It;s official then...
...the High Court protects everyone's right to be anonymous nasty trolls!
The Daily Mail does not have to identify the people behind two anonymously posted comments on its website because to do so would breach their rights to privacy, the High Court has said. The subject of a news story had demanded information from the Daily Mail that would help her to identify the two commenters so that she could …
These people that under the guise of psuedo anonimity think they can post their generalised, knee jerk and over the top comments to an otherwise un-noteworthy news article, well... they're just morons aren't they, the lot of them..... they should all be banned for life from the internet, mobile phones and be made to carry ID cards.
Point of order: some loanwords from Latin still carry their Latin pluralisations in common usage in modern English (nebula/nebulae, formula/formulae, etc). 'Forum' isn't generally one of them. 'Fora' isn't *wrong*, because it's consistent with the rules of Latin, but it's uncommon and risks looking contrived. The rules of Latin don't always apply in English (hence, for example, the freedom to split infinitives in English if you so choose).
The more common, perfectly acceptable, usage in modern English would be 'forums'.
"it is important to remember the context. Everything posted on the Daily Mail web site is horrible bile-fueled invective and noone in their right mind would ever take seriously anything published by the Daily Mail newspaper, its website, its readers or its site commentators."
She has a right to object to comments about her, and the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible.
If the publication leaves them on place, she can sue them? at which point the anonymous nature of the posters would be a different matter I would wager.
Seems like a sensible judgement to my mind.
Anonymous, because we trust El Reg, maybe.
"She has a right to object to comments about her, and the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible."
In other words, punters can complain and organisations can ignore them, same as it ever was.
When NHS trusts, local authorities, etc. mention a "right to complain" they mean that, overwhelmed by the volume of complaints, they've introduced a streamlined process to accept complaints, provide an anodyne reply and transfer them to the round filing cabinet.
"Heres hoping she lost a large portion of the money she got from her original payout in taking this action to the high court..."
I'm more inclined to think that just like her first case, she used "no win no fee" ambulance chasers. In her first case she won £12k, but the legal fees came to £500k...
It's odd. People who add comments to national newspaper web sites, even the quality (former) broadsheets, seem to be mostly ignorant, prejudiced and semi-literate. I've never visited the Daily Mail site, but I don't suppose the standard of comment is higher than in the Times, Independent, Telegraph etc. I've occasionally felt inclined to comment on a story in one of these, but stopped when I saw the company I'd be associating with.
Reg commentards, on the other hand, are usually trenchant, often well-informed, and frequently witty.
the judge basically said that because the comments were on a public forum, then anyone reading them would (should) understand they are made by people who don't know anymore about the subject than the reader.
So, it's one thing to for "Y" say something nasty about "X" on public forum, where anyone reading can understand that "Y" could be anybody.
It would still be another thing if people reading knew that "Y" knows "X" personally. Because then their comments would carry more weight.
Seems to me the judge is pretty much telling people to get a life.
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." ....... Tron Posted Monday 28th February 2011 12:34 GMT
And it is just that sort of misinformed and decidedly retarded opinion, which may or may not be widely prevalent in the mainstream, should the mainstream even pause a moment to ponder on the significance of the notion, and its relationship to the realities which are programmed and presented to societies for their daily bread/viewing, which allows highly sensitive facts [MkUltraSensitive facts, in fact] to be stealthily shared with significant others/movers and shakers, as if in fabulous fictions/a Good Book.
Methinks, Tron, you be be a lot wiser in changing your opinion and adopting, "Only a fool would take everything posted here as fiction." instead of "Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And you do realise, do you not, Tron, that fact and fiction can easily be one and same to Create a Virtual Reality, which is an Actuality, and it is Presently causing quite some consternation and more than considerable difficulties within previously ruling elite classes, for they would be realising that their Command and Control of it, with IT and Media Mogul tales, is Gone and now lies way beyond their means and ken, and is led by A.N.Others.
Is it not sore, El Reg, sitting on that fence?
I was thinking, a better goal to per-"sue" would be to head down to the hardware store, and buy a sledge hammer, then put your left hand on the pub and slam it with the sledge hammer in the right hand, have a pint or two, while your pub friends ducktape the sledge hammer to the left hand and repeat the process on the right. It's also important to remember, the sledge hammer will also fix any problem with the computer. And yet another possibility is to not become a public figure.
If you can't afford a sledge hammer, I'm sure the court could loan you a gavel, it might take a few more swings to get the message though.
"Warren Buffett isn’t worried about China surpassing the United States, staying optimistic about America’s future despite other nations rising in power.
"We had four million people here in 1790. We’re not more intelligent than people in China, which then had 290 million people, or Europe, which had 50 million. We didn’t work harder, we didn’t have a better climate, and we didn’t have better resources. But we definitely had a system that unleashes potential," Buffett told Vanity Fair.
"This system works. Since then, we’ve been through at least 15 recessions, a civil war, a Great Depression …. All of these things happen. But this country has optimized human potential, and it’s not over yet," the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway said.
Buffett: China's Economy Isn't About to Surpass US" ..... http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/BuffettChinasEconomyIsntAbouttoSurpassUS/2011/01/05/id/381970
Wow, an ostrich with its head buried in the sand ..... and typical of the hubris which is destroying Uncle Sam's power base. No longer an Omaha sage, as everyone turns over the page to read and learn of New MkUltraSensitive High Tech World Order Programming from Clouds into CHAOS and Virtual Operating Systems, ........ for a Change to Reality, which Warren has oft admitted is something which he knows nothing about and thus avoids investing in, as if IT is the Plague rather than the dDeliverer of Manna from Heaven.
I don't think I have ever posted anonymously; not that that is a bad thing, just.
It kind of filters my own posts; there are things you just cannot say out loud.
I try not to even think those things; try to be the kind of person that you would not be ashamed to know; try not to run out of amm. . . and really do I ever have to be that way?
But yeah, we have (people who should have mental health evaluations) here in the 'states; people who think our President is a Fundamentalist Christian Muslim; people who really need that anonymous aspect of their posting. (We also have that midnight knock at the door, another story, another time.) Those people need to be anonymous*.
And thus, ignored.
Sometimes you just have to call someone a (twat/jerk/asshole) you need that, it is a cultural imperative.
I wait; I will not go after fish in a barrel; I wait.
Then I think a bit.
*actually they need to be read their own posts as torture.
My feeling is that where the 'Anonymous Coward' (or equivalent) option is used, it's used on the understanding that it generally undermines the strength of the argument being made.
Bearing in mind that, on Internet forums at least, we're all anonymous to some extent unless we're publishing our full real names, addresses, phone numbers and so on, it's not unreasonable to argue that if you're not willing even to put a searchable pseudonym against your opinions, then you're probably not all that proud of them yourself. And the judge's ruling seems a two-edged sword for the anons: on the one hand, their right to privacy is protected; but the price is the discrediting of their opinions. After all, if they're too inconsequential to warrant a libel suit in *Britain* - the country of choice for the world's libel tourists - then there's not much to be said for them.
There are occasions when anonymity is more valuable - but then there are times when the consequences of being found out will amount to more than a spot of mockery and invective on a website.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021