Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday June 23 2015, @10:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the nonymous-coward dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @09:43AM (#200300)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1