[Brooster]

I concur Biteme. Revelations chapter 3:32-41

Satan grinned as the second scroll was opened. Biteme got a spell-checker

[Tim]

Ok, I understand the debate over free speech. it's not new, and it's not the first time it's touched borders of the 'ol information superhighway.

But how unimaginably puny are this douchebags testicles that he's this wound up over anonymous comments posted on a blog? I mean, holy craptastic clusterfart, batman.. could this spineless scrap of pantywaste be any more insecure? Wow.

When did anonymous comments posted on the internet mean anything, at all, to anybody? The only thing less useful than anonymous internet comments is lawyers who don't just slap the pasty, bug-filled earwax out of people for even suggesting lawsuits like this one.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Ratneck

Without the right to publish anonymously we would never have had "Mark Twain" or even "Silence Dogood".

-Publishing under a false name is standard to protect privacy, but if you really want to know a published authors real name you don't even need a lawyer or judge to get that info. And an author is responsible for what he publishes.

Originally Posted by Ratneck

Allowing people to protest anonymously is so that they don't have to fear the backlash of the government or employer (etc.) is rather important. If you want to address an unpopular but true sentiment, you should have that ability without fear of backlash.

"Whistle Blowers" are anonymous people turning in illegal acts. Many companies, should they find out you were the one who blew the whistle, would take revenge on you so they could return to business as usual.

Anonymous tips to police help them in many areas full of people who simply don't want to get involved.

- Anonymous tips and such have their place, as long as they are given to an authority with the ability to investigate and prove or disprove the allegations. The internet is not an authority on anything. And any company firing people for reporting illegal or immoral activities is again acting illegally and could be held responsible for that as well.

Originally Posted by Ratneck

"Deep Throat" would have never been able to talk to Woodward and Bernstein had they not been able to protect him as an anonymous source.

-Two people or companies talking to each other is again not public, so doesn't fit into this context. If one of them would then publish what was talked about then it's a different story, and again they would be responsible for what they make public.

Originally Posted by Ratneck

Anonymity in public speech is a part of our heritage and part of what makes this country great. Just like any right, however, it can and does get abused. Should someone prove that a statement is libelous (or show cause to believe that it is) then I do believe the "anonymous" writer needs to provide their proof in order to remain anonymous. Barring that they should be exposed to the civil penalties provided for in law, which would indeed require them to be "exposed".

-You are wrong anonymous speech is not a right, free speech is. That means you can say whatever you like as long as it is clearly your own opinion, or you have proof to back up what you say. If you say "I think Joe Blow is an asshat" that's your opinion and you have a right to it. If you say "Joe Blow is an asshat" you better be able to prove it.

Originally Posted by Ratneck

But getting rid of anonymous speech simply because some asshats post random crap on a giant bulletin board? It would take more rights from people then I think you're all realizing.

-Again anonymous speech is not a right, and was not even possible until the internet. So making people again responsible for what they write is not going to take any rights away.

This whole debate boils down to responsibility, you are responsible for what you say and do period. Using the anonymity of the internet is ok. As long as you aren't doing anything immoral or illegal nobody will care. But we as a society have to be able to track down those people who will misuse this medium.

Thor

[Ratneck]

In the interest of brevity, I will only quote and respond to one point you make as it seems to be the root of your argument...and it is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Thor

-You are wrong anonymous speech is not a right, free speech is.

Read this

Anonymity | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Obviously I'm using US law since that's where I live, Canadian law may be different. Here's a link to the documents from that Supreme Court case if you don't believe the post on the EFF's site.

Search the Opinions of the US Supreme Court

So....anonymous speech is indeed a right and there is case law to prove it. If you desire, I will address your other points but since they're all based on this premise I don't think I need to.....

I can't speak for law in Canada (or Germany) which may be where our difference in understanding is coming from.

[Ambrosius]

It seems to me that the court could possibly render a different decision when the issue is slandering from behind the "protection" of anonymity instead of anonymous electioneering -- which was the McIntyre case.

[Ratneck]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

It seems to me that the court could possibly render a different decision when the issue is slandering from behind the "protection" of anonymity instead of anonymous electioneering -- which was the McIntyre case.

Agreed, if you can prove slander, or reasonably prove slander, then a judge can order that person be "revealed" for civil action. Different topic then rights and anonymity. Using your right to "freedom of speech" to unjustly hurt another (Yelling fire in a movie theater) does indeed open you up to the loss of that right (in that situation at least).

[Jump]

anyone that uses any right as a weapon should be taken out and shot. There, problem solved.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Thor]

So you're telling me that because of one decision in one case with one set of circumstances all Americans have the right to say whatever they want anonymously without fear of any consequences? I may not be a lawyer or law student as you seem to be but I don't believe you. It may be a precedent, it may be common sense, or even common practice, but I doubt seriously that it's a right. Far as I know the Bill of Rights lists all the rights Americans have and I know there's nothing about anonymity in that document.

And actually the main point in my post is personal responsibility. The problem in many countries these days is that lawyers and others fight to remove peoples responsibility for their own actions. This is the reason I would prosecute the parents of teenagers that go on killing sprees. Their children are their responsibility, not games designers, or teachers, or anyone else.

Thor

[Ratneck]

Originally Posted by Thor

So you're telling me that because of one decision in one case with one set of circumstances all Americans have the right to say whatever they want anonymously without fear of any consequences?

No, that's not what I'm saying, reference the fire in theater comment.....And I'm not a lawyer or law student, I just read alot of news from places like the EFF.

The job of the court system in the US is to interpret the laws. The legislative makes them, the executive carries them out, but the judicial system interprets the laws. If the supreme court makes a decision on the application of the constitution then that's it. It's their job to interpret the constitution so they tell us what is and is not a right in there.

Originally Posted by Thor

Far as I know the Bill of Rights lists all the rights Americans have and I know there's nothing about anonymity in that document.

The Bill of Rights is just the name for the first 10 ammendments that were tacked onto the constitution so it would pass at the convention. However, the Supreme Court used an interpretation of the 1st amendment in this decision. You may not agree with the interpretation, but that doesn't change the what the official line is. Once again though, this isn't Canada.

Originally Posted by Thor

And actually the main point in my post is personal responsibility. The problem in many countries these days is that lawyers and others fight to remove peoples responsibility for their own actions. This is the reason I would prosecute the parents of teenagers that go on killing sprees. Their children are their responsibility, not games designers, or teachers, or anyone else.

Thor

I agree 100%, people should take credit for what they write in most situations; and this is one of them. No matter how frivolous though, you have to defend your rights lest they be taken away while your back is turned.

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by Thor

So you're telling me that because of one decision in one case with one set of circumstances all Americans have the right to say whatever they want anonymously without fear of any consequences?

Only until the next trial

[Brooster]

A German lecturing Americans about a Canadian legal decision. I love the Internet.

[Thor]

Actually I am American, I only live in Germany for now.

Thor

[Ratneck]

Originally Posted by Thor

Actually I am American, I only live in Germany for now.

Thor

Since I'm assuming you've lived in both places and thus you have two perspectives (American and German), tell me....what the hell is up with their love of David Hasselhoff?

[Ambrosius]

He's hunky?

[Telepath]

The Hoff