New Court Ruling... Confused Yet? - GoFuckYourself.com

Gemini · 08-14-2001, 06:36 AM

http://netscape.zdnet.com/zdnn/stori...095619,00.html

Wonder when the final decision will come down? Don't ignore this as nothing to do with us. It's one the stepping stones *TO* us.

12clicks · 08-14-2001, 07:08 AM

if a poster slanders, he should lose all rights of anonymity.
Wrapping yourself in the truth should be protection enough. If you can't, you should pay the penalty.

Gemini · 08-14-2001, 07:22 AM

I'm not disputing that 12... I'm bringing it up as in how the courts are reversing and then going back and then ahead and sooo confusing. We're witnessing the courts huge job of eventually governing the net in general. It will be long and drawn out but I keep hearing that people think they won't start anytime soon.

We go along with if someone ripped us that way then by all means toss it out with your real name. We actually DID pay for several months to these people in the article but they refunded us when their so called attorneys did nothing. We confronted them head on, no court and no slander. We have no need for that sort of thing.

Just a curious twist to someone that has read history and sees a trend towards the eventual rulings ahead.

Btw, need to talk to you if you would talk to me a sec on ICQ.

fantasyc · 08-14-2001, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks:
if a poster slanders, he should lose all rights of anonymity.
Wrapping yourself in the truth should be protection enough. If you can't, you should pay the penalty.

I disagree... There could be several reasons a person might choose to remain anonymous and that doesn't necessarily mean they are lying...
This could go both ways. If a company is on the up and up they shouldn't have anything to worry about either

------------------
Tracy ;)
Fantasy Content
http://www.fantasycontent.com

pimplink · 08-14-2001, 09:41 AM

I agree. Protecting anonymous posting is really protecting anonymous speech. The US Supreme Court has acknowledged in several cases that the right to speak anonymously is part and parcel of the general right to speak freely [within limits]. They even cited that fact that the most vocal backers of the Constitution wrote the Federalist papers under pseudonyms.

Quote:

Originally posted by fantasyc:

I disagree... There could be several reasons a person might choose to remain anonymous and that doesn't necessarily mean they are lying...
This could go both ways. If a company is on the up and up they shouldn't have anything to worry about either

08-14-2001, 06:36 AM	#1
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	New Court Ruling... Confused Yet? http://netscape.zdnet.com/zdnn/stori...095619,00.html Wonder when the final decision will come down? Don't ignore this as nothing to do with us. It's one the stepping stones TO us.

08-14-2001, 07:08 AM	#2
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,789	if a poster slanders, he should lose all rights of anonymity. Wrapping yourself in the truth should be protection enough. If you can't, you should pay the penalty.

08-14-2001, 07:22 AM	#3
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	I'm not disputing that 12... I'm bringing it up as in how the courts are reversing and then going back and then ahead and sooo confusing. We're witnessing the courts huge job of eventually governing the net in general. It will be long and drawn out but I keep hearing that people think they won't start anytime soon. We go along with if someone ripped us that way then by all means toss it out with your real name. We actually DID pay for several months to these people in the article but they refunded us when their so called attorneys did nothing. We confronted them head on, no court and no slander. We have no need for that sort of thing. Just a curious twist to someone that has read history and sees a trend towards the eventual rulings ahead. Btw, need to talk to you if you would talk to me a sec on ICQ.