So Sue Me!

News, discussion and questions about technology and computers, whether broadcast-related or not.

So Sue Me!

Postby slowhand » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:38 pm

Steep consequences for anyone caught trash talking on ’Net
By ALAN SHANOFF, QMI Agency
Toronto Sun Columnist
August 22, 2010

Many people wrongly believe the Internet is a Wild West where freedom of speech is absolute and anonymity is guaranteed.

They post comments, blog, e-mail and tweet in ignorance of the law. But the law is clear.

The same laws that apply to old school media like newspapers, magazines, radio and television, apply to communication and publication via the Internet.

Yes, but many people don’t use their real names in Internet communications, so they are protected by their anonymity, right? No, that’s not right.

Whether you blog about someone you believe to be a “skank” or a “ho,” set up a fake Facebook page to harm someone’s reputation or post defamatory comments on a message board, all under an anonymous or fake name, the law is the same.

The person you’ve harmed has the right to apply to a judge for a court order compelling the release of information that can lead to your identity.

And that court order will be granted once the judge is satisfied there’s a reasonable case of defamation.

The court order can be directed to your Internet service provider, the owner of a blog, your e-mail provider or any other organization that might have information leading to your identity.

Right or wrong, courts are happily providing these orders.

The woman who called another model a skank and a ho was outed by Google following a court order.

A Halifax newspaper has been ordered to provide information on anonymous online posters.

An ISP has been ordered to provide information on a person who set up a fake Facebook page.

These are but three of many examples of such court orders. And some organizations holding information are releasing it without the necessity of a court order.

If you’ve defamed someone and an organization holds information that could lead to your identity, there’s little to stop that organization from releasing the information without a court order.

Also, while many ISPs insist upon receiving a court order before releasing information, they often won’t dispute the right of an aggrieved party to obtain the order.

Many believe the Internet should be a bastion of free anonymous speech.

But free speech doesn’t mean speech without repercussions, if you defame someone or break the law. There’s no more right to defame another or break the law via the Internet than in a newspaper.

As one judge has stated, “(T)here is no compelling public interest in allowing someone to libel and destroy the reputation of another, while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.”

This applies even more to Internet communications which have the ability of moving around the globe while replicating at lightning speed.

A comment on one site can easily find its way to multiple sites and trying to effectively counter defamatory statements can resemble a game of whack-a-mole.

Once you’ve been identified and sued don’t think for a moment that a court will only impose a slap on the wrist.

After all, you may think, it’s just the Internet; people don’t take postings on the Internet seriously.

Maybe some don’t, but judges do.

A 2004 Ontario Court of Appeal decision awarded damages of $125,000 in favour of a mining company accused online of having committed fraud.

Earlier this year a British Columbia court awarded damages of $425,000 in favour of another mining company.

Sure, these plaintiffs might never get paid on their judgments. The defendant in the B.C. case is reportedly out of the country and collecting from him will be difficult; but do you want to leave Canada or declare bankruptcy to avoid a judgment?

So a word of advice to everyone, before you post your witty remarks, take a careful second look at what you’ve written.

Deleting it may be your best bet.

alan.shanoff@sunmedia.ca
User avatar
slowhand
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 2:03 pm

Re: So Sue Me!

Postby slowhand » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:40 pm

Does that mean that by not using my real name I give up my right to sue you for offending, er, defaming me?

"SoSueMe" sounds like a great name for a Japanese car.
User avatar
slowhand
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 2:03 pm

Re: So Sue Me!

Postby PMC » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:15 am

slowhand wrote:Does that mean that by not using my real name I give up my right to sue you for offending, er, defaming me?

"SoSueMe" sounds like a great name for a Japanese car.


Address all e-mail to screwyou2@isueforless.com

The address is also for the spammers that scan those offending comments. :)
PMC
 

Re: So Sue Me!

Postby RationalKeith » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:07 am

The medium per se shouldn't affect the essentials of the law.
(There may be distinctions on how widespread the communication is, but on the Internet one has to assume wide - many viewers.)

Of course there are those who like to try to bully critics by threatening to sue.

Yes, people are idiots on the Internet - gratuitous profuse swearing in a technical discussion, calling people names, revealing too much (all the better to get robbed or kidnapped, or caught by police - well, that might be good ;-), etc. It seems parallel to drunken behaviour - those with troubled psychology will behave badly when inhibitions are relaxed.

BTW, keep your radio station secure - recent news included a computer worm targeting a common model of industrial control device. Media think it was targetted at Iran's nuclear facilities,

as it is reported most often in Iran and they had severe problems with two facilities. Now, who
would do such a thing? Well, people who are trying to defend their life against the ev.....[snip - wouldn't want to be accused of defamation now <g,d,r>].

And....media reports say that malware was spread via USB sticks, which I have cautionned
aboutt in another thread herein.
RationalKeith
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:57 am

Re: So Sue Me!

Postby RationalKeith » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:21 am

Well, there is opinion that dumps cold water on the idea that Israel put Stuxnet into Iranian facilities, though I’ve heard that Iran has arrested people (the bureaucracy has to blame someone, tyrannies look for scapegoats), and has blamed Stuxnet for a delay in one of their plants becoming operational.

The doubt hinges on claimed reputation of Iranian facilities for poor IT security and that the malware was out there for a year before being discovered.

OTOH, maybe the doubt stories, and Iran’s, are cover (hey, I could be a conspiracy theorist too ;-).
http://antivirus.about.com/od/virusdesc ... g-Iran.htm &
http://antivirus.about.com/b/2010/10/02 ... tuxnet.htm.

Whichever, perhaps both, the point is that the primary method of transmission is USB sticks since the target systems are not often connected to the Internet. From my limited knowledge I suspect that USB sticks are frequently used to update software, or settings prepared offline, or download data.
RationalKeith
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:57 am


Return to Computer & Technology News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests