Just thought you and some people we know might want to know.
Media Need Not Reveal Web Posters' Identities
Ruling Applies 1st Amendment to Internet
Operators of newspaper Web sites, blogs and chat rooms that allow readers to post anonymous comments using pseudonyms do not have to readily reveal the posters' identities in defamation suits, Maryland's highest court ruled yesterday, further shaping an emerging area of First Amendment law in the Internet age.
does that mean we can talk bad about mon roi?
well that's a relief
So, who in Maryland has the responsibility for what people are posting on the internet?
The people who posted, naturally! That's as it should be and it shouldn't need to be explicitly stated. Your words are your own. The point of this is that if someone says they have a legal case for defamation (libel, etc.) against a poster, they have to illustrate that convincingly before they can start demanding the identity of the poster.
Aggrieved parties almost always try to get the identity as early as possible for intimidation purposes. The thought that someone you say something negative about might find out who you are without your knowing about it has a potential chilling effect on anonymous free speech. Who would post a negative restaurant review if they thought the owner could drag them into court for it?
This does not mean people are free to make false accusations all they like. It just reinforces the current state of legal praxis in the US that puts the onus on the person bringing the case to show damages before initiating legal action against an individual. That is, you can't drag someone into a legal fight on complete BS. E.g. in the restaurant review case you would have to show that the review was very likely false and also that it caused real damage to your business before you can make a case to get the identity of the poster. It cuts down on frivolous legal intimidation tactics.
>> The point of this is that if someone says they have a legal case for defamation (libel, etc.) against a poster, they have to illustrate that convincingly before they can start demanding the identity of the poster.<<
Yes, it is the correct way, I believe.
Except for one thing: Libel (against an individual) never requires any evidence of damage. Damage is presumed - the loss of one's good reputation, which is an abstraction.
I suspect the ruling in the case here said the (would-be) plaintiff had to prove damage because it was a business. Businesses can sue for defamation but (unlike individuals defamed directly) they do have to show the false statements cost them money.