Print

[xraider]

For those who care, a new case was just published by the California court of appeal holding that people who post in chat rooms or in forums have a First Amendment right to privacy.

Plaintiff, an officer in a corporation, served subpoenas on Yahoo trying to discover the identity of ten message board users she claimed had defamed her, and one of them ("Doe 6") objected and moved to quash the subpoena, saying he had a first amendment right to speak anonymously on the internet. 

The court held that if there is actual, actionable defamation, it may be that production of the identity of the poster can be compelled.  However, posting hyperbole and insults is protected speech, and the identity of the poster will not be compelled.  The posts at issue were not factual; "[r]ather, they fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment."

Case is Krinsky v. Doe 6, no cite yet.

[NewHorizon]

Using the Ignore button is easier (and cheaper) than serving subpoenas.   

[xraider]

Yeah, but you don't get the same sense of revenge and vindication as you do when you're proactive!

[cubbiesnextyr]

Yeah, but you don't get the same sense of revenge and vindication as you do when you're proactive!

You're a doofus.  Ha! Protected speech!  nananana 

[MoneyDog]

I will be interested to see whether true libel, not just "crude, satirical hyperbole," will constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.

For example, if I say that someone is a convicted felon, and he is not, will that be protected?

[Oak_Hill_Fire]

I will be interested to see whether true libel, not just "crude, satirical hyperbole," will constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.

For example, if I say that someone is a convicted felon, and he is not, will that be protected?

I doubt that would be protected, especially if proper names are used. That word "may" in the "it may be that production of the identity of the poster can be compelled" certainly leaves a lot of wiggle room.

[xraider]

True libel would not be protected.  However, the court in this case was big on context.

The language at issue was:

"I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene."

Arguably, the "fake medical degree" and "poor feminine hygiene" are libelous since they are demonstrably true, or not.  However, the court noted the context of the comments, and found that the "fake medical degree" reference was not intended to be a statement of fact, and found that no reasonable reader would find that the poster had any real basis for knowing whether Lisa had poor feminine hygiene.

And, of course, if you couch things appropriately ("I bet she's a convicted felon" or "it wouldn't surprise me if...") then it would be opinion, which is protected.

ETA:  Cubbies, truth is always a defense.

Oak Hill, my read of the case is that there is a very high threshhold here. 

[zcommodore]

On the one hand, it's nice to know that speech is protected.  However, when I read the bit that I read, it was partly discussing the ability to find out the identity of the one who is doing the speaking.  Given that most users here are already members of .com it wouldn't take a rocket scientist (or a deep googler) long to figure out the true identity if you are Prosper and want to find out since they have all kinds of identity info.

[xraider]

Z, the thrust of the case is that you can't find out the identity of posters when you have no legal rights against them.  So, the case discusses protected speech and the additional right of anonymous speech.

So whether or not Prosper knows our true identities (which it may or may not except for verified lenders) Prosper cannot take legal action against posters if they don't like our opinions or hyperbole. Of course, I wouldn't think that Prosper would waste its time.....

[Ferrix]

So whether or not Prosper knows our true identities (which it may or may not except for verified lenders) Prosper cannot take legal action against posters if they don't like our opinions or hyperbole. Of course, I wouldn't think that Prosper would waste its time.....

No, they have plenty of other ways they waste their time.

[LoanChimp]

Cubbies has fat thighs and poor feminine hygiene... 

[cubbiesnextyr]

Cubbies has fat thighs and poor feminine hygiene... 

LC is a big-fat doodoo head!

[PLP]

The posts at issue were not factual; "[r]ather, they fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment."

I hope that I never have to rely on my immaturity for protection from a libel suit, but it is always nice to know that is an option. 

[Tokyo Joe]

If every person who has been accused casually or formally of defamation or libel on a message forum was actually brought into court, our justice system would grind to a halt.

[xraider]

I continue to revel in my immaturity in all aspects of my life.  Ask my parents, my children, my partners, certain select clients.....