Judge Rules Paper Hand Over Info From Anonymous Commenter "Maybe the $10k is stuffed in her blouse

Why? Is this defamation to begin with? Off the cuff commentary can now land you in jail - beware...

The Spokesman-Review must provide information that could identify an anonymous reader who typed a disparaging online comment about the chairwoman of the Kootenai County Republican Party in February, an Idaho judge ruled Tuesday

Under the name “almostinnocentbystander,” the commenter questioned whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be “stuffed inside Tina’s blouse.”

Bogging is now held to the same standards as reporting news. Again, beware.

In his written decision, Luster pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled since 1942 that the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech. “… while the individuals are entitled to the right of anonymous free speech, this right is clearly limited when abused,” Luster wrote.

He ordered the newspaper to give to the plaintiff “any document establishing the identity, e-mail address, and IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of ‘almostinnocentbystander.’”

Sounds like a case of serious crybaby antics. What a wimp this lady must be.

“However, we are glad the judge ruled that we don’t have to provide information about the two people who simply commented on the original posting,” he said

They even went after the folks who COMMENTED on the COMMENT!!!

Uggh.

ColoradoJens

What is "Annomous"?

Originally posted by amongus
What is "Annomous"?

It's a typo that I corrected. What a jerk. Thanks for the input on the story too.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Why? Is this defamation to begin with?

Its been this way for a while now.
If you make defamatory comments, then you can be held liable for them, even online.

If you took the time to follow the links to read the judge's summary before posting...

The poster specifically used the word "embezzlement"...

And the judge goes on to show (which I agree with) that the poster made comments which
- subjected the Plaintiff to professional disgrace
- negatively affected her reputation
- has knowledge that the statements were false
- repeated the accusation a second time
- engaged in a "purposeful avoidance of the truth"

It should be noted here that since no money was actually missing from the accounts, there can be no doubt that the Plaintiff is completely innocent.

And no, they did NOT go after the two other people who commented on the original comment.
If you took the time to follow the links to read the judge's summary before posting, you'd know that.

the Plaintiff has not named these individuals... as potential defendants, instead... as potential witnesses.

reply to post by alfa1


No, they DID go after them, the judge denied their request.

The great thing about this is now Rush Limbaugh will finally get arrested.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

No, they DID go after them, the judge denied their request.

As I said, only as witnesses.
Reading your original posting, a reader would be under the impression that they "went after" the other two so they could be sued as well, when it is not so.

reply to post by alfa1


How does one who posts on a forum in response to another's post become a "witness" when their responses are already posted in a blog that has been digitally saved? Isn't any person who saw the blog a "witness"?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Why? Is this defamation to begin with? Off the cuff commentary can now land you in jail - beware...

So by this definition, Iran, the Palestinians, and cubans can sue the american government for their lies and bullcripe.

Next time someone says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and hates america should be imprisoned.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Yes. And really every "news" commentator or roundtable voice is in serious danger.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
How does one who posts on a forum in response to another's post become a "witness" when their responses are already posted in a blog that has been digitally saved? Isn't any person who saw the blog a "witness"?

I think everyone would agree with you there.
However it is also true, and the Judge agreed, as both parties agreed, that the two other posters named were indeed witnesses.

But they dont have to be named because...

Summary judgement may only be had between parties to an action, not between a party and a witness.

But you already know that, because you've read the judge's summary. Right?

reply to post by alfa1


What is your point? Perhaps your hostility is somehow personally related to the case stated?

Again, with this ruling, there are thousands of people who need to be taken to court on a daily basis. I say we start with congress.

CJ

I think the 10k of money that was embezzled is stuffed up Tinas behind. Not her blouse. And you can quote me on that.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I think the 10k of money that was embezzled is stuffed up Tinas behind. Not her blouse. And you can quote me on that.

OOOOOOOOO, you in trouble! Sad fact, if they ask ATS for your info, according to this, you will be held liable - except you forgot the embezzlement part.

CJ

Sad fact. I'd like to see them try What part I forgot?

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
OOOOOOOOO, you in trouble! Sad fact, if they ask ATS for your info, according to this, you will be held liable - except you forgot the embezzlement part.

So can I be held liable as well for giving PsykoOps a star for his comments? Anyone that takes everything they see on the internet seriously must be insane as so much of it is contradictory.

Well it matters very much that we protect our rights to free speech, 100%.

However this is something else that anyone who writes something that under their new fascism may be deemed slanderous or libelous: slander or libel does not exist for anything that a reasonable person would naturally think, and that is not a average unresearched person, that is specific to what is reasonable to assume given your circumstances and your research.

So, if 9/11 was not an inside job (I'm using this as an example), and I knew it was while watching it live and when next spoke with my friend, she new too. How did we know. Logic and reasoning. We knew that the cia/black op guerillas take out all democracies (the call them left) in South Amercia, in the middle east, and set up dicatorships and kill all the educated or university students off (just good business decisions think, the shares go up in the stockmarket, because they are all evil heartless demons in training). If you look at the history of the elite, and corporations and the governments which break the trust of the people who hire them and cater to them, the chance of being wrong is less 1% by logic alone and the actual events that have happened and been reported and investigated on the news media since I was a child.

Some of us can think perfectly well and connect dots just fine.

In this case: money is missing. The poster is certainly within his/her scope to suggest it was taken by whoever had proximity to the funds, and his comment was NOT LIBEL OR SLANDER, BUT A REASONABLE OPINION.

If any judge were to find otherwise, go over their head and up the chain of command of (these employees, underscore that one to infinity, for they are hired in a position of trust) to ensure they don't get to take away or water down our rights.

Here's my take on it:



Judges are often politically connected - that's how they usually get their jobs. Most of the time they are appointed by elected officials or run for elections.


The Republican party is a very powerful organization. People have a public interest in it because it effects who they are going to elect to office.