Yay, another reason I'm proud to be licensed here.

mattharvest: Yay, another reason I'm proud to be licensed here.

Reminds me... I need to get my fishing license.

Submitter is a pederast.

Drew Curtis thinks Heineken is beer.

Go ahead and sue, Drew. Fark doesn't have to reveal my identity.

Kyosuke: Submitter is a pederast.

What does being Catholic have to do with anything?

2wolves: mattharvest: Yay, another reason I'm proud to be licensed here.

Reminds me... I need to get my fishing license.

Same here. Got a new surf rod setup for Christmas that I need to try out.

yeah, that'll get reversed on appeal.

Oh, good!

I've been overly concerned lately that I might get sued for defamation in Maryland. That's certainly a weight off my shoulders.

/Um....yay?

Whew!

Now I can go back to pointing out John McCain married a Mafia heiress. He worked for her Mafia-connected father in his liquor distributorship. His father-in-law was connected to the murder of a newspaper reporter.

/so was Senator Goldwater

I can see the appeals brief now:

"If it pleases the court... 4Chan."

Decision reversed. Case close.

Don't shoot the monkey.

Reminds me... I need to get my fishing license.

Mayostard
Same here. Got a new surf rod setup for Christmas that I need to try out.

You have to get a fishing license to surf fish?

Fabric_Man: I can see the appeals brief now:

"If it pleases the court... 4Chan."

Decision reversed. Case close.

And the death penalty.

Successful and attractive persons of color are annoying.


/did not

They don't READILY have to give out names. They CAN give out names, or can be made to. So watch it with the Heineken comments, ZAZ.

2wolves: mattharvest: Yay, another reason I'm proud to be licensed here.

Reminds me... I need to get my fishing license.

THIS.

/mmmm.. Crappie..

Fark is saved. For a little while longer, at least.

I killed a bunch of people once

withnail420: I killed a bunch of people once



They were nice guys. I liked them.

...because anyone who takes insults posted on the internet seriously is an irredeemable moron.

withnail420: I killed a bunch of people once

"...defamation suits."

Have fun in the big house.

Githerax killed a bunch of people once

Githerax: ...because anyone who takes insults posted on the internet seriously is an irredeemable moron.

I'm offended by that statement.

Meh. Our local newspaper just deletes any comments or forum threads that say anything unflattering about big businesses in the area.

Weaver95: yeah, that'll get reversed on appeal.

Nope. The Court of Appeals is what we call the "supreme court" here in Maryland. There's nowhere else to appeal, unless the plaintiff wants to go Federal.

Yay, free speech!

mattharvest: Yay, another reason I'm proud to be licensed here.

That makes two of us.

Kyosuke: Submitter is a pederast.

Its not libel if its true.

It's not a lie if you believe it.

In mine eyes, This ruling is as powerful as this painting, for it rests upon the same principal - Our freedom to speak our minds without reproach!

Darth Shatner: You have to get a fishing license to surf fish?

In Maryland, you need a license to even think about fishing.

Mayostard: In Maryland, you need a license to even think about fishing.

I think I might be wrong about this.
I'm still stuck on the idea that I had to buy a permit to take my vehicle on the beach to surf fish, many, many years ago.

The troubling thing is:
1. This ever went to trial in the first place
2. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff
3. The current court ruling could be reversed on appeal

The only real problem of living in a police state is that they make up the rules as they go along.

trippdogg: The troubling thing is:
1. This ever went to trial in the first place
2. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff
3. The current court ruling could be reversed on appeal

The only real problem of living in a police state is that they make up the rules as they go along.

won't somebody think of the little childrens???
Or terrists???
Or..or...BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!!!

It's too bad you can't get the really good headlines on a t-shirt.

Githerax:
...because anyone who takes insults posted on the internet seriously is an irredeemable moron.

You can insult whomever you wish (I think you're ugly, smell, are stupid, you have an ugly girlfriend, etc...). What you cannot do in the eyes of tort law is publish a statement as fact that you know or should know is false and harmful ("Sally is a whore," when you know she is not, or "Dunkin Donuts cooks piss in donut grease," when you don't know it to be true or even believe it to be unlikely).

The first types of statements are opinions, which you are free to have. When you make flat-out false statements intended to harrass or harm someone else, and those statements do cause them harm, they have a right to defend themselves through the legal process just as they would if you stole their property (you DID steal their property - their good name) or hurt them physically.

Hubris Boy:
Nope. The Court of Appeals is what we call the "supreme court" here in Maryland. There's nowhere else to appeal, unless the plaintiff wants to go Federal.

Yay, free speech!

1) Yes, the Court of Appeals is the highest state court in Maryland. But this issue will most certainly go federal. In the end, however, even when it's decided at the SCOTUS, the decision will likely be close to this one. Blogs will only have to disclose the identities of anonymous posters when the plaintiff has followed certain procedural guidelines and shown specific harm. But when they do that (and they very often will, because there are a whole lot of complete morons out there that conflate this issue with "free speech") the hammer will fall swiftly and severely.

2) Which brings me to this: Free speech - I do not think this phrase means what you think it means. This is not technically a free speech issue - the government is not proscribing what you can or cannot express by way of threat of governmental punishment, nor is the government seeking to punish anyone in any way for any statement or expression. Free speech - as in 1st Amendment free speech - only speaks to limiting the government's reach in how the government itself can limit your expression.

trippdogg:
The troubling thing is:
1. This ever went to trial in the first place
2. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff
3. The current court ruling could be reversed on appeal

The only real problem of living in a police state is that they make up the rules as they go along.

If someone stole your car, wouldn't you go to trial if you had to to get it back? Stealing someone's reputation (and in doing so making it hard for them to make a living or enjoy the same quality of life you would expect to enjoy) is absolutely no different.

The lower court ruled correctly - and contrary to the gist of the article, the Court of Appeals didn't "overturn" the lower court's ruling. They narrowed it. They didn't say, "idiotic anonymous posters are forever free to post whatever the hell they want, even lies, about anybody they want." They said, "we need you to follow X,Y,Z procedures to show a higher probable cause that you have been harmed, and that these anonymous posters where the ones that caused that harm, because there is also a right to privacy on the part of the posters." That is not in any way saying that the courts will not violate that right to privacy once harm has been shown and the asshat identified by showing specific statements.

And, we not living in a police state, no matter how much you personally disagree that you can't do whatever you feel like doing whenever you feel like doing it without repurcussion. That's called living within societal norms and respecting the rule of law. If you don't like the law, fine - work to change it by entering the legislature or lobbying the legislature to see it your way.

People that are completely ignorant of the law really should refrain from speaking on the law - constant misrepresentations only serve to further ignorance and misunderstanding among those who refuse to take the time to learn the truth.

Future revenue stream for lawyers so you know it's coming.

CrispFlows: In mine eyes, This ruling is as powerful as this painting, for it rests upon the same principal - Our freedom to speak our minds without reproach!

Not so much. Having freedoms to speak your views publicly is VERY different from having the ability to make libelous or slanderous defamatory comments in public forums from a position of anonymity.

No matter how badly you fail to understand that in your eyes. Sorry you cannot see the distinctions between the two.

It is speculated that Zebulon J. Brodie is a pederast who buggers ferrets when he can't find little boys.

This seems like a good place to honor this epic thread (new window)

Yes, if you wrote Patrick F. McCartan^ you might get in trouble. See, the problem is, if you write Patrick F. McCartan^ enough times, eventually that's going to become the front page result when you Google Patrick F. McCartan^'s name. If you added phrases like "litigious douchebag" or "total piece of shiat" to the page you were linking from, it's entirely possible that if you searched the net for Patrick F. McCartan^, you might get hundreds of results that seem to link Patrick F. McCartan^ to being a litigious douchebag or a total piece of shiat. So, whatever you Farkers do, DO NOT type Patrick F. McCartan^ in a post with the words "litigious douchebag" or "total piece of shiat". It would have a similar effect to doing a SEO on Patrick F. McCartan^ under the keywords of "litigious douchebag" or "total piece of shiat".

So just don't.

Oh, and (in my opinion) Patrick F. McCartan^ is a "litigious douchebag" and/or "total piece of shiat".

fark Maryland.

/eff ewe, my real name

withnail420: I killed a bunch of people once

That doesn't make you a bad person. Hell George McGovern killed a bunch of people.

Hooray for free speech!


All you farkers are gay.

Is the litigious douchebag in question a liberal or a conservative? Because that's how it'll be decided if it reaches the Supreme Court.

Darth Shatner Quote 2009-02-28 10:54:28 AM
Reminds me... I need to get my fishing license.

Mayostard
Same here. Got a new surf rod setup for Christmas that I need to try out.

You have to get a fishing license to surf fish?

In Florida at least you only have to have a saltwater license if you are fishing from something that is not a fixed structure (usually a boat),surf fishing, fishing off a pier is fine without one....You also have to have certain stamps to keep certain things like snook and lobster during their seasons.

/Thinking about fishing in the inlet near my house tonight.

How exactly would they have revealed the identities anyways? Do ANY of these types of site have any way of verifying who you are? I mean other than sites where people voluntarily pay to comment on news stories. Obviously there is going to be at least a possibility of a traceable payment there.

robkellyj:

This

Robkellyj is pretty awesome for boiling down the hyperbole to show what's actually there.

The shrieking harpies of the world won't read anything longer than a paragraph though so most of the point will go unnoticed.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (aka Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996)

My friend runs a mmo forum and I tell him to reply with this every time a moron emails him claiming hurt bits.

If someone stole your car, wouldn't you go to trial if you had to to get it back? Stealing someone's reputation (and in doing so making it hard for them to make a living or enjoy the same quality of life you would expect to enjoy) is absolutely no different.

The lower court ruled correctly - and contrary to the gist of the article, the Court of Appeals didn't "overturn" the lower court's ruling. They narrowed it. They didn't say, "idiotic anonymous posters are forever free to post whatever the hell they want, even lies, about anybody they want." They said, "we need you to follow X,Y,Z procedures to show a higher probable cause that you have been harmed, and that these anonymous posters where the ones that caused that harm, because there is also a right to privacy on the part of the posters." That is not in any way saying that the courts will not violate that right to privacy once harm has been shown and the asshat identified by showing specific statements.

And, we not living in a police state, no matter how much you personally disagree that you can't do whatever you feel like doing whenever you feel like doing it without repurcussion. That's called living within societal norms and respecting the rule of law. If you don't like the law, fine - work to change it by entering the legislature or lobbying the legislature to see it your way.

People that are completely ignorant of the law really should refrain from speaking on the law - constant misrepresentations only serve to further ignorance and misunderstanding among those who refuse to take the time to learn the truth.

Hey - you just damaged my reputation. What's your name and address?

This is what happens when people who know next to nothing about the internet are required to make rulings on it. To liken posting on an online forum to publishing a letter to the editor in a print newspaper is absurd. People talk a lot of smack online - anyone with a brain realizes that. That chocolate-chip cookie recipe you downloaded wasn't the real Mrs. Fields recipe - and if you don't know it now, you will after you bake the first batch. That's the internet - get over it.

As far as the U.S, being a police state - I would say our government exercises rigid and arbitrary control over the political, economic and social life of it's citizens. To say that their doing so is an accepted social norm makes it no less the case. Federal, state and municipal governments each add hundreds of new laws every year - the simple volume of which make it a mathematical certainty that, if you aren't violating the law now, it's only a matter of time until you do.

Finally, to paraphrase the Great Dissenter, the one truth about the law is that there is no one truth - everything is gray area. For anyone to claim an absolute knowledge of even a small area of it is asinine.