Ridiculous lawsuit gains order to expose online identities.

Well, I've heard of thin skin, but this one takes the cake, the plate it's sitting on and half the presents people brought to the party right out the door.

S-R must provide info on anonymous commenter

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.” Two other commenters,

“Phaedrus” and “outofstatetater,” also typed comments responding to the original post about Jacobson’s blouse.

In a hearing last month, Jacobson’s attorney argued that his client’s reputation was hurt by the posts and sought to have the judge order the newspaper to provide identifying information about the people who made the comments.

Source

Now what are we to think about this? The lawsuit is actually proceeding on the basis that the comments were defamatory. In other words, the Chairwoman of the local Republican Party was actually and measurably harmed by the comment that she could have stuck $10,000 down her blouse. I'm shocked. If some crazy and half baked comment like that is enough to be sued and then have the court order your identity to be determined from an anonymous comment board on a newspaper website, we're all in serious trouble, eh?

The only thing I find to be a violation of anything in this story is the woman it was said about being a public figure in a position of high visibility within a national political party and being this big a baby. I'm sorry but how else do you put it? A blogger makes a cheeky comment in poor taste and it's off to the courthouse? Wow..... I don't think the fact she was Republican makes any difference, by the way. It could have been either major party. It still makes for a person too weak and wimpy to be in such a position of political leadership, in my opinion.

What say everyone else?

(Oh..by the way...no need to sue. If anyone is so offended by something I say, they feel the need to run to court? Just ask..I'll volunteer who I am and with pride. I stand behind every word..and always will.)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think this whole situation is ridiculous! She needs to have a thicker skin and a sense of humor...and get that stick out of her (you know what)!

Lots of times people over react because there may have been a grain of truth...somewhere in what was said.

Somebody else beat you to it by a few minutes...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by alfa1

Shoot.... thanks for the catch. Bad on me for the miss. Mods...you know what to do, I suppose.

10 Years ago this would have been laughed out of court..

Interesting times indeed.

Both sides need to get a grip.

On the poster: common sense should dictate what is and what is not in good taste.
That post was not in good taste...

On the woman: We have become way too litigious in this country :shk:

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This is why Janitors of Internet Forums exists; to clean up any obscene, obscure, or slanderous content.

I'd be mad at the service provider's SLA, and that failing, just stop being a jerk and busting out the Crocodile Tears over an Internet post.

smh.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Sounds like another way for the government to control us, if they expose who people really are online in forums them you are not safe to say what you think about governement because they can just find out who you are and prosecute you. They are listen to and watch what we say but this is getting out of hand and it has been for some time. Now the new executive order giving the president and DHS control over the internet and all forms of communication means they can shut us all down if they dont like what we say. Department of Homeland Opression gets more power fantastic when will it stop and what can we do?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, I've heard of thin skin, but this one takes the cake, the plate it's sitting on and half the presents people brought to the party right out the door.

S-R must provide info on anonymous commenter

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.” Two other commenters,

“Phaedrus” and “outofstatetater,” also typed comments responding to the original post about Jacobson’s blouse.

In a hearing last month, Jacobson’s attorney argued that his client’s reputation was hurt by the posts and sought to have the judge order the newspaper to provide identifying information about the people who made the comments.

Source

Now what are we to think about this? The lawsuit is actually proceeding on the basis that the comments were defamatory. In other words, the Chairwoman of the local Republican Party was actually and measurably harmed by the comment that she could have stuck $10,000 down her blouse. I'm shocked. If some crazy and half baked comment like that is enough to be sued and then have the court order your identity to be determined from an anonymous comment board on a newspaper website, we're all in serious trouble, eh?

The only thing I find to be a violation of anything in this story is the woman it was said about being a public figure in a position of high visibility within a national political party and being this big a baby. I'm sorry but how else do you put it? A blogger makes a cheeky comment in poor taste and it's off to the courthouse? Wow..... I don't think the fact she was Republican makes any difference, by the way. It could have been either major party. It still makes for a person too weak and wimpy to be in such a position of political leadership, in my opinion.

What say everyone else?

(Oh..by the way...no need to sue. If anyone is so offended by something I say, they feel the need to run to court? Just ask..I'll volunteer who I am and with pride. I stand behind every word..and always will.)

Clearly this will not stand up in court at higher levels. This woman is a public figure and she will be ridiculed and poked fun at.

I see this as another attempt to quell political dissent speech. Just like those chilling lawsuits that businesses use to attack opponents to stop free speech, boycotts and lawsuits !

Can someone please post the name, phone number, address of these people.
They are pushing for more transparency and less anonymity well lets show them the reason why people dont post personal, private information in a public internet setting.

The CBC was having a discussion a few weeks ago. There were a few callers and guest that were all for having your real name and credentials being available to the public when posting on forums, blogs and tweets. I called in asking for the guest to reveal not only his last name but his address and phone number and while off the air I was told that it may cause security issues for the guest to reveal that information.


The irony.

The arcticle and news rarely mention her full name. Lets start with that. Kootenai County Republican Chairwoman Tina Jacobson. Part line- Tina Jacobson- (208) 765-8259. Can someone post a google earth picture of her house? This is legal. No anonymity for her at all.

Happened in Canada in my old province of NB:
www.cbc.ca...

Guy on Twitter harassed this man, he went to court and won. Man was exposed.

I think it is a reasonable case and very unfortunate for the woman in the blouse.....

(be careful what you say, she might sue you!)

reply to post by Shadow Herder

I actually agree with you on this. I've been among the most vicious against those posting Police home addresses and such, but in the case of a public political figure and particularly one seeming to abuse the public as it is, they have no right to anonymity. They can call it perks or curses of the job and if they don't like it, don't become a part of the political establishment and public life. I'm thinking about politics on the very local level myself and I'm taking it for granted that anything I considered personal or private, won't be, as soon as I move in that direction....if I ever do.

Private citizens though? What gives her the right? Someone makes a joke on a comment form..and yes, a bad joke in bad taste...and it's off to the stocks with 'em? lol..... I find it somewhat humorous because this isn't Uncle Sam who is just too big to care or get hurt. This is a small local person who is too close to those she "represents" to think this isn't going to blow back long term. No one likes wimpy, in my experience and she could win a lawsuit to lose a career by her actions...not the bloggers,

1st amendment rights. - gotta love em.

I take it she has a big rack?


Anyways- they are just testing the water. See what they can and cannot get away with.