Great post gentleman. And great recipe.
It is interesting that so many posts on this topic centered around what
can legally be "gotten away with" with respect to anonymous blogging. I
am encouraged however that there seems to be a rising public
awareness and outrage to the downside of the privilege of anonymous
speech, typically as it relates to the Internet.
I have found that most people, including judges, can be very dismissive
with respect to these types of lawsuits suggesting that they are petty
and should not be clogging up the legal system. However I submit that,
until somebody has personally, or through someone they love,
experienced the debilitating anguish that comes from being at the
receiving end of a malicious and relentless Internet smear campaign,
they simply cannot relate to the pain it causes.
I am passionately committed to raising public awareness to this 21st-
century pandemic which is executed by the immoral minority, but
afforded a very loud voice through the accessibility and universal
availability of blogging technologies. I like to tell "future victims" of
Internet libel that their careers, job prospects, family, and emotional
well-being can be devastated by a targeted Internet smear campaign by
an unknown blogger as thoroughly as a farmer who has his livestock
destroyed and barns and fields burned.
I have walked this fiery road personally, it was vocationally and
emotionally debilitating. My antagonist has subsequently been jailed for
unrelated crimes which seems to be distracting the individual from
labeling me. Fortunately I was able to turn adversity into opportunity
and now earn a modest living assisting Internet libel victims and their
attorneys. However, I would much rather get a real job if the public
developed what I would like to call a "repulse reflex" for the garbage that
is posted on the Internet.
Respectfully submitted, Michael Roberts. Anonymous blogger bounty
hunter.
Www.Rexxfield.com
Discussion on:
Just
In
In
RE: A Constitutional Convention for the online world
Posted by Samantha at FASP
25th Aug 2009
Show:
0
Votes
RE: A Constitutional Convention for the online world
Posted by Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com
25th Aug 2009
0
Votes
RE: A Constitutional Convention for the online world
The Federal Anti-SLAPP Project (FASP) has written and is working to secure passage of federal legislation that would protect against SLAPPs. As Mr. Blankenhorn notes, SLAPPs are meritless lawsuits arising from free speech or petition activity. Unlike most lawsuits, they are not brought to "win" in court, but rather to use the expensive and time-consuming litigation process as a means of harassment and intimidation.
SLAPPs against internet posters are so common they have a name - CyberSLAPPs. CyberSLAPPs are frequently couched as claims of defamation or trademark infringement. They also come in the form of subpoenas to seek an anonymous blogger's identity.
Oscar Wilde said, "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - and he was right. It's true that people sometimes use the cover of anonymity to post irresponsible and false things on the internet. But it is also true that anonymous speech is a time honored tradition in this country, and the freedom to speak anonymously is a critical component of First Amendment rights.
Courts should refuse to unveil an anonymous poster's identity without applying some minimum safeguards: Giving the poster a chance to respond to the subpoena, and requiring the plaintiff to make a showing of minimum merit in the underlying claim are two good safeguards. Courts in a few jurisdictions -- New Jersey and Maryland, to name two, have set forth a series of factors a judge must weigh before revealing an anonymous poster's identity.
FASP?s legislation, the Citizen Participation in Government and Society Act, allows only those with meritorious claims - those who have been damaged by a post and who can rightfully seek recovery of those damages - to go forward in unmasking a poster's identity. Under the law, those who bring meritless claims to use the unmasking process as a method of intimidation cannot go forward with their claims, and must pay the attorney?s fees incurred by the poster in fighting the subpoena. For the text of the bill, see www.anti-slapp.org. For more information, please contact Samantha Brown, legislative director, at sb[at]anti-slapp[dot]org.
SLAPPs against internet posters are so common they have a name - CyberSLAPPs. CyberSLAPPs are frequently couched as claims of defamation or trademark infringement. They also come in the form of subpoenas to seek an anonymous blogger's identity.
Oscar Wilde said, "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - and he was right. It's true that people sometimes use the cover of anonymity to post irresponsible and false things on the internet. But it is also true that anonymous speech is a time honored tradition in this country, and the freedom to speak anonymously is a critical component of First Amendment rights.
Courts should refuse to unveil an anonymous poster's identity without applying some minimum safeguards: Giving the poster a chance to respond to the subpoena, and requiring the plaintiff to make a showing of minimum merit in the underlying claim are two good safeguards. Courts in a few jurisdictions -- New Jersey and Maryland, to name two, have set forth a series of factors a judge must weigh before revealing an anonymous poster's identity.
FASP?s legislation, the Citizen Participation in Government and Society Act, allows only those with meritorious claims - those who have been damaged by a post and who can rightfully seek recovery of those damages - to go forward in unmasking a poster's identity. Under the law, those who bring meritless claims to use the unmasking process as a method of intimidation cannot go forward with their claims, and must pay the attorney?s fees incurred by the poster in fighting the subpoena. For the text of the bill, see www.anti-slapp.org. For more information, please contact Samantha Brown, legislative director, at sb[at]anti-slapp[dot]org.
Posted by Samantha at FASP
25th Aug 2009