There is, of course, another possibility, the poster of the picture is flat out lying. Salon, politically correct as always, omits to mention this possibility.
Why didn't salon published the article with pictures and names? Well, because salon knows that it can be sued for libel if the poster made the story up out of whole cloth.
But there is more risk to those who republish the original post which is that truth is not always a defense in suits for libel if malice what can be shown. Please note the posters exhortation, "Oh please repost " a strong indication that the original poster wishes to harm the man whose photograph she published. Would a jury find there was malice here? And if we call this an action for invasion of privacy, rather than for libel, does the gentleman in question have a reasonable expectation of privacy for utterances made in public on a train? Does he expect to be eavesdropped upon? What are his reasonable expectations? Does the use of the ability to publish and distribute any invasion of his privacy, no matter how small and no matter in what cause, overcome the fact that he made a public utterance on a train because he did not expect 47,000 people to hear it?
The point of all these questions is to suggest that the law has yet to catch up with the power of the new technology but those who draw their cell phones like a gun ought to have a care unless they are very sure that they can predict a jury's behavior.
There is another potential party to this transaction, what about the children of this man who will be publicly humiliated by these disclosures, whether true or false? Do these children were have a cause of action against this poster because of the collateral damage done to them? What about the wife? Has she been humiliated? Do they have an open relationship? Does she have a right to privacy as well?
In my judgment, new generation feminists' seething anger against men in general is a cultural phenomenon and certainly enjoys a certain cachet of political correctness but it is one which might or might not shield liability for intentional torts.
