New York attempts to outlaw trolling

[Southern_Man 0]

http://techland.time.com/2012/05/24/the-new-york-bill-that-would-ban-anonymous-online-speech/?hpt=hp_t2

As the article points out this would not come anywhere close to passing constitutional muster. Just makes you wonder if the NY Assemblymen have ever read the First Amendment. Or if NY doesn't have any real problems they could be addressing.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Bertt 0]

Anybody who would outlaw trolling just don't know how to fish.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Shotgun 1]

While I don't agree with the bill, the article did make me wonder:

Quote

And Betabeat reports that the bill started with New York Assemblyman Dean Murray, who was himself anonymously accused of domestic violence toward his ex-wife and son in 2010. “The thing that disturbed me the most about it was, once everything was proven false, there was no way to get the comments down,” said Murray. “The important thing here is to give the victims a voice and an opportunity to protect themselves.”

Is there any way to deal with libel when it comes from anonymous Internet postings?

[oldwomanc6 60]

Quote

Anybody who would outlaw trolling just don't know how to fish.

What about the bridges? Save the bridges!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

While I don't agree with the bill, the article did make me wonder:

Quote

And Betabeat reports that the bill started with New York Assemblyman Dean Murray, who was himself anonymously accused of domestic violence toward his ex-wife and son in 2010. “The thing that disturbed me the most about it was, once everything was proven false, there was no way to get the comments down,” said Murray. “The important thing here is to give the victims a voice and an opportunity to protect themselves.”

Is there any way to deal with libel when it comes from anonymous Internet postings?

Why take it seriously if its coming from an anonymous Internet posting? Anyone who would is just desperately grasping at anything that would validate their world view.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

While I don't agree with the bill, the article did make me wonder:

Quote

And Betabeat reports that the bill started with New York Assemblyman Dean Murray, who was himself anonymously accused of domestic violence toward his ex-wife and son in 2010. “The thing that disturbed me the most about it was, once everything was proven false, there was no way to get the comments down,” said Murray. “The important thing here is to give the victims a voice and an opportunity to protect themselves.”

Is there any way to deal with libel when it comes from anonymous Internet postings?

Details aside: pretty damned hard. Going after the website has a low chance of winning, and even if you beat the odds and technically win, there's a very low chance of either collecting money or forcing the website to take the crap down.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

While I don't agree with the bill, the article did make me wonder:

Quote

And Betabeat reports that the bill started with New York Assemblyman Dean Murray, who was himself anonymously accused of domestic violence toward his ex-wife and son in 2010. “The thing that disturbed me the most about it was, once everything was proven false, there was no way to get the comments down,” said Murray. “The important thing here is to give the victims a voice and an opportunity to protect themselves.”

Is there any way to deal with libel when it comes from anonymous Internet postings?

Details aside: pretty damned hard. Going after the website has a low chance of winning, and even if you beat the odds and technically win, there's a very low chance of either collecting money or forcing the website to take the crap down.

At the risk of disagreeing with somebody with a lot more expertise than me, you can get a court order requiring the site to reveal the IP address the posting came from and other identifying information.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

you can get a court order requiring the site to reveal the IP address the posting came from and other identifying information.

True, but in practicality it's not a slam dunk by any means. Being a fairly new area, the law around the country re: "John Doe" IP address subpoenas is still very much in flux, with courts very much divided over whether they will or will not enforce such subpoenas. Also, an IP address is investigative evidence, but often not conclusive evidence as to the actual author of a defamatory piece. Further, there is no law or reg in the US requiring online news outlets or other websites to retain cached IP addresses (at least prior to being served with a specific subpoena) for any particular period of time, so some of the more savvy sites are getting wise and clearing their caches preemptively. And, a party can often mask his IP by using a proxy site, which is very easy and user-friendly to do these days. Finally, there's the jurisdictional problem about subpoenas. Enforcing them from one state to another, especially if you're in state (and not federal) court, can be a real bitch. And if the publishing website is hosted outside the US, it can often be virtually impossible on a practical level.

Then there's the problem of collecting on a judgment; but that's the age-old problem of whether there are attachable assets to go after, or you're just trying to get blood from a stone. Obviously the owners of, say, major newspapers or news outlets have assets. Some of the more obscure websites and blogs, on the other hand, would be nearly impossible to collect anything from.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

you can get a court order requiring the site to reveal the IP address the posting came from and other identifying information.

True, but in practicality it's not a slam dunk by any means. Being a fairly new area, the law around the country re: "John Doe" IP address subpoenas is still very much in flux, with courts very much divided over whether they will or will not enforce such subpoenas. Also, an IP address is investigative evidence, but often not conclusive evidence as to the actual author of a defamatory piece. Further, there is no law or reg in the US requiring online news outlets or other websites to retain cached IP addresses (at least prior to being served with a specific subpoena) for any particular period of time, so some of the more savvy sites are getting wise and clearing their caches preemptively. And, a party can often mask his IP by using a proxy site, which is very easy and user-friendly to do these days. Finally, there's the jurisdictional problem about subpoenas. Enforcing them from one state to another, especially if you're in state (and not federal) court, can be a real bitch. And if the publishing website is hosted outside the US, it can often be virtually impossible on a practical level.

Then there's the problem of collecting on a judgment; but that's the age-old problem of whether there are attachable assets to go after, or you're just trying to get blood from a stone. Obviously the owners of, say, major newspapers or news outlets have assets. Some of the more obscure websites and blogs, on the other hand, would be nearly impossible to collect anything from.

Yes, there are practical difficulties with it.

To your last point, in general the website, blog, newspaper or news outlet is not legally responsible for posts that users put on its site. In that case you have to go after the person who posted the comment, which as you noted can be difficult.

If there is libelous comments up on a website about you I would notify the owner of the website. It is possible that they would remove them. If they allowed them to remain after being informed that they are libelous it is possible that they could expose themselves to some legal jeopardy and forfeit their current protections, although I am not aware of any rulings on that issue.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"