Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Anonymity of blog readers
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:01:39 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: "Paul Levy" <plevy () citizen org> Date: March 3, 2009 12:05:35 PM EST To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com> Subject: Anonymity of blog readers Jim's surmise is correct -- the case, in which we represented the newspaper chain that was opposing the subpoena -- DID involve the anonymity of citizens who wrote comments on a newspaper's online blog, and not the anonymity of those who were only readers. However, there is a case currently pending in Buckingham County, Virginia (south of Charlottesville) in which a libel plaintiff has subpoenaed the IP addresses of everybody who has even READ the allegedly defamatory stories online. The theory seems to be that the plaintiff can then interrogate them about how they perceived the story and whether it had any impact on the plaintiff's reputation. It is a chilling theory indeed. We represent a blogger who received a similar subpoena after he commented on the libel litigation (it seems that this plaintiff won't tolerate ANY discussion). As it happens, our client does not have access to readers' IP addresses, so the issue will be moot as it applies to him, but it is possible that the newspaper may have such access, so the issue may well be joined for that subpoena. Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation
David Farber <dave () farber net> 3/3/2009 5:00 AM >>>
Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com> Date: March 2, 2009 8:19:47 PM EST To: dave () farber net Cc: labmanager () gmail com Subject: Re: [IP] Court sets standard for online anonymity protections
From: No-Name <labmanager () gmail com> Web sites involved in defamation suits are not required to immediately hand over the identities of readers who leave anonymous
comments ...
I think (I HOPE!) that this concerned the identities of writers; not of the "readers". (However, is it noteworthy that various law enforcers - foreign adn domestic - have demanded that librarians provide information about which readers check-out various publications, as well as demanding identities of everyone who views or downloads various content that is prohibited - somewhere.) Irregardless, please note that - if (when!) laws DO force disclosure of each author of each writing posted online, then web-sites will have to remove The Federalist Papers, considered the third-most important legal document in the nation, after the Constitution and Declaration of Independence! The writers of those crucial public debates (including the Anti- Federalist Papers) did so anonymously, with strong justification at the time. The authorship of those individual papers was never confirmed by their writers, although most identities were later alleged by various third parties and historians, long after the fact, including by modern researchers who used statistical analyses of the writing patterns. (Will we next have guilt by statistical probability?) --jim ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re: Anonymity of blog readers David Farber (Mar 03)