×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

404 comments

Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (-1, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058046)

Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse? I find it hard to believe that this kid is well adjusted considering his mommy is willing to go to court to unmask his tormentors.

It appears that his mom still dresses him.
http://electlisastone.com/images/stone_family.jpg [electlisastone.com]

If he did, he would be wrong (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058134)

Nobody deserves anonymous abuse unless it is a matter of serious public concern. Assuming that your statement is correct, if the kid is already a "mommas boy" then online bullying would only make things worse. And in your post you have clearly identified yourself as a supporter of online bullying of the less socially able ("deserved"). Consider what this says about you, because it isn't very nice.

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058340)

Though few people deserve anonymous abuse, everyone should be able to deal with some.

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058924)

Asshole.

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058356)

The law doesn't ensure that everyone gets what they "deserve". The law ensures that anyone can express their opinions about any matter, without needing to appeal to any type of authority to determine whether or not something is "okay to talk about" first.

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058854)

The law ensures that anyone can express their opinions about any matter

I don't know which country, state or municipality's "law" you are talking about, but if you are living in a city in the US, you are incorrect.

You may express your "opinions about any matter" but you cannot "say anything you want about anyone", especially not about someone who is not a public figure.

The "law" as you put it, actually protects us against libel and slander. Further, it protects us against speech that would incite violence against someone or puts someone in danger.

It's a shame that so many people in the US think that "free speech" means "I can say anything I want".

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058386)

Are you seriously saying that the identity of anyone who calls someone names on the internet should be revealed by force of law?

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058764)

Yes, I did, you mouth-breathing retard! No one should be allowed to post anonymously, ever. Only pussies post anonymously, and only the guilty are worried about having the government know who said what when. The government is interested in you only if you have something to hide. Moron.

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (3, Informative)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058850)

If you make prank phone calls (even blocking caller ID), the phone company can be made to hand over your phone number & details

I don't think this should be the norm (you can't normally get somebody phoning you named), but i don't see why the internet should be any different.

or to meme it up for you:
Libellous comment is libellous
Threatening comment is threatening
Harassing comment is harassing

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30059090)

Are you saying that an anonymous comment on a 3rd party site in response to a comment posted by whoever is offended is just as invasive and unwarranted as a prank phone call to that person?

i'll give you some (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058392)

Due to your reply to the parent poster I'll through some abuse over to you just for kicks.

I have photos of Kupferniqk's Grandma masturbating Kupferniqk whilst his mother pokes herself wet. Kupferniqk then blows his load up his Grandma's arse with a stinking mixture of blood and cum!

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058476)

LOL - did I read that right? Someone called a kid a momma's boy, and his mother went to the court system?

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058538)

No, read again. We don't know what was said. GP First Flamey McTrollsalot called him a "mommas boy".

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (3, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058748)

The question at hand is not whether or not anybody deserves the anonymous abuse, the question is whether or not the courts need to be involved in it. Since we are not privy to the details of this case, I cannot accurately determine whether or not the comments were illegal (libel/legitimately threatening), but if they are not the courts have NO business interfering. We do not have a right to not be made fun of, or made to feel uncomfortable. We do not have the right to not be criticized. These things are absolutely essential to our freedom of expression and our freedom of speech -- if we start telling the obnoxious assholes that they can't be obnoxious assholes it is only a matter of time before it is illegal to 'anonymously abuse' the president by questioning the new Patriot Act v. 2.0.

Re: Perhaps anonymity is over-rated (1)

JD770 (1227350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058886)


Is it fair to say that the internet would be quite a bit more polite if you had to publicly stand by your statements just as if you were standing on your soap-box in the town square?

It appears to me that one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy. I understand the need for anonymity in certain situations. I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.

Where does the middle-ground lie between anonymity and personal responsibility? For now it appears that is determined, case-by-case, in the courts. Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, the web will remain troll-ridden. If that's a victory for free-speech, it's not a very satisfying one.

Re:If he did, he would be wrong (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058898)

Let's say that you make some stupid assertions. I point out that they are stupid. Are you going to start a court proceeding against me? FFS The article doesn't even mention bullying or abuse - instead it says the posts were "deeply disturbing". What is THAT supposed to mean? Who defines "deeply disturbing" anyway? Every vindictive little bitch who has a dorky son?

Stupid shit like this makes anonymity software look more and more appealing. Note to self: if ever I post a non-complimentary comment about anyone I know in real life, make SURE to only use the anonymous virtual machine to make the posts.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058140)

from her website, she's generally anti-freedom

opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
opposes freedom to use marijuana

and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060

What a bitch

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (4, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058288)

Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058390)

dangerous dogs are a product of the environment, not breeding, cocksucker. By the way, more people have died from mosquitoes then warfare in any time slice through history longer then 10 days. So how about my right to live without diseases being interfered with by your irrational fear of "dangerous" pesticides. Hint, it's a village ordinance, they're banning something accepted by every level of government above them, with independent reviews in spite of Monsanto's propaganda. You're an assfuck.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058412)

Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (2, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058576)

Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.

Public health oncerns are generally overbroad, politically targetted, and regularly exaggerated.

I'd suggest it's up to the individual to decide whether second hand smoke from someone smoking pot should characterised as objectionable, welcome, or somewhere in between (as in "Dude, it's only 8:00 in the morning").

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058600)

Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.

You have it a little backwards in my opinion. Dangerous dogs can be controlled by their keepers, that should not be legislated. Pesticides are necessary to avoid the spread of malaria and other rather unpleasant diseases, they should not be legislated against. Marijuana is the only one that is sure to cause greater societal suffering as can you imagine the number of driving related deaths caused if it became legal? Never mind the wider societal damage caused through throngs of stoners being less than productive members of society. If someones life is so terrible that they _require_ a substance to ease the pain then they need psychological help not the legalization of a drug that provides a temporary solution.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (2, Interesting)

mrvan (973822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058628)

I live in Amsterdam since 6 years, and I can tell you: marijuana smells pretty badly. So, I don't care about the substance, but regulating acceptable "smell levels" would not be a bad thing :-)

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (4, Insightful)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058706)

But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.

There are many things that are dangerous in this world. Cars, for instance, are numerous times more dangerous to me than any dog, and I speak as someone who has been attacked by a large and dangerous dog as a child. I would never call for a ban on either of those, but they do not necessarily invade the rights of others. Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058710)

I won't argue about the pesticide thing, because that is inherently impossible to contain except in quantities too small to matter. On the other matter, though... you want to ban breeds of dogs because they can attack people? That's just as stupid as banning some kinds of guns because they look scary. What an idiot.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (5, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058940)

But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me

I don't want you walking around with a dangerous tool of rape tucked in your trousers. You could rape me any time!

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058982)

Dude, you shouldn't be afraid of me, I'm harmless.

But I see lots of ghetto scum walking around with aggressive pitbulls that they use to look bad, threaten people and even to mug people. We are talking about dogs trained and used EXPLICITLY as weapons. Maybe something should be done about it, no?

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059026)

You're right about the dangerous pesticides.
You're wrong about dangerous dog breads.
As long as they obey leash laws the bread shouldn't matter. If you trespass into their fenced yard, and are bitten, that is your fault.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30059092)

How exactly do you propose to define which dogs are 'dangerous'? If you think that a 'breed' of dogs is inherently dangerous, think again. What makes dogs dangerous more than anything is abuse.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1)

dvorakkeyboardrules (1652653) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059082)

from her website, she's generally anti-freedom

opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes opposes freedom to use marijuana

and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060 [dailyherald.com]

What a bitch

This post is a good example of the "Appeal to motive" fallacy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive [wikipedia.org]

The AC's argument basically boils down to saying "This woman has wrong beliefs about Issues A, B, and C because of her bad philosophy, and therefore her belief about Issue D must also be wrong. Move along now."

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058196)

Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse? I find it hard to believe that this kid is well adjusted considering his mommy is willing to go to court to unmask his tormentors.

What does "deserved" mean? Did the boy in question do something that merited a punishment or is he simply guilty for being different or not part of the in crowd in some way.

I would like more details of the case, but harrassment, whether online or offline is not merited and to give would-be vigilantes license to act as judge and jury to decide in place of one is stupid.

What I find hard to believe is that is that the person who made the comments has any balls at all considering they went all the way to court to protect their identity, rather than say it to a person's face. Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058256)

the 'system' just might consider one who fights it a 'bullying harrasser.'

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (5, Insightful)

reverendbeer (1496637) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058344)

Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.

Who decides what is "bullying" or "harrassment?" One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system." Who decides this? You? Me? Well, me, of course.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1, Interesting)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058820)

One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system."

A fifteen year-old child is not part of The System, so this is clearly harassment. There are different standards for public discourse against celebrities/politicians and private citizens/minors, as there should be.

And in no circumstance does "Freedom of Speech" equate to "Freedom of Anonymous Speech." Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the proliferance of User IDs in lieu of real names. The day is coming when the US Government will subpoena the logs and UID databases of Slashdot, and at that time Slashdot's owners will fold in like an origami swan.

Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (1)

crimperman (225941) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059036)

> Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse?

Hmm that reminds me of when I did Jury service some years back. It was a GBH case and one of the jurors said "To be honest if the victim was as annoying that night as he was in court today, he was probably asking for a slap - but that doesn't mean they should have done it"

fp (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058052)

fristy poss?

The judge seems to be entirely right (2, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058098)

This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing. If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.

One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful. The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch. Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058114)

UR teh faggit!!!!!1 LOLOLOL

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058136)

You can always drop a civil suit. Personally I don't think a judge should be ruling on this until a suit is brought, otherwise can I just get a judge to unmask the identity of anyone online who says something mean about me so I can figure out if it's worth suing them or not? If the suit has merit then a Judge should have no problem with it.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058926)

Who does she sue? The court can't do anything with a civil suit unless it has some jurisdiction over the defendant, and without his identity that's impossible to determine. The current step is best resolved with the site which hosts the comments. It's sort of like having to establish paternity before determining child-support, can't put the cart before the horse.

I know I know, should have been a car metaphor.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (2, Insightful)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058202)

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic; however, combining your post with the quotation leads me to believe that you might not understand what freedom means.

freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions, even if i don't agree with them. if someone can't handle that, perhaps they need to live in a tightly restricted community, or under a tyrant.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058294)

yes, there is freedom in making your own decisions. the boy said to have the debate in person, and the other guy asked if he often invites people home. for me it's clear that the question has absolutely no connection with the debate, and it's just meant to hurt the boy. In this case, I wouldn't care who is who, once you say something with the intention of hurting the other person, you should say who you are. you are free to say it, but don't hide. let society decide if you are right in hurting the other person or not (society will be represented by a judge or a jury or whatever). so, to reiterate: the judge says "you hurt someone who proposed a debate, you do not have the right to be anonymous". I read the linked article, and another link from there, and I understood that the invitation was for a debate, not a fight. In this case, I agree with the judge.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058318)

A fight is a continuation of a debate by other means.
- Carl von Clevarwitz

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058426)

So now nobody in America can make a joke online without fear of a court case??

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1, Troll)

paragon1 (1395635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058528)

Rules of the sense of humor:

1. Very subjective.
2. Know your audience.
3. Use responsibly.

I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this. (And most probably, also very immature)

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058786)

I think it's funny how people have forgotten the events of history.

Oh sure you'll probably say, but that was the Cold War, many years ago and 10,000 miles away. No actually it was right here just a few months ago. "Bush is a lousy president, and this war is a war against my people - Muslims." (knock knock knock). "Open up! You're going to Gitmo where you will be held without trial for many years."

Anonymity is the last resort to protect you when presidents/leaders are acting like tyrants.

This is not just a good idea. It's the Supreme Law of the land - even higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058544)

In this case, I wouldn't care who is who, once you say something with the intention of hurting the other person, you should say who you are.

That's just your idiotic opinion, moron.

(Is he kidding?)

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058722)

Posting with your real name is not the problems. Idiots like French and former-EU President Sarkozy, or former President Bush, who will use your speech to throw you in jail - they are the problem.

Anonymity is the last resort when they take-away your right to speak freely. Anonymity allows you to exercise your inalienable right without fear of the men in black dragging you off to jail.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058428)

Freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions. Responsibility means facing the consequences of the decisions you make. You can't have one without the other.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058388)

One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity

The right to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is intrinsic and by implying that somehow it replaces a need for anonymity is a ridiculous straw-man argument. On the contrary we should ensure there is always a channel for anonymous communication since eventually, and inevitably, any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know, it could be your rights on the firing line.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058440)

eventually, and inevitably, any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know, it could be your rights on the firing line.

American citizens' rights have been on the firing line since 9/11 and freedom of speech doesn't seem to have helped matters any..

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058720)

If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.

Sorry, but you're profoundly ignorant of how the legal system works. She wants to know if he has any money, if it would be monetarily profitable to sue. Its an investment decision. If he/she is "judgement-proof" or "rich enough", she won't bother. If "mother" can ruin their life simply by filing suit, "mother" will. The justice system is all about money...

Guarantee step #2 after determining identity is deciding how to make the most money.

In a way, its a profoundly stupid tactic for the mother to follow, because either she'll discover theres no point in suing, or the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account. Or, if he/she gets blackmailed, there is now a legal trail showing mother did it. An effective way to win the battle and lose the war.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058740)

the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account.

Arrrgh rephrased,

"the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that obviously the plaintiff was unhurt, and remained unhurt until she determined the size of the defendants bank account, at which time she felt like grubbing some money"

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (4, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058810)

"Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood."

Ummm... yeah dude, it does. Anonymity can be CRUCIAL to free speech -- there are certain things that we all wish to express and say about others and about the society around us that we cannot say in public. There is no freedom when a judge can read an Internet posting and immediately, like R. Lee Ermey at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, bellow "WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT?!" This can lead to all sorts of bullying and abuse by the powers that be and will in the long run have a powerful chilling effect on free speech.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058834)

This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.

No, she doesn't. You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.

If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.

No, there is an escape - you drop the case. It's not hard. You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.

PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (2, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058866)

No no no. Your wrong. Anonymity is an important and vital component of free speech. This is due to the simple fat that expressing certain views and opinions, such as in politics may get you killed. The fact is, while the government can say it prosecutes such offenses, the fact is there is little to prevent these acts from happening and in many cases the attacker may remain untraceable. The government cant be everwhere to protect everyone. As well, a lack of anonymity would allow your employer to basically trace every single thing you have ever said. If they found you had liberal views and wanted to to regulate corporations they may not hire you. Here technically no law was broken but you are being punished by speech. As long as the option for anonymity does not exist, free speech does not existant on any topic of any real world importance.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058922)

With rights come responsibility, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater nor be allowed own a weapon if convicted of an gun related offense.

This judge is probably right.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30059030)

Bullshit. She's fishing. What if it were to turn out that it's her son or daughter or father or mother was posting the messages? Would she still press charges? A crime is a crime is a crime. If charges are to be pressed, then press the charges and then address the revealing of an anonymous posting. But don't play the "outing game" just to determine if she should try to sue.

Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059096)

In addition to protection from extra-legal reprecussions, I would include quasi-legal such as what amounts to a SLAPP suit. That is, the judge should consider whether a potential lawsuit could have any merit.

However, in this case, It looks like the judge made the right decision. Following the link in TFA, it's clear that the offending comments had nothing to do with legitimate political discussion and were clearly intended to be hurtful and offensive.

When I first saw the headline, it sounded like the implementation of a suggestion I saw here on /. That is, that the poster's comments would be revealed to HIS mother so he could be properly ashamed of his actions :-)

Why do we care? (0, Offtopic)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058106)

Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US. Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?

Re:Why do we care? (1, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058122)

Especially when it's such a substance-less [non-]story.

Re:Why do we care? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058828)

Especially when it's such a substance-less [non-]story.

you mean the abridgment of freedom of speech (in a clear-cut case of political dissent, no less)?

yes, not substantive at all.

Feeling left out? (1, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058328)

Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.

"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.

Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3557668.html?menu= [ananova.com]

Re:Feeling left out? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058456)

Perhaps Britons are just not retarded enough for that kind of crap.

Thank you and goodnight.

Re:Feeling left out? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058746)

Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.

"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.

Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3557668.html?menu= [ananova.com]

Speaking as someone who spent a large number of years in the UK that's pretty funny. That will teach the ba***rds to ridicule American plugs not long ago.

Re:Feeling left out? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058838)

I'm surprised.

First there were the Celtic-Britons. Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls (100-300s). Then another infusion of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (500s). A steady invasion of Vikings (Danelaw-800-1000). And finally Norman-French (1100-1200s). You'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans.

Re:Why do we care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058796)

It's only as US-centric as you interpret it to be.

If you can't find anything in that story that could pertain to your life, perhaps you're just lacking in the creative thinking department.

Or, perhaps you don't believe that anything not pertaining to your life is worth discussing?

Or, perhaps, maybe, possibly, there are American citizens (who only could find this article not worth whining about) who don't actually reside in the U.S.? Or work unconventional hours?

There are plenty of reasons to think a story isn't worth the front page, but bitching about the country of incidence based on the time of day is pretty lame...

Re:Why do we care? (2, Informative)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059012)

This is a US based site, with it's webmasters who are US citizens. The FAQ has a section on this.

Re:Why do we care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30059068)

Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US. Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?

You could always trot on over to slashdot.uk

Oh wait.

Hip Check (2, Informative)

kencf0618 (1172441) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058144)

For what it's worth, "hip check" is a roller derby term.

Re:Hip Check (3, Informative)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058278)

It's a hockey term, actually. I imagine roller derby appropriated it because it's basically the same kind of hit. In hockey, though, you can get much better arc on your opponent if you catch them just right.

What was the "deeply disturbing" comment? (4, Interesting)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058188)

From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID. Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over. A perfectly valid question. It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general. Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.

But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.

Re:What was the "deeply disturbing" comment? (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058454)

I believe the Judge feels the language is strong enough to bring the case to court, which would reveal the poster's identity anyway. This option allows her to find out who it was and decide not to press charges. I think the better discussion would not be if the case was strong, but if its right to give personal information that could avoid prosecution. I'm kind of feeling that it is. No sense in putting a loudmouth 13 year old through the legal ringer.

Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058656)

You really should click more...

Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"

The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.

Stone said the comments crossed the line.

"I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that," she said. "There was no joke, there was no punch line."

Stephen Tyma, an attorney representing Stone, said First Amendment protections were designed to shield anonymity in political debate, but not in what he characterized as sexual insinuations about children.

Looks like a fit case for an apology by 'hipcheck' - if he did _not_ know the child was a minor

If he _did_ know Stone's son was a minor, knowingly making lewd insinuations to a child is illegal and he deserves a visit from that process server.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059056)

Lewd? I see no lewd insinuations at all in the above quote. Read it carefully, and avoid projecting your own lewdness on to the sentence.

Yes, it can make a reference to sex. As it can to underage drinking, running away from mom, sedition, playing with legos, and a whole lot of other things. The poster only set up an entrapment for your lewd mind, and succeeded.

I think one has to be seriously oversexed or repressed to see a sexual reference where there is none.
Which, perhaps, tells us plenty about the situation here in the US today. Many people will actively look for "lewdness" under every rock, because that's where their repressed minds go.

When will some people learn... (2, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058236)

... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.

Re:When will some people learn... (5, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058342)

... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will.

I could...

  • Steal wifi
  • Pay cash at an internet cafe
  • Use free wifi at McDonalds etc
  • Use an anonymous computer at work
  • Use tor or a proxy

Re:When will some people learn... (2, Insightful)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058468)

Opening yourself to Man in the Middle spying or Over the Shoulder spying isn't a bulletproof plan to protect anonymity if you're a paranoid individual.

Re:When will some people learn... (1)

hansraj (458504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058478)

Hah, I don't have to do any of that. I will just use my wifi and claim that you stole my wifi!

Who said you'll be found out via the net? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058520)

On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.

Re:Who said you'll be found out via the net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058556)

You know, some countries don't have all these Big Brother systems, and consider "1984" a work of fiction, not a development plan.

Re:Who said you'll be found out via the net? (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058620)

On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.

So lets say someone wants to make an anonymous statement.

Are you suggesting that 'they' are able to do this:

1. Know within a short period of time that Anonymous comment X was made by someone they wish to track down.
2. Subpoena the IP logs of the website where the comment was made (assuming that such logs are kept)
3. Receive the logs, determine which ISP the IP was assigned to
4. Subpoena the IP assignment table of the ISP and receive the cooperation of the ISP.
5. Assuming that the IP is correct, identify the location where the wifi router was.
6. Go to that location and take a guess as to which camera records to subpoena.
7. Subpoena the records of the cameras.
8. Hope that the cameras actually show something and that the data hasn't been overwritten. (Some only store 1 week of video)
9. Ask around and see if anyone saw any nefarious individuals using *gasp*, a laptop. (Who are you going to ask in a McDonalds? The people who are there now, or the people who have scattered to the winds 5 minutes after eating? The employees who are obviously savants and remember everything since they work at McDonalds and could easily identify someone using a laptop in their store 2-3 weeks ago)

10. Realize that the guy who posted the comment didn't even enter the store and simply typed up the statement/message in private and set it up to connect to the first open wifi location and didn't even have to take his laptop out of his bag.

11. ????

12. Profit.

Re:Who said you'll be found out via the net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30059064)

For the kind of anonymous statements I make, they'll go to those lengths to find me....bitch.

Re:When will some people learn... (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058852)

another missing option:

live in another country.

People forget the interweb thingie is international in scope and reach. As long as you speak the language of the locals, you can go make a mess and there is little anyone can do about it. Example: Some little douchebag in Miami might find a local chat group or BBS or blog or whatever in.... I dunno... New Zealand. And he'll go there and stink the place up and get a bunch of people pissed off, call them names and just generally act like an ass. EVEN IF the people in NZ find out his identity, there isn't jackshit they can do about it. Therefore, there is no real reason to go after some anonymous coward for being a dick. If that were possible, you'd see the traffic volume and level of stupidity here on slashdot drop a lot.

Hmmmm... Maybe it is a good idea...

(joking)

RS

Re:When will some people learn... (1)

Povno (1460131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058902)

There are people who have spent a lot of money on education, so they could make a lot of money rendering all those things mute. Nearly anything you do, if handled by a professional with the proper tools, can be traced back to you. If you think it's that easy to get away with, find a security professional or an ethical hacker and ask them. There is no anonymity on the internet, only the option to not use a name.

Re:When will some people learn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058462)

There is anonymity... and then there is anonymity... if you have a little smarts and a little know-how you can be almost impossible to track without prior knowledge of when the posting is going to take place or much more security than a newspaper site uses.

An attack against anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058480)

On the internet isn't going to end well...

Just Playing Politics (5, Insightful)

Intractable (1676308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058494)

goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.

retitled "Court pitches first amendment" (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058794)

The fact that this is a politician stifling anonymous speech makes this decision even more egregious.

This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!

Re:retitled "Court pitches first amendment" (1, Troll)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059008)

This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!

No it wasn't. There is nothing about the First Amendment protecting *anonymous* speech.

Remember that when the amendment was written, it was not uncommon for governments to jail individuals for speaking against them, simply because they could. What the forefathers were saying was, "It won't be against the law to speak out against the government in America. Say whatever you want about your elected officials, we won't throw you in jail or prosecute you in any way." This was written SPECIFICALLY for the guys standing up on soapboxes, shaking their fists in the town square. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would deliver the back of his hand to any punk trying to hide behind the First Amendment to bully a child anonymously.

Re:Just Playing Politics (4, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058816)

goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.

So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.

The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.

your (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058612)

MOMMA

now sue me!

pff

all i want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058624)

all i want to do is eat meat and have sex like a rabbit.

It's all in the details... (2, Informative)

avatar_charlie (1633965) | more than 4 years ago | (#30058684)

I'd personally say that that this is a door that should neither be fully opened nor fully closed by law in and of itself; but rather, decided on a case-by-case basis with other, more established legal precedents and laws being the deciding factors.

In this case, TFA doesn't get into the specific nature of the comments made; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details, but we still don't have the fullest possible context to this story. There could be additional comments that were libelous, or simply hateful and abusive. In the US (your jurisdiction may vary) there is a certain additional protection in these situations afforded to persons who are not public figures. (In other words, if the article or story being commented on was ABOUT the teen in question, the level of protection is lesser; on the other hand, if the teen in question was not the subject of the piece, then the level of protection granted is somewhat greater.)

In short, the internet is not, nor should it be, an open-ended platform to abuse people for no reason other than a desire to abuse. By the same token, where there is a clear public interest in commentary concerning public figures that may or may not be deemed "abusive" to the supporters of those figures, the protections for anonymous commenters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law.

All that said, if the nature of the comments could be boiled down to "Hey don't attack my mom" followed by "you're an idiot", then if I were the judge, I'd have to err on the side of protecting free speech and privacy rights. If we have the full context here, this is not a question that deserves to have a federal case made of it.

This will only help Scientology... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058714)

...and other overly litigious organizations.

It may seem like this is off topic but look at how organizations like this operate.

If a legal precedent comes along that allows people to get a judicial hearing to strip the anonymity of people without a proper criminal or civil trial then these organizations and people will be able to get the identity of anybody that criticizes them.

And as we've seen with Scientology once they know who you are they can harass you into shutting up.

This is not a good thing.

Posting anonymously for several damn good reasons.

The world gets a little worse every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30058968)

Her son got into a flame war with a guy on the internet so of course a lawsuit has to happen and someone has to be given money because some how that will make everything ok.

It's needless to say this guy should not have to reveal his name. It's stories like this that really make me sick of it all.

As far as I know, hepcheck16 made a joke about this lady's son being gay and screwing old men he meets on the internet. This lady then overreacted, decided to pretend she was fighting for some cause greater than herself, and here we are today.

For more info: http://randazza.wordpress.com/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...