Northwest Indiana Discussion
http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/

Online commenters not protected
http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10883
Page 1 of 1

Author:  celtic1950 [ Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Online commenters not protected

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's good to have anominity when reporting on things that are being covered up but on the other hand the anominity allows for people to make false acusations. How do you all feel about this ruling?








http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 5b8b7.html

Author:  Tiger1 [ Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

celtic1950 wrote:
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's good to have anominity when reporting on things that are being covered up but on the other hand the anominity allows for people to make false acusations. How do you all feel about this ruling?








http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 5b8b7.html




There are 2 sides to this, one bad, one good. The bad is that people are not free to speak their minds. The good is that posters like sparkless are no longer protected from their slander.

Author:  chuckmo48 [ Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

I don't have a problem with it at all...I sure some of the cons may though...Just look at some of the things they have accused anyone here that is not a rethuglican of being or doing...comes to mind...Lois Lane...SuzyQ...Moby...Arc...the banned tmr9 and all his incarnations...look what they have said that some of the posters are or have accused them of doing or being..

Author:  Neometric [ Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

As the opinion reads this was a discovery dispute wherein the the Indianapolis Star was subpoenaed by a party to defamation. Absent a lawsuit for defamation, in principle, anonymity is preserved. The Indiana appellate ruling noted there are two types of defamatory speech in Indiana: defamation per se and defamation per quod. Baker v. Tremco, 917 N.E.2d 650, 657 (Ind. 2009).

In the language of the court:

"This case addresses whether a non-party news organization can be compelled to disclose to a plaintiff who has filed a defamation lawsuit the identity of one such anonymous commenter.

"...we adopt a modified version of the Dendrite test, requiring the plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence of every element of his defamation claim that does not depend on the commenter’s identity before the news organization is compelled to disclose that identity. With this test being called the most speech-protective standard that has been articulated and neither party advocating a different test, we adopt the modified version of the Dendrite test under the Indiana Constitution as well.

"Although raised by neither party, when a third-party entity, such as a newspaper, is subpoenaed to reveal the identity of an anonymous commenter who has used that third party as a forum for his anonymous speech, the third-party has standing to contest the subpoena under the principle of jus tertii. McVicker v. King, 266 F.R.D. 92, 95 (W.D. Pa. 2010). This is so because 'the relationship between [the newspaper] and readers posting in the [n]ewspaper’s online forums is the type of relationship that allows [the newspaper] to assert the First Amendment rights of the anonymous commentators.'

"Further, courts have found that (1) anonymous commenters face practical problems contesting the subpoena themselves, as doing so would require them to reveal their identities; (2) newspapers involved in these types of cases have suffered an adequate injury-in-fact to meet Article III’s case or controversy requirements; and (3) the newspaper will zealously argue the issues before the court.

As a result, The Star has standing to argue these First Amendment issues on behalf of 'DownWithTheColts.'”

Likewise it appears under the test instituted above, a newspaper has the standing to argue it our your behalf, too, should it decide to take up your cause.

But for me the issue is what is the news publication's duty with respect to complying with the Dendrite test?

Author:  sparks [ Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

Tiger1 wrote:
celtic1950 wrote:
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's good to have anominity when reporting on things that are being covered up but on the other hand the anominity allows for people to make false acusations. How do you all feel about this ruling?








http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 5b8b7.html




There are 2 sides to this, one bad, one good. The bad is that people are not free to speak their minds. The good is that posters like sparkless are no longer protected from their slander.

Being honest isn't slander. Still waiting to be served with that lawsuit you claimed you were filing against me months ago.

Author:  USMarine [ Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

splirks wrote:
Being honest isn't slander


So pointing out that splirks is a fat pansy who likes to pick on women isn't slander because it's the truth?

Very cool.... :D

Thanks... :smt006

Author:  Moby Grape [ Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

USMarine wrote:
splirks wrote:
Being honest isn't slander


So pointing out that splirks is a fat pansy who likes to pick on women isn't slander because it's the truth?

Very cool.... :D

Thanks... :smt006

Author:  Tiger1 [ Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

sparks wrote:
Tiger1 wrote:
celtic1950 wrote:
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's good to have anominity when reporting on things that are being covered up but on the other hand the anominity allows for people to make false acusations. How do you all feel about this ruling?








http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 5b8b7.html




There are 2 sides to this, one bad, one good. The bad is that people are not free to speak their minds. The good is that posters like sparkless are no longer protected from their slander.

Being honest isn't slander. Still waiting to be served with that lawsuit you claimed you were filing against me months ago.




I said I COULD file. You lost your protection. Keep it up.

Author:  Tiger1 [ Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

USMarine wrote:
splirks wrote:
Being honest isn't slander


So pointing out that splirks is a fat pansy who likes to pick on women isn't slander because it's the truth?

Very cool.... :D

Thanks... :smt006



LOL !!! :smt005 :smt005 :smt005

Author:  sparks [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

celtic1950 wrote:
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's good to have anominity when reporting on things that are being covered up but on the other hand the anominity allows for people to make false acusations. How do you all feel about this ruling?








http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 5b8b7.html
Tiger1 wrote:



There are 2 sides to this, one bad, one good. The bad is that people are not free to speak their minds. The good is that posters like sparkless are no longer protected from their slander.
sparks wrote:
Being honest isn't slander. Still waiting to be served with that lawsuit you claimed you were filing against me months ago.
Tiger1 wrote:



I said I COULD file. You lost your protection. Keep it up.

It's your lie, tell it any way you want to. Here is your exact quote.
Tiger1 wrote:
I am NOT on the public dole. If you continue your slander, there will be consequences.

Author:  USMarine [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

sparks wrote:
I'm hungry.



Image


:shock: :smt006

Author:  Tiger1 [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

USMarine wrote:
sparks wrote:
I'm hungry.



Image


:shock: :smt006




LOL !!! :smt005 :smt005 :smt005

Author:  LoisLane [ Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Online commenters not protected

chuckmo48 wrote:
I don't have a problem with it at all...I sure some of the cons may though...Just look at some of the things they have accused anyone here that is not a rethuglican of being or doing...comes to mind...Lois Lane...SuzyQ...Moby...Arc...the banned tmr9 and all his incarnations...look what they have said that some of the posters are or have accused them of doing or being..
I love how this fool names me first...why is that Chuck?

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/