A Victory for Anonymous Blogging

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Mark Seecof says:

    About “actual malice:” you’re right and wrong at the same time. Under NY Times v. Sullivan “actual malice” has nothing to do with “motivation,” it only asks whether the libel was published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard. However, that element of a summary- judgement- like test still ought to be relaxed, because evidence of “actual malice” could likely only be obtained through discovery, whereas a plaintiff could make a threshold showing of falsity and defamation from his own resources.

  2. It surprises me that the great and powerful aren’t able to track down and figure out who the anonymous really are. You’d figure they could hire some super-geeks and get that info.

    Warren Redlich — non-anonymous :-)

  3. Bruce says:

    I’ve worked with the super-geeks, and there’s a limit to what they can do without a subpeona. Most ISPs require one before they will match an IP or e-mail address to a particular subscriber, and in most cases there’s going to be no other way to match the two things together.

  4. Denise says:

    Funny how this is so relevant to a case I am pursuing. This involved such defaming anonymous emails sent to my administrators and then again to the District Board of Education and anyone else who was in high authority. I did get a court order to obtain the identity, and it WAS my best friend of 7 years. Yes, this was done with malice! Without a doubt, and we are presently awaiting the judges decisions on summary judgments and their request to dismiss. I believe that if this person had done this activity showing her identity, she may have some credibility, however, she did this with the intent to have me fired (was not successful) and stated that in her emails. Wow, what has this world come too?