California court bars unmasking of Web critic

TalkBack 1 of 6:: Next »

Thread View
Flat View

Well, as long as no financial or personal harm can come from: an anonymous posters claims and words (that an anonymous post isn't given any weight by those who read or hear of it because of the anonymous nature of the information given), I can only see the target of such being reasonably angered (possibly to heart attack or anxiety) but no work harm. Right? If said target has suffered financial and/or work ramifications due to a personal/business defamation by an anonymous poster or someone using a false name, why was/is there negative impact? Who are the people reading the posts, how do they interact with the target? Is this just a discovery phase the plaintiff wants to go through in order to know who their attacker is versus countering their attacker?

Do businesses take anonymous/pseudonym posts seriously? Are the times changing with technology that a web board and/or posting forum has enough sway on colleagues, consumers and business partners. Have the laws changed with technology? Is there a new disconnect with theory and practice of such? Is an anonymous post the new punishment-free crime or just a given right of the 1st. Can you get away with personal attacks without personal consequence because your birth name isn?t in the signature? When does the court unmask anonymous? If a court won?t unmask a poster, will they instead reverse 3rd party impact on the plaintiff, bar actions against the plaintiff by those who may have read blogs, forums, boards and acted on said posts, stating that the posts could ?not be considered assertions of fact?. When have facts been relevant to people?s reactions to posts and news? Very interesting.

Well, it's a victimless thing, unless it's done to a judge . . .; Posted by: Boot_Agnostic Posted on: 02/07/08 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use