EFF pushes court to block unmasking of anonymous MySpace user The Electronic Frontier Foundation is waging a constitutional challenge against an Illinois politician seeking to unmask an anonymous MySpace user accused of creating impostor profiles and posting defamatory material on them. Cicero, Illinois, Town President Larry Dominick filed a discovery petition (PDF) last month after …
The mere fact that they created the account in his NAME and AS HIM is defamation enough. Social networking sites are NOT television - they are a one to one media, and the mere impersonation of someone should be grounds enough for defamation and libel.
When you parody someone on TV or radio or a comedy club, the circumstances give away the fact that you ARE NOT them. On a social networking site, no one knows that fact, and you are for all intents and purposes no longer parodying them. You ARE them, as far as anyone can tell. And that isn't parody - any comments you then make MUST be taken as defamation and libel.
I'm not saying that you can't create a close sounding or parody name, but it must be clear that you are not the actual person you say you are. "George Bushie" would be a perfectly acceptable parody of the president of the US, as would "Gordon Brownie" as PM of the UK. But if I create a persona as "George Bush", and insist that I am the President of the US...then I have by all reasonable measures committed libel and defamation, especially if I use it to post anti-Bush viewpoints.
There is no First Amendment right to shout "Fire!" in a dark theatre, and there is no First Amendment right to pretend to be someone you are not...
There are really only two honourable courses of action - post anonymously, or give your real name.
A fictitious but plausible name is bad enough, but deliberately adopting someone else's persona is far worse.
(On the other hand, fictitious implausible names should to be encouraged. Life is too short to be boring.)
that he must first do a John Doe civil suit for defamation and if/when successful, then petition the court to order MySpace to release the IP address information.
In this case it looks like the politician will have little trouble proving the libel / defamation (but this is for a court to decide), and only once a court has established this, should he be able to petition the court for orders to establish the true identity of the creator of the bogus MySpace accounts.
The EFF is not trying to protect someone from being sued for defamation; they are simply trying to make sure due process is followed.
If the court orders MySpace to release the information without the injury first being established, then anybody could use it to discover the name and address of anyone who posts on the internet anonymously. For example a stalker or abusive ex trying to find where the target of their obsession has moved to, would only need to spin some bogus story of injury (as it wouldn't need to be proved), petition the court to order the release of the IP address, then petition for the release of the name / address information from the ISP and they have found their victim.
First, the girl was 13 not 16 years old.
Any way, as pointed out by Robert Hill, free speech != shouting "fire" in a dark theater.
Also shouldn't it be that you can say what you want "without" fear? In otherwords, it protect you from the other party and you can/should do it with your real name.
Posting anonymously != free speech
posting anonymously = hiding in fear while accusing others and hiding from responsibility for your action.
just my 2 cents
"Also shouldn't it be that you can say what you want "without" fear? In otherwords, it protect you from the other party and you can/should do it with your real name."
Pull the other one, it's got bloody bells on. We're talking about the US here, a nation that claims on the one hand to protect freedom of speech while on the other allowing corporations to fire people based on what they do in their own time. When the day comes that someone can genuinely voice opinions critical of the government without fear of reprisal, then you can expect people to put their names to such comments. Until then, well...I suspect anonymous posting of one form or another will continue.
On another note, regarding the defamation aspects of creating a fake account on a social networking site - these are privately owned websites. Having a fake Myspace account is not in any way shape or form comparable to having a fake identity card, passport, or other official document. It's surely more a reflection on the stupidity of the people using these sites than anything else if they assume that only the "real" George Bush could set up an account called "George Bush". They're usernames, not real names, and frankly I fear a world where Myspace et all are taken seriously enough that you can only have an account in your own name on them.
My mate reckons that an bloke in the pub met someone whose wife's friends' cousin said "you're a twat" -- is that accurate grounds for retribution?
Nah, if the lawman can't produce evidence then where's the case? He sounds no older than your average schoolkid telling teacher that someone said he smelt of poo (which is often the case anyway). It doesn't help that he's got a mate standing behind him saying "Go on, hit him, go on, you can't let him get away with it".
Is this indicative of how the law works - ie. make it up as you go along and abuse your power as much as possible?
those cases where 2 people have the same name??
do yo really think that there is only ONE George Bush? and that all other George Bushes agree 100% with the one who should not be president?
While I dont know the ass gov't official who is using public money to file what appears to be a private legal matter, no one seems to have taken the consideration that maybe those accounts are owned by people who's real names are the same - while at the same time NOT agreeing with the ass's agenda (such as wastefully spending public money on frivilous law suites).
Well technically, it is all he-said s/he-said. For all we know, he made the profiles himself and forgot about them.
Technically nobody knows who the profiles belong to (none of us at least..), and whether or not any law was broken, whether anyone was impersonating anyone... That's not the point.
As AC@4.11 said, the EFF are just trying to protect people by making sure that information release is done properly, LEGALLY, and anonymous peoples information is not handed out willy nilly whenever someone cries foul.
Isn't that all what Tony Blair not signing an affadavit about party funds and the honours list about? Hiding in fear from lying? Or his actions leading to the death of a civil servant? Sexing up WMD's. All the secrets kept safe because releasing them is not in the public interest?
Shrub is hiding in fear by retroactively exonerating himself and his chums for committing illegal acts.
Hiding in fear from the consequences of their actions isn't limited to the powerless and the geeky on myspace.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
