Online anonymity: Should commenters be unmasked?, page 1

Online anonymity: Should commenters be unmasked?, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 16-4-2010 @ 11:42 AM by Aeons

www.cbc.ca...

A court has ordered a Halifax weekly newspaper to release information that could identify seven anonymous online commenters.

(more at link)

So: anonymous commentators commented on the racist, crony-ism, incompetence of the fire officials, and are to be "unmasked."

Sounds like comments I see here everyday. What do you think you will do with your commentary if your comments become the subject that is deemed necessary to track you down and prosecute or sue you for them?

reply posted on 16-4-2010 @ 12:01 PM by SaturnFX

I would use the media time to read word for word what I wrote, and tell them if they got a problem with it, to take it up with the First Amendment of the Constitution.

I would then read the privacy disclamer of the website and see if there is a case against the company for releasing something like that.

Then I would write a book about how the nation has become a communist nation and make a billion bucks...thanking the company and movement to violate (attempt anyhow) my constitutional rights and how they got slapped.

reply posted on 16-4-2010 @ 01:40 PM by ganjoa

I noticed this is a Canadian story and wonder if their defamation laws are similar to ours?
A public official would need to be able to prove actual malice in the US before being able to proceed with a defamation suit. However, I would think that the action would be a civil one and the order would have to be in compliance with a discovery order, etc. Unless the content provider was named in the lawsuit I'm having trouble understanding how a civil suit could compel an uninterested third party. Obviously on a criminal matter that's something else entirely.

gj

[edit on 16-4-2010 by ganjoa]

reply posted on 17-4-2010 @ 09:33 PM by Aeons

Canadian defamation laws would be largely similar to the USA and to all British Commonwealth nations.

In context to the USA though, Canadian defamation suits are slightly more constrained.

A wiki on it.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 11:44 AM by djvexd

reply to post by Aeons

Isn't there more of a constraint against free speech when it comes to criticizing gov't offcials in Canada though? (asking becasue I only heard that their speech laws are a tad more stringent, and honestly don't know.)

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 04:06 PM by DaMod

reply to post by SaturnFX

SaturnFX... I don't agree with you very often, but when you're right, you're right.

Bravo!

The aspect of anonymity is very important. We've met, but really you don't know me and I don't know you. That is the glory of the internet.

We can say things to each other that we most likely wouldn't say in person. That is a beautiful thing and as you said protected under the first amendment of the constitution.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by DaMod]

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 05:55 PM by Aeons

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by Aeons

Isn't there more of a constraint against free speech when it comes to criticizing gov't offcials in Canada though? (asking becasue I only heard that their speech laws are a tad more stringent, and honestly don't know.)

There are quasi-judicial "hate" speech laws.

Which are a load of horsepukey and should be heaped. The quasi-judicial boards that have no appeal process are a joke - a dangeous joke at that.

Canada's freedoms of speech are not "absolute." The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has this limitation in it.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

You can read a bit on it here:

Wiki

Ezra is a raging jackass - but I still think that the quasi-judicial boards are a farce. You should see them- it doesn't raise your opinion. Crackerjack or Kangaroo would be a kind description.

There is an ongoing attempt to legalize the idea that one is responsible for the actions that may come out of one's communications. The selling point on this being that with rights come responsibilities, and one is responsible for the things that happen from what you say. Apparently, we have a large contingent of people here who buy into a fancy way of saying that it should be illegal to say things that make them feel bad.

The hate speech laws are not all bad - however they should be kept in mind. Promotion of hate against an identifiable group, or genocide is illegal. There are important exceptions to this - it doesn't prosecute statements of truth, subjects of public debate, or religious doctrine.

Which I find amusing I admit - you can only promote hate if it is a religious doctrine. If its personal, you can get fourteen years.

To address your question about critism or defamation of people in public offices - I have not seen any such thing. If that were the case, surely every person in the House of Commons would be in jail every question period.