Comments on: A Victory for Anonymous Blogging http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/a_victory_for_a.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Yes, John Jay Called Alexander Hamilton A “Skank” in The Federalist Papers. This Is One Of The Things They Don’t Teach You In History Class. « Around The Sphere http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/a_victory_for_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-65194 Yes, John Jay Called Alexander Hamilton A “Skank” in The Federalist Papers. This Is One Of The Things They Don’t Teach You In History Class. « Around The Sphere Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:21:04 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/10/a-victory-for-anonymous-blogging.html#comment-65194 [...] 2. Did the court properly reveal Port’s identity? I believe that the court used too low a standard in revealing the blogger’s identity.  The court ordered Google to reveal the anonymous blogger because “a strong showing that a cause of action exists.”  This standard appears to be little more than requiring the plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss.  While I’m very sympathetic to people who have been injured through online defamation and invasions of privacy, I’m also wary of courts being too quick to reveal the identities of bloggers.  I believe that in order to reveal a blogger’s identity, plaintiffs must meet the summary judgment standard, as set forth in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (I blogged about it here). [...] [...] 2. Did the court properly reveal Port’s identity? I believe that the court used too low a standard in revealing the blogger’s identity.  The court ordered Google to reveal the anonymous blogger because “a strong showing that a cause of action exists.”  This standard appears to be little more than requiring the plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss.  While I’m very sympathetic to people who have been injured through online defamation and invasions of privacy, I’m also wary of courts being too quick to reveal the identities of bloggers.  I believe that in order to reveal a blogger’s identity, plaintiffs must meet the summary judgment standard, as set forth in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (I blogged about it here). [...]

]]> By: Denise http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/a_victory_for_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-62954 Denise Sun, 05 Feb 2006 01:33:26 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/10/a-victory-for-anonymous-blogging.html#comment-62954 Funny how this is so relevant to a case I am pursuing. This involved such defaming anonymous emails sent to my administrators and then again to the District Board of Education and anyone else who was in high authority. I did get a court order to obtain the identity, and it WAS my best friend of 7 years. Yes, this was done with malice! Without a doubt, and we are presently awaiting the judges decisions on summary judgments and their request to dismiss. I believe that if this person had done this activity showing her identity, she may have some credibility, however, she did this with the intent to have me fired (was not successful) and stated that in her emails. Wow, what has this world come too? Funny how this is so relevant to a case I am pursuing. This involved such defaming anonymous emails sent to my administrators and then again to the District Board of Education and anyone else who was in high authority. I did get a court order to obtain the identity, and it WAS my best friend of 7 years. Yes, this was done with malice! Without a doubt, and we are presently awaiting the judges decisions on summary judgments and their request to dismiss. I believe that if this person had done this activity showing her identity, she may have some credibility, however, she did this with the intent to have me fired (was not successful) and stated that in her emails. Wow, what has this world come too?

]]> By: Bruce http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/a_victory_for_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-62953 Bruce Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:13:37 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/10/a-victory-for-anonymous-blogging.html#comment-62953 I've worked with the super-geeks, and there's a limit to what they can do without a subpeona. Most ISPs require one before they will match an IP or e-mail address to a particular subscriber, and in most cases there's going to be no other way to match the two things together. I’ve worked with the super-geeks, and there’s a limit to what they can do without a subpeona. Most ISPs require one before they will match an IP or e-mail address to a particular subscriber, and in most cases there’s going to be no other way to match the two things together.

]]> By: Albany Injury Lawyer Warren Redlich http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/a_victory_for_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-62952 Albany Injury Lawyer Warren Redlich Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:06:38 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/10/a-victory-for-anonymous-blogging.html#comment-62952 It surprises me that the great and powerful aren't able to track down and figure out who the anonymous really are. You'd figure they could hire some super-geeks and get that info. Warren Redlich -- non-anonymous :-) It surprises me that the great and powerful aren’t able to track down and figure out who the anonymous really are. You’d figure they could hire some super-geeks and get that info.

Warren Redlich — non-anonymous :-)

]]> By: Mark Seecof http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/a_victory_for_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-62951 Mark Seecof Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:33:58 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/10/a-victory-for-anonymous-blogging.html#comment-62951 About "actual malice:" you're right and wrong at the same time. Under NY Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" has nothing to do with "motivation," it only asks whether the libel was published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard. However, that element of a summary- judgement- like test still ought to be relaxed, because evidence of "actual malice" could likely only be obtained through discovery, whereas a plaintiff could make a threshold showing of falsity and defamation from his own resources. About “actual malice:” you’re right and wrong at the same time. Under NY Times v. Sullivan “actual malice” has nothing to do with “motivation,” it only asks whether the libel was published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard. However, that element of a summary- judgement- like test still ought to be relaxed, because evidence of “actual malice” could likely only be obtained through discovery, whereas a plaintiff could make a threshold showing of falsity and defamation from his own resources.

]]>