Yo mama case could set precedent for online anonymity rules
An Internet war of words has produced a case which could further clarify how the legal system tracks online discussion. The ruling involves both the limits of freedom of speech and the procedures for dealing with anonymous posters.
The situation involves the son of Lisa Stone (pictured), a village trustee in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. That’s a low-level political post where the holder is elected.
The day before Stone was elected to the post in April, the Daily Herald newspaper wrote a story about the election and allowed readers to post comments. This led to a heated exchange of views between Stone’s son and a poster using the name Hipcheck16.
As usually happens in such affairs, Stone’s son challenged his debate opponent to discuss the manner in person. Hipcheck16 responded, “Seems like you’re very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house — have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?” He then implied that the comments of Stone’s son would cause her political problems.
The newspaper said it did not know the identity of Hipcheck16, while the relevant ISP (Comcast) appears to have followed the common policy of only handing details over after a court order. Such a court order has now been granted and the identity is set to be revealed to Stone on Nov. 18.
While the process seems simple, there are a couple of important issues at stake. One is that Stone has not yet decided for certain to sue “Hipcheck16”. While it appears the ruling means she will only learn the identity once she does so, it’s one step beyond the more common position that a court would require a legal case before considering ordering an identity to be revealed.
A second legal point is that such situations usually require a strong case to answer before anonymity is lifted. In this case, the raw form of the words certainly appears defamatory of Stone’s son. However, the context in which they are delivered make it questionable whether they are intended to be interpreted as a statement of fact rather than an insult which isn’t intended to be taken literally.
While only a court case can decide if the comments do constitute libel, it’s debatable whether that possibility is so clear-cut as to override the poster’s right to anonymity.
Related Posts:
