NC Judge Manning rules on case involving postings to a blog in NC

[Mayor Randolph Voller]

Dear Gene,

This story appeared last week in the News and Observer. Apparently Judge Manning has made a ruling in North Carolina regarding a BBS similar to ours in Chatham County. Do you have any thoughts about the ruling and/or the case?


http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/14/580408/lawsuit-seeks-hidden-names.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz0uGIrdJ8g

[Gene Galin]

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:13:10 -0400
From: "Gene"
My Take on Using "Real Names"

The discussion about using "real names" on the chatlist [and bulletin board] comes up every several years (usually around election time).

Please don't underestimate the chatlist [and bulletin board] member.  Chatlist [and bulletin board] members are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing.  They can see it is anonymous.  They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they should be, to read that message.  And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is "responsible," what is valuable, and what is truth.

Protecting anonymity is necessary to induce some authors to contribute valuable information to the marketplace of ideas.

Anonymous authors historically have made contributions to the "progress of mankind".  There are benign reasons that an author may choose to remain anonymous: fear of retaliation or reprisal, the desire to avoid social ostracism, the wish to protect privacy, or the fear that the audience's biases will distort the meaning of the work.

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority" without which public discourse would certainly suffer.

An author's decision to remain anonymous is an exercise of autonomy over choice of content, and "an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity." The decision to remain anonymous is an editorial judgment like any other, which makes choosing to omit one's name no different than choosing to omit an opposing viewpoint.

Speakers may use the shield of anonymity for a variety of purposes, only some of which may be consistent with the public good; at the same time, audiences may not accord anonymous speech as much value as attributed speech.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/ipsc/papers2/Cotter-Lidsky.doc

"the First Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, confers upon authors a right to speak anonymously or pseudonymously, even when this right interferes with audiences’ attempts to decode their messages."

From the Lidsky and Cotter paper -

Judge Learned Hand once famously wrote that “the First Amendment . . . presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.  To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.”   As Judge Hand recognized, democracy rests on our faith in citizens’ ability to decide for themselves where truth lies in public discourse. 

Gene
Chatlist [and bulletin board] Moderator

[Brian Bock]

I suspect there were specifics to the case mentioned that made this instance worthy of the judge deeming anonymity should be breached. While attacks from anonymous posters can be frustrating, anonymous writings criticizing leadership is an integral & important part of an informed electorate.   In deciding that anonymous speech is protected in Talley v. California, the Supreme Court wrote: “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.”  

A BBS is simply a modern vehicle to get one's thoughts to the people.

Let's not forget that the Federalist papers were written under the name "Publius" by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and our first Chief Justice, John Jay. Of course one of the most Famous and arguably most influential in the founding of the U.S. was "Common Sense" by Thomas Pain. Originally signed "an englishman"

[seavey]

Well, yeah, there were specifics in this case that supported forcing the host to cough up the real names: Defamation.  Libel and slander are likely to form an outer edge of internet anonymity. 

To his credit, Judge Manning required some review of the complaint to be sure that it stated a claim before ruling this way.  I might have preferred a higher standard of review, but I don't believe it would have made much difference in this case. 

Here's a copy of the opinion:
http://www.homeinhenderson.com/documents/06-28-10%281%29.PDF

[Gene Galin]

If you're thinking about threatening me with a lawsuit.

Having gone through this several times, I decided a several years ago that I don't have the time to deal with this kind of cr*p and would rather just have my attorney handle it.

Therefore, ANYONE who has an itch to threaten me with a lawsuit can have your attorney draw up the formal complaint and send it to me at

Chatham Bulletin Board
PO Box 520
Pittsboro, NC 27312

I will have my attorney review your lawsuit threat and I will act according to my attorney's advice.

I reserve the right to make ALL lawsuit threats public regardless of what kind of disclaimers you may add to the bottom of your email.

I will publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart.

[whatsup]

It's unfortunate that you have to go through this every election cycle.

I appreciate having the bulletin board.

I get a lot of questions answered about what's going on in the county.

[wolfpat]

If you're thinking about threatening me with a lawsuit.

Having gone through this several times, I decided a several years ago that I don't have the time to deal with this kind of cr*p and would rather just have my attorney handle it.

Therefore, ANYONE who has an itch to threaten me with a lawsuit can have your attorney draw up the formal complaint and send it to me at

Chatham Bulletin Board
PO Box 520
Pittsboro, NC 27312

I will have my attorney review your lawsuit threat and I will act according to my attorney's advice.

I reserve the right to make ALL lawsuit threats public regardless of what kind of disclaimers you may add to the bottom of your email.

I will publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy joining in on the copious mockery. We may even march around the plaintiff's house with torches and pitchforks.

[WolfpackFan]

I don't understand this threat of lawsuit.

Gene, if a court forced you too, what could you tell them?  I know we all register with an email address, but anyone could go to gmail and create one that is not linked to them.

[mary51802]

Actually I have studied law in e-commerce and public sites are protected by a federal law that would be hard to overturn. As a public site people are allowed to do as they want and it is the individual they try and prosecute not the site maintainer.

No one has had luck doing this as the site administrator is not held accountable for who posts and what they post. It would take just about an act of God to get any info turned over.

[Gene Galin]

I don't understand this threat of lawsuit.

Gene, if a court forced you too, what could you tell them?  I know we all register with an email address, but anyone could go to gmail and create one that is not linked to them.

It's simple. I will have my attorney review the lawsuit threat or court ruling and I will act according to my attorney's advice.

[Muddylaces]

I don't understand this threat of lawsuit.

Gene, if a court forced you too, what could you tell them?  I know we all register with an email address, but anyone could go to gmail and create one that is not linked to them.

The lawyers would then go to google, find out what ip address and what isp the gmail account was created on.   They would then go to the isp and fin out who leased that ip when the gmail account was created.   If the legal barriers are down, for the most part they will track you down. 

[WolfpackFan]

I don't understand this threat of lawsuit.

Gene, if a court forced you too, what could you tell them?  I know we all register with an email address, but anyone could go to gmail and create one that is not linked to them.

The lawyers would then go to google, find out what ip address and what isp the gmail account was created on.   They would then go to the isp and fin out who leased that ip when the gmail account was created.   If the legal barriers are down, for the most part they will track you down. 

If the legal barries are down, maybe.  But I think it would be a huge undertaking, legally, to get google and isp providers to give up that information. 

[whatsup]

If the legal barries are down, maybe.  But I think it would be a huge undertaking, legally, to get google and isp providers to give up that information. 

They certainly will have a job ahead of themselves if you have bbsers using dial-ups or public wi-fi or ....

[wolfpat]

If you're thinking about threatening me with a lawsuit.

Having gone through this several times, I decided a several years ago that I don't have the time to deal with this kind of cr*p and would rather just have my attorney handle it.

Therefore, ANYONE who has an itch to threaten me with a lawsuit can have your attorney draw up the formal complaint and send it to me at

Chatham Bulletin Board
PO Box 520
Pittsboro, NC 27312

I will have my attorney review your lawsuit threat and I will act according to my attorney's advice.

I reserve the right to make ALL lawsuit threats public regardless of what kind of disclaimers you may add to the bottom of your email.

I will publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy joining in on the copious mockery. We may even march around the plaintiff's house with torches and pitchforks.

we could, but my advise is, you have to leave your dogs at home.



see, I used to walk my puppy in Fearington. we loved it, as long as she was under 50 # or so. but once she was getting bigger, the deer were a real problem.

the deer there challenge dogs. as long as the dogs are Fearrington dogs, I guess this is OK. but mine ran at the deer, and she pulled me down, and now I have problems. (being 60 yrs old).


anyhow, mock Gene or his enemies at your own risk.

Oh, I couldn't take any of the dogs with me. They don't like noisy things. Thunderstorms terrify them. And they're a little freaked out by the cicadas in the evenings (They're loud this year. I wonder which kind they are.).

I will gladly absorb any risk associated with mocking Gene's enemies. Bring 'em on!

[Gene Galin]

I guess I am fortunate to have saved the "not for public view" emails from Mr. Voller, Mr. Hammond and Mr. Starkweather.

Should any of them opt to take me to court, it might make for an interesting "discovery" stage.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else