U.S. judge sides with anonymous online flamers

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

In a victory for anonymous critics of corporations, a federal judge in San Francisco has rejected a company's attempt to force Yahoo to identify the online commenter who called the firm's chief executive a "known liar" who believes "humanity exists to be fleeced."

"The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak anonymously," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in ruling against USA Technologies. She said a target of anonymous online attacks must have evidence that the postings violated its rights and caused serious harm before enforcing a subpoena to disclose the speaker's identity.

USA Technologies filed a suit in its home state of Pennsylvania in August 2009 against the poster known as Stokklerk and sent a subpoena to Yahoo, which hosts a message board about the company, demanding the person's Web address. The suit claimed defamation and securities fraud, alleging that Stokklerk had financial interests in denigrating the company.

Stokklerk went to federal court in San Francisco, Sunnyvale-based Yahoo's home district, to quash the subpoena. Illston sided with the online critic, saying USA Technologies had offered no evidence of Stokklerk's financial involvement and could not prove defamation based on mere insults.

... Attorney Matt Zimmerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represents Stokklerk, said ... he would ask Illston to order USA Technologies to pay Stokklerk's attorneys' fees under a new, and legally untested, California law assessing legal costs against out-of-state companies that issue subpoenas chilling free speech.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/19/BA081DHDL2.DTL&tsp=1

[ixion]

1. woohoo!!

let your bright light shine, flamers! :woohoo: :party: :applause:

[CynicalObserver]

12. too bad the administration

would like to see online political speech exempted from this protection.

[CLANG]

2. "The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak anonymously".

Amen, Sister Susan!

[brooklynite]

15. Including the anonymous funders of California Prop 8?

Finding a uniform standard for behavior is tricky...

[CLANG]

16. Unfortunately, yes.

[Demeter]

3. What Does USA Technologies think It Is?

a person, perhaps? What could have given them that impression? And not only a person, but a super person, untouchable by criticism.

[closeupready]

4. What a terrific ruling!

:woohoo: Maybe we haven't lost our democracy, after all!

[Maccagirl]

5. Take your medicine, USA Technologies

I guess they haven't read the "comments" section of any site when there's "Kennedy", "Clinton" or "Obama" in the headlines. They don't know the meaning of "defamation".

[GaltFreeDiet]

6. Rec 11 nt

[proteus_lives]

7. A good ruling.

:thumbsup:

[New Dawn]

8. K&R - Fuck "USA Technologies" (whoever the hell they are)!

[Kurska]

9. Good for Stokklerk n/t

[Angry Dragon]

10. Something in this jumps put at me

He bad mouthed a person. Why is the company turning around and suing him?? It looks to me that it was personal and the this chief executive uses company resources in a personal matter. The company should turn around and make the chief pay legal costs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Why proxy servers are your friends

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. KnR. Anonymous will never be controlled. n/t

[Jkid]

14. With this ruling, sites like 4chan are practically legal under the US Consitution

And sites such as that are more important than ever in this time and age.