Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Philadelphia Judge Issues Ruling That Could Give Anonymous Online Commenters Second Thoughts
CBS ^ | 03-08-2014 | Pat Loeb

Posted on 03/08/2014 7:18:35 AM PST by PaulCruz2016

PHILADELPHIA — A Philadelphia judge has ordered philly.com to reveal the name of an anonymous commenter, in a defamation suit brought by electricians’ union leader John Dougherty.

An attorney in the case says it could have a broad impact on incendiary online comments and those users, sometimes called “trolls,” who post them anonymously.

The anonymous defendant in the suit, disguised by the nonsense name “fbpdplt,” called Dougherty a name in the comments section of an article on the website, one of the properties in the media group that also owns the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.

(Excerpt) Read more at philadelphia.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: firstamendment; internet; johndougherty; judge; online; pennsylvania; philadelphia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: PaulCruz2016

After reading the article, I agree with the judge.


61 posted on 03/08/2014 9:03:07 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

I understand what you are saying and I am somewhat sympathetic to your views. I do draw a line at slandering a regular person but I was really just pointing out that you are only fooling yourself if you think .gov can not get your real identity in about 5 minutes.


62 posted on 03/08/2014 9:04:40 AM PST by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
I don't fool myself about real identities on the Internet.

Just saying that the goal is to silence the critics who don't have the Correct Thoughts. The poster in this case probably should have used the Mainstream Media pro forma for his postings:

"Some say that..."

For all we know, the troll guy might be a paid "fall guy" for the Left.

63 posted on 03/08/2014 9:09:59 AM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
After reading the article, I agree with the judge.

Always use the most outrageous anecdote to get the camel's nose under the tent skirt...

64 posted on 03/08/2014 9:11:32 AM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
Always use the most outrageous anecdote to get the camel's nose under the tent skirt...

The legal theory on which the judge based his ruling goes back hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years.

The commenter defamed another person, which is actionable in court.

The fact that the commenter was essentially standing in the public square with a hood, or bag, over his head so no one could see who it was that was commenting, shouldn't protect him against legal action.

The judge correctly ruled his anonymity cannot protect him from prosecution for an illegal act.

By way of example, what is the correct decision if the commenter instead robbed a bank though the use of hacking? Should he then be able to keep his anonymity?

65 posted on 03/08/2014 9:26:22 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
The commenter defamed another person, which is actionable in court.

Well, true - unless you're Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, or any other Emmanuel Goldstein on the right...

66 posted on 03/08/2014 9:28:29 AM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

The law is reasonably specific on who can sue. Those who you mentioned are considered to be ‘in the public eye’ and should expect to be criticized, even unfairly.

Just as we criticize the twit in the WH.


67 posted on 03/08/2014 9:31:58 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
By way of example, what is the correct decision if the commenter instead robbed a bank though the use of hacking?

1. Everything is a crime under 21st century American peasant law.

2. Your Red Delicious apple and my Valencia orange must grow on the same tree, I guess... Wonderful grafting job the horticulturists can do these days.

68 posted on 03/08/2014 9:32:04 AM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
The law is reasonably specific on who can sue.

"The peasant law is reasonably specific on who can sue"

Fixed it for you.

69 posted on 03/08/2014 9:33:19 AM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

You seem to be saying that robbing a bank while in disguise is OK?


70 posted on 03/08/2014 9:33:19 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
You seem to be saying that robbing a bank while in disguise is OK?

You seem to be saying that a Red Delicious apple and a Valencia orange are exactly the same?

71 posted on 03/08/2014 9:34:31 AM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Why do I think the union thug wants the poster’s name and address to go administer a gang-style beating, rather than to simply sue him?


72 posted on 03/08/2014 9:36:08 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Can I sue any liberal who calls me a “Nazi” then?


73 posted on 03/08/2014 9:38:37 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

I carry a throw away computer for trolling.


74 posted on 03/08/2014 9:46:06 AM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

If this kind of thinking holds up, we’re going to need five million more lawyers and 500,000 more judges to handle all the defamation lawsuits.


75 posted on 03/08/2014 9:49:15 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Tough issue to find balance on.

I would strongly object if someone called me a pedophile or made any other false accusation. Would I fight it in court? I guess it depends on the damage it does. If it were a run-of-the-mill troll, it’s not worth the effort. Everyone knows what a troll is and does and they are not to be believed.

If a false online accusation took hold and gained credibility, affected my reputation, threatened my job, hurt my family, or something similar, I would go after the person in court.

Maybe the key question is : Who is hurt by the accusation? Usually, it’s the accuser who looks like a nasty, petty liar. In that case the victim suffers little harm. But sometimes, the false accusation sticks and/or damages the victim. Then I think there is a better case.

How about Tina Fey calling Sarah Palin stupid in so many SNL sketches, making Americans believe she thought she could see Russia from her house? They did damage.

How about the NYT accusing McCain of having an affair? That did damage. It wasn’t retracted until it was too late.

How about the guy accused of planting the Atlanta Olympic bomb or the guy accused of sending anthrax? Severe damage.

How about Harry Reid accusing Romney of not paying his taxes? That did damage.

I don’t know enough about this case. Was the troll just flinging random accusations, trying to make something stick? Was he just name-calling? (It seems to me that “pedophile” goes beyond name-calling. “Stupid” is name-calling. “Pedophile” seems more targeted.) Did he pick that particular term for a reason - either because there is truth to it or because he wanted to inflict maximum damage? Too many unknowns.


76 posted on 03/08/2014 10:01:31 AM PST by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

In October 2012, Dougherty sued over a comment posted two months earlier on a Daily News blog that described a public feud involving him. The comment identified Dougherty by his well-known nickname, “Johnny Doc,” and called him “the pedophile.”

Read more: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-internet-commenters-outed-20140308,0,211728.story#ixzz2vObHQ000


77 posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:04 AM PST by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Well the point is that a judge that orders a website to cough up personal information on one of its participants may be wasting time. The website could come back and say ‘John Doe residing in Friendly Heights’. If the ISP comes back with a computer address, then it’s up to the plaintiff to figure it out from then on.

It’s a fool’s errand to chase someone on the internet unless a crime investigation is underway and ALL the tools are brought into play to trace the criminal. For civil cases it’s not worth spit.

So my first impression is this is a typical philly bully judge who is shooting out orders without knowing if they are realistic. Philadelphia is a very corrupt place. On the other hand if grassroots people in Philadelphia are involved and they are credible, then normally good judges will hear the case and act as judges should. It’s difficult to know without being there.

To be sure I would need to hear a tape of the judge or see a transcript to see what his reasoning was. A wise judge would just tell the plaintiff that he is not going to expend court resources over cyber searches that have a high probability of leading nowhere.

But the point is that millions upon millions of comments and allegations are made on the internet everyday. If a union thug wants to hunt them all down, I think that’s a problem not only with the union thug but also with using court resources for useless investigations. Then again the Philly mob controls many judges, and they are not brilliant.


78 posted on 03/08/2014 10:16:06 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
Always figured you for a MomJeans fanboy, bumble.

Based upon what?

79 posted on 03/09/2014 1:14:15 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson