View Single Post
Old 25-05-12, 16:51   #2
photostill
The Enigma
 
photostill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,977
Thanks: 3,009
Thanked 1,524 Times in 928 Posts
photostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant future
Default Re: New US "Internet Protection Act" Bans Anonymous Comments Online

Some political figure or donator to a political figure has gotten their feelings hurt. Chances are just as good that the statement taken in offense is accurate.

Lately all sorts of stuff is being tried to identify anonymous commentators so pressure can be applied to either have them self-edit or to take them to court in what is called a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit. Many states now have laws to prevent these SLAPP suits yet some don't.

The idea is damage control. One such attempt involved a doctors' evaluation by a patient online. The patient was not identified by name but rather by nick, much the same as what is done here. You can't take a nick to court as it doesn't truly identify the individual that must be served the summons to court. So the lawyer representing the doctor attempts to get a discovery order to find out from the ISP who is writing bad evaluations about the doctor. The evaluations appear truthful if damaging to the doctors professional reputation. There is no law to prevent someone from accurately stating the facts, even if damaging. As long as they are not fabricating the events and tell it exactly as it happened, they can not be penalized. Slander will not hold up in court if it is proven to be the absolute facts.

But often the threat of court and the cost that involves can be the necessary deterrent. Face it, getting threatening letters from some unknown lawyer about taking you to court is unsettling to say the least. It's to the point that only the rich can afford justice. Court time, lawyers, defense preparation, all cost big bucks. The whole idea is removal from the net of the damaging text.

The idea that everyone should be identified on the net will be encouraged by the copywrong gang. If that is done, they no longer have to show up at the local city and hire a lawyer to find out who is who. At that point, they can just fire off a letter from California or where ever to the person, no expense involved. Which is exactly what this attempt to do is. To get around the cost of court that protects your identity and privacy. As it is, there are very few places I care to give my real name. Often I won't comment at places simply because to do so, requires you to sign up. This site and a few others are rare exceptions to that rule.

All this is, is someone with an injured sense of pride, likely well earned, wanting to shut someone up over their screw up.
__________________

You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account.
& Thank you for helping us. Click;




photostill is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to photostill For This Useful Post:
Ladybbird (25-05-12)