Forum Moderators: phranque
It is the first ruling of its kind in the Netherlands on Internet privacy and could have far reaching consequences for other Internet providers.Supreme Court spokesman Steven Bakker said the court found Pessers' claim of having suffered damages sufficient to order Lycos to release its client's name and address, even though no criminal offense had been committed.
(Emphasis mine.)
Just me, or a scary precedent?
[edited by: trillianjedi at 8:03 pm (utc) on Nov. 28, 2005]
[edit reason] Fixing Link [/edit]
After proving that all contact info on the domain was false we reported it to Internic's Whois Data Problem Report giving them proof of the false contact info and proof of the true author of the article and all other pertinent info.
They have a 15 day response time wherein the owner of the site has to respond to the false charges or loose their website. Within 15 days the website came down. It came back up a few weeks later but this time it had the true contact name on it. And the stolen article was removed.
you're using it wrong.
In fact in the usa, I think it was usa, there was a guy who just won a big court case against some company, he'd gotten sc##wed by them, made a website, and so on, the company sued, on several grounds, one of which was using the company name in the site name, like companyxsucks.com or something, and it was all thrown out, the judge, correctly, ruled that all the statements were obviously opinion since the guy was stating them.
I don't have a link to it, but it was fairly recently, might ring a bell for someone who knows the story.
However, in the case of actual libel, it's more problematic, if you go and libel an actual person that's not the same thing.
Luckily the legal system isn't set up the way kaled thinks it should be or we'd be in even worse trouble than we already are.
kaled, you can feel totally free to mention the hard drives that suck, let's see, ibms really sucked, so badly that they were hit with a class action lawsuit, then they sold their hard drive division to hitachi, which I wouldn't use for any amount of money, although I have no direct personal experience with hitachis.
That's at least one of them, what's the other?
companyxsucks.com
Almost every company out their has a [company]sucks.com website. I remember the story your talking about but can't remember which one. I recall something about tracfone, but I don't think that was the one.
The only people who are likely to have a problem with the removal of anonymity are the stupid, the reckless and the malicious.
This is usually the case. The Internet is infested with people who hide behind proxies, email and forums. We need much more accountability. That is why people can freely send me emails offering me all sorts of offensive, illegal and contraband material. They can rake in the profits knowing that there is virtually no chance of them getting caught (or even having to pay taxes in most cases).
There are also lots of weak, cowardly people in Internet forums, etc. who curse, insult and threaten others while hiding behind their ecloak of anonymity. I suspect that many of them are really just sad individuals with personality problems.
I am afraid that I have always believed that most people who want to remain anonymous are those who have something to hide. Before anyone takes me to task for this I appreciate that there are circumstances where this is justified but more often than not there is a shady motive for this.
Libel' is the common term for 'defamation'. Defamation is the deliberate writing (libel) or speaking (slander) of untrue information about a person or corporation. Where the spreading of defamatory speech or material causes material damage to those it relates to they may seek legal redress for the damage caused.
The point I have been trying to make is that the innocent have nothing to fear. You seem to be making the point that the innocent have nothing to fear and the guilty are pretty safe too.
Just for the record, IBM were not one of the manufacturers I had in mind. So far as I am aware, they had a slightly sticky patch in the late 90s and produced one bad drive (the subject of the class action). The companies I have in mind have been producing unreliable drives for upwards of two decades. As a matter of absolute fact, I fitted an IBM drive in the laptop in front of me a couple of years ago.
Kaled.
There are also lots of weak, cowardly people in Internet forums, etc. who curse, insult and threaten others while hiding behind their ecloak of anonymity. I suspect that many of them are really just sad individuals with personality problems.
Anonymity has many upsides. For all I know your a 18 year old upscale yuppie wall street tycoon with a strict religious upbringing. I could be a 60 year old lesbian midget who has a massive hairlip and works at taco bell. In the real world the two of us would probably never even carry on a conversation. On the internet and this forum we are equals, solely judged by the words we choose to use.
People you just meet in the real world are also phoney. Think how long you have to hang around someone before you start feeling comfortable enough that you can speak your mind freely. Anonymity removes that barrier. If I met a guy who was 6'8" 400 pounds of lean muscle with a chip on his shoulder who made a racial joke and started laughing, I would probably start chuckling with him just so he didn't crush me. I wouldn't dare tell him what I really thought of his joke.
Insurance Customer's 'Gripe Site' Is Protected Free Speech, Court Rules
November 07 2005
A New Jersey man who launched a Web site criticizing his car insurance company cannot be sued for defamation because the statements included on the site are protected free speech, a judge in Manhattan has ruled.Penn Warranty Corp. alleged in a complaint filed in New York County Supreme Court that defendant Ronald DiGiovanni defamed the company through a series of allegedly libelous statements.
But Justice Judith J. Gische said DiGiovanni has a right to maintain the "gripe site" because the challenged speech "is merely a statement of the defendant's personal opinion about the quality of services" provided by Penn Warranty.
In May 2000, the court's ruling explains, DiGiovanni agreed to a standard insurance contract with Penn Warranty for his 1994 GMC Sonoma truck. After Penn Warranty denied a claim filed by DiGiovanni under the service contract, DiGiovanni brought a small-claims action in New Jersey for breach of contract. The case settled for $2,500.
DiGiovanni then created www.pennwarrantylitigation.com, claiming that the company engaged in deceptive business practices. He maintained, among other things, that the insurer is a "crooked" and "blatantly dishonest company" that has "been ripping off its contract holders for quite a while" and "committing fraud on a grand scale."
Justice Gische said the statements on the now-defunct site, when viewed in their full context, show that DiGiovanni is a "disgruntled consumer" and "reflect his personal opinion based upon his personal dealing" with Penn Warranty.
"The statements are subjective expressions of consumer dissatisfaction with the plaintiff and the statements are not actionable because they are the defendant's personal opinion," Justice Gische wrote Oct. 28.
Penn Warranty also failed to persuade the court that it had lost any business as a result of DiGiovanni's actions.
Original article at Findlaw:
[news.lp.findlaw.com...]
Penn Warranty also failed to persuade the court that it had lost any business as a result of DiGiovanni's actionsThis may have been critical to the ruling. Had the claim for libel been upheld, DiGiovanni would probably have been liable to pay Penn's costs and the judge may have felt that was unreasonable.
Those outside the UK might be interested in this case involving McDonalds.
[mcspotlight.org...]
Kaled.
Kaled, I would put this differently. Any country that allows corporations to take on the rights of citizens without taking on the corresponding legal obligations, to the full extent of the law, in other words, any country that allows corporations to take on the rights of citizens [since you can't jail a corporation, it can never take on the corresponding full legal obligation of a citizen] is extremely unlucky.
Sadly, you're right in this case, the USA does allow this to happen [libel, defamation], so you get into the absurd claim that anyone can or could libel a corporation, which is total and utter nonsense. Luckily there is a tiny amount of protection and common sense left in some courts here, if you live in a country that has even less protection, that's unfortunate.
Twist, yours is not a very nice post, think about it!
I know I shouldn't pursue this, but i'll bite, send me a sticky because I haven't a clue what you mean by not nice. My only point was that stereotypes are removed completely by anonymity. If I see a 8' tall man walking down the street i'll take a double look and might even find myself starring. Natural human reaction that NOBODY is above. Once that 8' tall man sits behind his computer screen he is no longer known as the 8' tall man, he is just another person. He is not judged by his physical or ethnic features (stereotypes), he is solely judged by his personality. I think the web being anonymous is great, becuase you get to know the real person. Saying that anybody that enjoys being anonymous is a coward is just not true.
I doubt any corporation, etc. would go to the trouble of hunting down and suing anyone posting stuff on a forum, etc. unless it was clearly malicious. Also, whilst the law may differ across the world, in general you need to prove a measurable loss of some sort in order to win a libel case. Only in very rare cases would that be possible.
Kaled.
Rulings like this could ruin the internet and make it just like other media.
The average person will not have the right to publish their opinion?...
The internet to me is so great because you don't have to be somebody important to have your say. Why don't we just give all the rich corporations a waver that says we submit to your every whim?
Enough outta me...
May anarchy rule the internet for years to come!
If you honestly think that "lesbians", "midgets" and "massive harelips" are valid targets for ridicule then you are clearly in need of help.
The entire point of the post was showing that no matter sexual preference, physical appearance, age, or tax bracket, being anonymous forces people to be judged solely on their experience, knowledge, and personality (or lack thereof).
