SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The person who commented online on a local newspaper's site that a political candidate was a child sexual predator cannot remain anonymous, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The attorney for the anonymous commenter on a Freeport (Ill.) Journal Standard article said he was mulling an appeal to the US Supreme Court. But it would be a tough sell. Most of the nation's state courts have ruled that when it comes to defamation, online anonymity is out the door. (Comcast had refused to release the IP address account information, demanding a court order. Litigation ensued.)
The anonymous defendant claimed that there were insufficient facts to support a claim of defamation to begin with, so the identity shouldn't be unmasked over the 2011 comment. When trying to unmask an anonymous online commenter for defamation, there must be enough evidence to justify that whatever was said online was defamatory, the court said.
The flap concerned a candidate named Bill Hadley who was running for a seat on the Stephenson County board. The online comment, from somebody going by the online handle "Fuboy," likened the candidate to Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State football coach who was convicted of a series of child molestation charges in 2012. Fuboy also said that the candidate lived across the street from an elementary school named Empire.
Here's the comment at issue: "Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has of Empire from his front door."
Doesn't the plaintiff have to demonstrate harm?
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @10:49AM
IANAL, but I think that probably falls under "defamation". Hard to absolutely prove harm, but if you can prove that the statement is defamatory, that's enough.
You could read the statement and think that the poster has some knowledge that just hasn't been made public yet ("waiting to be exposed"). This could be taken more seriously than just the usual hyperbolic Internet statements. I expect that this is the basis of the legal action.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 23 2015, @11:34AM
Try this [google.com] and see if it's defamatory or just outrageous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @12:52PM
Hillary as president? Offtopic for this thread, but not outrageous at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a done deal. The backroom negotiations have already happened; the election will now be arranged to come out as planned. At least, that's how it looks from my European perspective.
The R's have fielded too many candidates for any one of them to gain enough attention. None of them will gain any traction. The D's theoretically also have a bunch of candidates, but all of the attention goes to Hillary; the others are just window dressing. The sheeple must think that they actually do have a choice, when they vote as instructed next year. On the off-chance the sheeple don't cooperate, well, there are ways to fix that as well...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:20PM
> The R's have fielded too many candidates for any one of them to gain enough attention.
They seem to do this every time. Look at the endless parade of clowns, crooks and bigots they lined up for the last election. Is that really the best that one of the biggest political parties in a country of 300+ million people can offer?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:02PM
There's actually a very logical reason for the huge number of Republican candidates.
It starts from the observation that of the 12 declared candidates, only 4 (Cruz, Graham, Paul, and Rubio) are currently holding down any kind of job. For the rest, campaigning for president while spouting the platitudes that their billionaire patrons want them to spout is effectively their means of employment. They know how to kow-tow to donors, and they know how to campaign, and they can make a very good living for the next couple of years doing so. It also makes political has-beens like Rick Santorum into public figures again like they've always wanted.
As to why the billionaire patrons of Republican candidates allow their money to be wasted like this, the answers are:
1. I think is that a lot of them always wanted a pet president. That means that not only would they be filthy rich, they'd have access to an army if they needed one.
2. There's nothing else for them to do with all that money except philanthropy, and the billionaires that back Republican presidential candidates are not the sort that want to give away their money without getting something in return.
3. It's a fun contest between them and their fellow billionaire patrons to see whose horse wins. It's that or the annual shuffling around on the Forbes 500 list that present the only real challenges these guys ever have to face.
4. It ensures that whoever wins will do the bidding of those billionaires.
5. A dozen candidates spouting essentially the same viewpoints makes those viewpoints more pervasive in wider society. If those ideas just happen to benefit the billionaire patrons, it means that their favored policies are more likely to be implemented at the state and local level. In this role, the presidential candidates are no different than, say, Megyn Kelly.
And no, the situation does not appear to be similar in the Democratic primary. Whatever you may think of Bernie Sanders' positions, he at least seems to believe what he says.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:20PM
OT indeed, but... the way the answer is presented, it's like "fait accompli", nothing goes, no thread of doubt.
So... if Google already knows the answers, why do we need democracy? Isn't it outrageous to spend zillions for tickets in the electoral farce?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:56PM
The R's have fielded too many candidates for any one of them to gain enough attention. None of them will gain any traction.
This is pretty typical for the number at this point. Trust me I have been watching this for years. The D side is actually a bit odd. Usually at this point they would have a few dozen themselves. The Clintons hold a LOT of sway in that party which is why there is pretty much only her. My guess at this point is one of these 4 Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, or Paul. Bush is the media favorite because they know he can not win against Hillary. Carson is the tea party favorite but unlikely to get the nomination. Trump is well one person who could actually get me to consider voting for Hillary. However, he had to hire people to come to his rally so he will not get enough support. My guess for Fiorina and Trump it is some sort of tax dodge.
In July next year they will pick at the national convention. A week after that the democrats will pick Hillary (which is atypical). The rest usually drop out or run out of money by april/may. This is pretty typical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_nominating_convention [wikipedia.org]
And yes this is off topic.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:58PM
As somebody from the USA let me explain how it works here.....ya see just as the classical fiscal conservatives were run out the republican tent in the 80s by the "We want nothing on TV an 8 year old can't watch" moral majority in the 1980s? Well now they are getting chunked in the back of the tent by what we here call the "Randites". The worship all things corporate, believe that taxes should only be for the "little people", that pesky pollution rules are for pussies, and as long as you increase profits whatever you do? is fine. Grover Norquist and his "No new taxes on teh rich EVAR!" pledge that was signed by nearly 90% of the reps in congress was one of the first signs that change was in the wind, and now they are full blown Gordon Gecko mode over here.
So yeah Hillary is gonna win, but that is because Bozo the clown could win against the Randites. The problem with Rand is that things get uuuuugly really fucking fast thanks to the worship of greed above all, from the infamous "let him die!" cheers at the republican convention a few years back (WRT Ron Paul asking what should happen to an uninsured 22 year old that gets in an accident, some "compassionate conservatism" huh?) to his son saying that private businesses should be able to stick up Jim Crow style "No Blacks Allowed" signs because the invisible hand will magically fix it, followers of Rand tend to get really fucking NASTY when it comes to anything that might affect their precious ever growing bankroll.
Luckily for the rest of the world the majority of Americans? Yeah we actually WANT to give a helping hand to our fellow Americans and aren't gigantic greed on wheels uber douchebags, and as long as the Randites are in control of critical areas of the RNC (just look how they pushed the shit out of Romney, the richest most clueless guy on the ticket, despite the public making it clear it was an "anybody but THAT guy" situation) then we are gonna get Hillary whether we like it or not, simply because the other side will run somebody too damned radical to have a prayer. On the DNC side we'll be stuck with Hillary (I'd take Sanders in a heartbeat over Hillary, she is a war monger that will start more shit than Dubya) because the media fucking looooves her, always has, and will trip over themselves to give her positive press.
So yeah...like it or not its president Hillary until 2020, which I'm sure will suck but which will end up being SLIGHTLY better than the whack-a-doodle that the right will run. Its funny how many on the right say they worship Reagan but he's positively liberal compared to how hard right they've swung this past decade.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @12:38AM
You sound brainwashed to me. Maybe you aren't, but that is how it sounds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @12:34AM
"Luckily for the rest of the world the majority of Americans? Yeah we actually WANT to give a helping hand to our fellow Americans and aren't gigantic greed on wheels uber douchebags...."
So "helping hand" involves sticking a gun in someones face, taking their money, siphoning off a good portion of it to well connected corporations who own the politicians in Washington, and then sending a trickle of the stolen wealth to "the people". (If you disagree with the "Gun in the face" statement, stop paying your non-local taxes and see what happens.)
As for "greed" well go look in a mirror dude, greed is something everyone is guilty of.
Do you know who the greediest people of all are? You. People like you.
To quote the great Thomas Sowell ; “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
The government has pissed away generations of wealth on programs that did what the Klan never could and stranded both Blacks and American Indians in perpetual poverty.
On decades of war that has literally left tens of millions dead for NOTHING.
On a retirement ponzi scheme whose collapse will leave tens of millions of elderly in grinding poverty.
On corporate welfare programs and protective regulations that enrich and entrench the corporations you claim to despise. Who is the one being a corporate shill?
You mock people who look at all that and think, "Perhaps the last 50 years isn't the best way to organize society. Lets look at something else" Really?
You claim you want people treated equally, but you don't. You don't want people taxed equally. Anyone more successful via their own work you want beaten down by taxes and regulation. That sort of thinking, that the economy is a zero-sum game, is from the time where bloodletting was an acceptable medical practice.
Capitalism takes the economic pie that exists and, through under consumption, works to make the pie bigger.
The capitalist can only get your money by offering you something in exchange. The government can, and does, take your money by decree.
Capitalism acknowledges humans are all inherently greedy and puts it towards positive use, building a better mousetrap and selling it. The washing machine was not invented by someone who liked washing clothes. It was invented by some greedy person who wanted to make a buck.
Governments and its supporters cloak their greed by using lofty terms like "helping hand" and "fair share" to take money from some people and give it to others for whatever purpose the bureaucrats see fit.
So I'll ask the question again posed by Mr. Sowell ; Why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:28PM
However, the injured party in this case is likely to be considered a public figure (as a candidate for public office), and in those cases the plaintiff has to show that the person who made the statement did so knowing that it was false. So if the commenter had, for example, heard from a friend that the candidate in question had sexually abused a child and gotten away with it, that's not defamation, because the commenter (quite possibly erroneously) believed the statement to be true.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:43AM
In the scenario you described the only way to find out is to question the anonymous commenter, which is just as good as claiming the statement is defamation for the purposes of a court order to unmask the identity of the anonymous commenter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:50PM
What's with these idiots not using things like TOR? The government doesn't care about free speech, so you have to ensure anonymity somehow. I would laugh if they were unable to find out who posted it.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday June 23 2015, @11:37PM
Defamation is weakened when it is made against a popular figure. Someone with easy access to the press can easily dismiss any cases of defamation against them. The various slander laws were designed primarily to protect the average Joe, who does not have access to easy channels of communication if someone begins spreading negative rumors about them.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!