Northwest Indiana Discussion

Northwest Indiana's Leading Discussion Forum
It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:55 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:31 pm
Posts: 80
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

_________________
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be ... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe. - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 2764
Location: Hammond
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.

_________________
I am a life-long Hammond Resident. I am a practicing Catholic, and an adherant to the Teachings of Saint Francis of Assisi, who truly was the first enviornmentalist. He loved and appreciated all of God's creation, and I try my best to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:05 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:11 am
Posts: 2746
Location: In the trenches
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..

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:01 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:29 pm
Posts: 630
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm
Posts: 3772
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.

_________________
In the end, everything will be OK. If it's not OK, it's not the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:20 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am
Posts: 10483
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

_________________
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" --Barack Hussein Obama
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:38 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 13802
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

_________________
Has Obama ever won a free and fair election based on the merits of his ideas?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:34 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 2764
Location: Hammond
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.

_________________
I am a life-long Hammond Resident. I am a practicing Catholic, and an adherant to the Teachings of Saint Francis of Assisi, who truly was the first enviornmentalist. He loved and appreciated all of God's creation, and I try my best to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 2764
Location: Hammond
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

_________________
I am a life-long Hammond Resident. I am a practicing Catholic, and an adherant to the Teachings of Saint Francis of Assisi, who truly was the first enviornmentalist. He loved and appreciated all of God's creation, and I try my best to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:10 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm
Posts: 3772
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.

_________________
In the end, everything will be OK. If it's not OK, it's not the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am
Posts: 10483
sparks wrote:
I'm hungry.



Image


:shock: :smt006

_________________
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" --Barack Hussein Obama
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:15 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 2764
Location: Hammond
USMarine wrote:
sparks wrote:
I'm hungry.



Image


:shock: :smt006




LOL !!! :smt005 :smt005 :smt005

_________________
I am a life-long Hammond Resident. I am a practicing Catholic, and an adherant to the Teachings of Saint Francis of Assisi, who truly was the first enviornmentalist. He loved and appreciated all of God's creation, and I try my best to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online commenters not protected
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:45 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
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?

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group