[Gabz]

Am I reading this wrong, or is the ACLU actually on the right side here?

[Gabz]

The entire situation surrounding the Smyrna elections has gone from weird to bizarro - but this could be down right scary.

[highball]

Incredible as it may seem, they are right.

Anonymous advocate writings were a staple of the Founding Fathers, practiced perhaps most notably by Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.

The blog is no more than a 21st century version of their anonymous pamphlets.

[martin_fierro]

"This may be the first time the highest court in any state has decided this type of case," John Doe No. 1's attorney David L. Finger said in a recent interview.

"Trust me. I'm a lawyer."

[TomGuy]

While anonymity on the Internet is essential for a free exchange of ideas, Judge Slights said there is a difference between exchanging ideas and "using it as a cover to defame others."

First, defamation would have to be proved. If the allegations are true, there is no defamation; thus that legal argument is moot.

[The Red Zone]

pssst

[The Red Zone]

Ms. Fennell said the ACLU believes the standard for revealing an anonymous speaker should be "very high."

Also, consider that the credibility of the speaker is at minimum when his or her identity is unknown. The same holds here; we dismiss tin foil hat vanities from posters we don't know citing no verifiable sources to back up their allegations.

[Boundless]

> Am I reading this wrong, or is the ACLU actually
> on the right side here?

They are. This is the sort of case they built their
former reputation on, before they turned to the dark side.

But this thread does serve as a reminder to FR users that,
like Buckhead, you cannot assume that you have impenetrable
anonimity here. A court order, or someone just connecting
the dots, can blow your cover.

[pabianice]

'Who could be behind this?' you ask. Who? Who...?

[Logical me]

And when are they going to work up a case for all the sh@@ and lies on TV? Come on, lets get it on. The main thing I can see why the blogs should be left alone is that they bring up the question. When you have millions who read the question, you have millions of investigators. This is one of the main ways that corruption is discovered. Truth is the masses working on what one perceives as a question.

[Hardastarboard]

To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, "If you knew he was a Congressman when you slapped him and threw a drink in his face, you're to be commended. Anyone else would have shot him. If you DIDN'T know he was a Congressman when you slapped him and threw a drink in his face, you're going to jail".

Seems to me if I recall correctly that the law is that any public figure is open to ridicule, as a public figure. Anyone who isn't a public figure is not subject to such, as a now rich Richard Jewell can tell you.

[Gondring]

ACLU-gets-it-right ping

[Gondring]

I want to make it very clear that my real name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and if I ever write anything libelous, I should be prosecuted immediately to the fullest extent of the law and beyond.

;-)

[cynwoody]

A word to the wise to bloggers: wipe your server logs regularly and automatically.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I certainly hope his whining cost him the election. For a public official to sue over comments made by one of his constituent's is just petty. I know I wouldn't vote for anyone who could not take a little criticism from his/her opponent's, no matter how crude or rude. Anyone who can't has no business in public office, period.