rather difficult to satisfy, but it is nonetheless possible. Do our first amendment rights allow us to speak freely and anonymously on the internet without the possibility of criminal action? Would this lead to a "chilling" effect on our freedom on the internet? I am not sure at this point in time because constructive criticism can be beneficial to all and if done anonymously, it will not have negative consequences for the poster. However, I do not feel that grossly defamatory lies have protection to remain anonymous.
2TheMart.com was denied the request for the subpoena because it was determined that if the identity of the posters were determined, it would only lead to intimidation in order to keep them quiet. It could also put their role in the company in jeopardy.
If a defamatory claim is made, the plaintiff must prove that the statements are in fact defamation. Once this is done, the four part test above must be satisfied. This test does seem rather difficult to satisfy, but it is nonetheless possible. Do our first amendment rights allow us to speak freely and anonymously on the internet without the possibility of criminal action? Would this lead to a "chilling" effect on our freedom on the internet? I am not sure at this point in time because constructive criticism can be beneficial to all and if done anonymously, it will not have negative consequences for the poster. However, I do not feel that grossly defamatory lies have protection to remain anonymous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)