thank you.
reading through that....I go back to a simple principle....people need to be held to account for the things they say. Current law blows in terms of defining what "you say". I am hoping this will set a precedent and I back the prosecution.
kindest,
eddie.
I could not agree more. Although I think there already is precedent.
You have got to be kidding eddie.
Ms Coulter, a conservative republican type when confronted with evidence that she lied about certain issues claimed that it was not a lie but her own opinion ...
The Ms Coulter example is neither here nor there. First because as we know, Canadian and US defamation laws along with the entire legal system in general are not the same. This isn't a whole new concept or law here. Defamation, libel and slander have not just appeared because of the internet.
Held to account and by what standard ... Suppose we say the standard is something that is rational , logical and provable ... Who decides ?
What standard?
The same it's always been.
Who decides?
A judge doing what he's paid for. The same it's always been.
I hope we don't spend a lot of money on this case because the defense will be ... "I said it on the internet and anybody who read it would interpret it as bullshit anyway "
And that doesn't strike you as frightening?
Nevermind that it's not really the case for most people who get most (if not all) of their information, facts, etc from the internet - who not only assume that if it's on the internet, it must be true - that it actually is expected to be true.
It is inevitable that the law eventually catch up to the world of the internet. The kind of damage that can be done is far greater and people's livelihood, their reputations, their careers and countless aspects of their lives that could be destroyed by someone simply having too much time on their hands and thinking that being anonymous allows them the right to attack someone else.
Could you image if LAG wanted a defamation proceding and wanted a jury of his peers ? How many crayons would the prosecution need to make the argument ?
Well that is not quite the same kind of situation. LAG is not a legal person, he does not vote, have a bank account or own a passport. He does not have a public identity, professional reputation to protect or that he can claim were attacked and defamed. LAG is anonymous, so there is
no damage. That is very different from a situation where
real names, identities, and reputations, both personal and professional have been attacked publicly.
Why should people feel so immune to any repercussion their anonymous, untrue and intentionally harmful comments might have on someone's life and what they have worked hard for? By law, this is not considered acceptable in "real life", so why should that not apply to the internet as well? Why should people be forced to be victimized online because it's easy for anyone to attack others anonymously on the internet? Considering the fact that there is probably far more damage even possible through the internet than from using any other kind of media.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it means anonymity should not ever be expected. But if you do something that is against the law, then in my opinion you give up your right to remain anonymous. In the real world people are expected to be help accountable for their actions and their words, so the same should apply with what is done on the internet.
The courts aren't about to allow just anyone's identity to be made public just because someone feels wronged and claims defamation. But in the event that the defamation claim is deemed valid by the courts, has been established and proven (aka provable
), why would the person guilty of it
not be exposed?
In most cases, it isn't exactly costly or even time consuming to get the information. This is information google or whatever other ISP involved already has, they just (rightfully) aren't about to just give out that information just because they're asked or because someone feels they've been wronged.... but when it comes from court order, and their own butts are covered, they'll gladly give it out. (as the article clearly stated with the mention of the newspaper+google's lack of contesting)
I say: If it was defamation, go full force. People need to realize that their anonymity is a privilege for those who act responsibly and not a right that allows you to attack and harm others.
Just like real life.
