posted by Joe Polk at 9:58 AM /
In the past, Mike and I used to allow anonymous commenting on this blog. For those of you that have been blog followers for a long time, you know that we encountered a serious problem with this policy and made a decision years ago to only allow postings with verifiable names.
Mike and I were both told that this was a bad idea and that it would squash opinions being aired via our blog. This was, of course, coming from people that "thought" they they were immune to any reprecussions as a result of their anonymous postings on our blog.
Well...you may want to think again about that. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Mike and I were both told that this was a bad idea and that it would squash opinions being aired via our blog. This was, of course, coming from people that "thought" they they were immune to any reprecussions as a result of their anonymous postings on our blog.
Well...you may want to think again about that. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Labels: lawsuit, no anonymous comments allowed
1 Comments:
Good post Joe. I represent one of the most popular news websites in the US. It also serves as host to over 100,000 forums where posters are permitted to make comments anonymously. In recent years, I have responded to hundreds of subpoenas and search warants issued by state and federal courts around the country. I even regularly respond to requests from the Secret Service, FBI, CIA and Dept of Homeland Security, all of whom are seeking information regarding anonymous posters. In the past, much of this work has been done in the aid of criminal investigations. However, more recently, there has been a considerable uptick in requests related to civil cases. Plaintiffs lawyers have come to realize that discovering the identity of anonymous posters is not all that difficult. It generally takes a subpoena to the website host and another to the ISP once the website host produces the ISP address in response to the first subpoena. And since claims like defamation and slander are often covered by the most common of homeowner's insurance policies, these plaintiff lawyers have successfully collected money for their clients - good money.
Notably, in certain high profile or unique cases we have argued against having to produce the identifying information in an effort to protect our anonymous posters. The courts in TX, CA, NY, PA, DE, and VA have rejected these arguments and compelled disclosure.
So in effect, by refusing anonymous posts, you have essentially protected these people from themselves. I have no doubt that you and Mike have refused anonymous comments that certainly could have formed the basis of a civil suit or two, regardless of their overall merits. As a lawyer who represents online media clients, I am keenly aware of the unique opportunities presented by new media. I am also sensitive to the fact that we should not put too many retraints on the free flow of ideas using this medium. However, those who regularly post anonymously comments that they would not would otherwise claim out in the open should be wary that their remarks may not be free of consequences and more and more the courts are refusing to allow blogs and forums to become the bathroomm wall of the internet.
Post a Comment
<< Home