Star must identify anonymous posters to website, judge rules

[The Straight Story]

A Marion County judge has ruled, for the first time in Indiana, that news media outlets can be ordered by the court to reveal identifying information about posters to their online forums.

In rulings this week and last week, Marion Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid became the first judge in Indiana to rule on whether the state journalism shield law protects media outlets from being forced to disclose names of anonymous posters on their websites or other identifying information about those posters, said Kevin Betz, an attorney for Jeffrey Miller, former chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana.

The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit Miller filed last year. He is seeking to broaden the list of defendants in his case to include people who criticized him anonymously last year on websites run by The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Business Journal and WRTV (Channel 6).

The case is among a growing number of defamation claims nationally that target anonymous Internet posters to websites operated by news media and other owners.


http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Judge-Star-must-identify-anonymous-posters?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

[AngelicBit]

1. no way

A mighty big implication for user privacy.  I think that the
court made a big error in this judgement.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy?

If you take your clothes off in public, should you expect it to be a secret?

[MineralMan]

2. The comments sections on newspaper, TV, and radio sites

are some of the ugliest places I've ever visited. The most vile threats and libels are posted daily. I'm amazed that these sites have not shut down that stuff completely. It's impossible to moderate.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. +1

I used to peruse the Indianapolis Star online forum and comments but I became too repulsed by the abject hate and bigotry expressed there. It kind of freaks me out to think that there are people out there whom apparently are fine with posting what they're posting. It's really almost like listening to about 5 seconds worth of AM Hate Radio IMHO and I can stand reading it just as well. :puke:

Hate Radio/Print= "Nasty as we wanna be!"

[Blue_Tires]

8. I've noticed that as well

a lot of papers are either moderating much more strictly, or just dropping public comments completely

[MineralMan]

9. Well, if I had a news site, I'd shut off all comments.

I do the same on my blogs. Opening yourself to random comments just never works. Morons abound.

[Blue_Tires]

13. so would i...

A few years ago when most newspaper sites had zero moderation, so many posters were WAY over-the-top -- KKK-type comments on race and religion, death threats, you name it...

[itsrobert]

3. They will probably find out many are the same person

Using different names. Many sponsored by far right money.

[FreakinDJ]

12. No - they'll find out it's a Dead End

Shit for all we know they used Mike Huckaby's information to sign up for that account

[Lucian]

4. Who signs up on a website with identifying personal information?

Seriously. I certainly don't.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. A lot of sites are using Facebook/Twitter integration for log on purposes

Most sites usually require you to register before you are allowed to post.

[MineralMan]

7. I do, sometimes. In either case, I never post anything that might

be actionable. I post my opinion, and do so in a reasonable way. Many, however, do not do that. I've completely stopped even reading the comment sections of news outlets. It's a complete waste of time.

[Lucian]

14. I never sign up with personal info.

You just never know how it's going to be used.

[MineralMan]

22. It's a personal choice. I make no secret of who I really am.

There's no point, really. Unless you're very careful, a good Internet researcher can identify you in a surprisingly short time, anyhow. One advantage of making your identity less than secret is that you have to pay attention to what you write on the web. Even then, you'll no doubt tick off some people, and they may attempt to make contact with you. It's not a frequent thing, but it does happen. When they do, you can simply ignore them, unless they physically threaten you. If that happens, the law enforcement folks can step in and inform the offending person that such is not a good idea.

But, to each his or her own. If you want to try to be anonymous, that's fine. It's not easy, though.

[Zywiec]

10. You don't think your IP address is logged when you sign-on to DU?

That is identifying personal information.

[Lucian]

15. The IP address I log in on...

is shared by five or six people. I could be any or all of those people. The computer isn't even linked to me, even though it's mine.

[The Straight Story]

17. Don't forget your MAC address though - IP's are not unique

MACs are :)

[Lucian]

18. Again, not registered to me.

:)

[Statistical]

19. No website has your MAC address.

MAC addresses aren't routable. They don't transmit across network segments (i.e past routers).

Even if they were spoofing a MAC address is trivially easy.

[NYC Liberal]

11. Your IP address is sent to every website you visit, and

together with the timestamp can identify you (the ISP would need to look up that information though).

[Lucian]

16. See post 15.

[Statistical]

20. IP Address alone is not proof of identity. n/t

[mythology]

23. Likely courts would consider it similar to how they crack down on illegal file sharing

They simply have to prove that it's reasonably probable that you had access to the computer. Because this is a civil case, the bar is much lower than a criminal case.

[NYC Liberal]

24. I agree, I should have added to my post.

The post I was replying to said very few people sign up to websites with "identifying personal information"...however, your IP address *can* be personally identifying (provided you aren't behind any proxies). Your ISP can use the IP address and the timestamp to narrow it down to the account being used.

Of course, you're right...there is no way to prove exactly who was actually on the computer. It could be you or a boyfriend/girlfriend or an aunt or grandpa or anyone.

[LooseWilly]

25. Everyone here seems to be failing to realize that, once you're public your libel protection drops...

precipitously.

If you are "public" enough to be written about in a news story... then you have to prove active malice, not mere inaccuracy, in order to sue in any way, shape, or form. And, trying to prove both the malice and the harm... when the comment is simply one of tens, scores, or hundreds or more on a thread of comments (using anonymous poster names which further dilute any sort of gravitas being attached to the comments in question)... to prove that that comment has actually caused harm to one's reputation?

I can't imagine that, shy of conscious desire to be punitive on the part of a court, this could be grounds for anything more than identification... the posters may be identified—but I can't see how the average poster, or even most un-average posters (whatever that means) could actually be held somehow responsible... unless they somehow become so effective a critic as to actually be provably causing some sort of action which is provably damaging... in which case said poster had better get creative (again) in a fucking hurry.