If you connect to third-party service for the purposes of communication, you’re not really anonymous. There’s a lesson here somewhere.
So what?
How does the judge’s ruling toss either right aside? Other than not at all?
Sure, why not pretend that rather than respond to the analogy I offered?
Your argument is that the evidence might support a charge of conspiracy. Which is irrelevant, because she is not on trial for conspiracy. As far as the legal system is concerned, she is innocent of any crime.
And a judge’s ruling to dox her in a civil suit affects her first amendment rights the same way a ruling to dox anyone else would. You shouldn’t be able to dox someone who is merely exercising their constitutional rights, regardless of what you think you might find. It is ripe for misuse.
“Doxing” is revealing someone’s identity publicly. That’s not at issue here.
You can’t remain anonymous from the legal system. That’s pretty obviously untenable.
No, my argument is that there is no reason social media should be treated any different than any other communications medium when it comes to discovery in a court of law. The plaintiffs allege that the were harmed by some group of people, she is one of that group of people; and they have some evidence to that effect, sufficient evidence so as to allow a civil trial to proceed. They’re entitled to discovery. How not?
Yes, exactly.
What right is this?
This is a real question by the way. I am trying to decide if I think it being civil makes a difference. The legal system allows for anonymous… i mean we use Jane Doe and etc. for a number of situations but this is not a rape victim or likely a minor. It seems… like another area that has to be examined carefully.
The right to anonymous speech is part of the right to freedom of expression, and it has been protected by the SCOTUS.
The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment
And while the DeVos example was hypothetical, there are real examples of similar tactics being used in civil litigation to intimidate anonymous Trump critics. Now it will be even easier.
Sure, but it has to be balanced by this individual’s right to seek redress. Putting your communications behind a screen name isn’t blanket immunity for the consequences of those communications.
So there has to be a limit though. You can’t fully participate in a legal process, most of them, anonymously, but at the same time just throwing a lawsuit as someone to get their ID shouldn’t work either.
I would hope the courts, civil or otherwise, weight that right against the rights that has anyone in court.
If this is true"
“Any time the government seeks to unmask an anonymous speaker, they have to have a very strong justification,” said Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney for the ACLU.
Then we should be mostly okay already.
The arguments for unmasking the above Trump critic is exactly the same as the argument for unmasking the Nazi lady. Namely:
“This person hasn’t done anything illegal, but based solely on their speech we want to investigate them further to see if there is cause for action.”
Well one is a voice of dissent. The other one they’re trying to say is part of a crime. I’m not sure. If the statements aren’t crimes themselves whether they know who the person is or not, then I don’t see how knowing matters.
It’s not true that the argument is the same. In the Trump critic case, it was the government which was seeking to unmask the person. In this case, it is the harmed citizens who are seeking to do it.
But if what she is saying is not a crime, why do they need to know who she is. I mean if it was harassment, threats, defamation or something like that but if this is just a hey this person was involved with these other people… how does that justify revealing anyone?
Because they have evidence that suggests that she and others meant to do harm, and they were harmed by those actions, and they’re seeking redress. It they had no evidence, the judge would have thrown the request out.
She’s saying ‘take these things with you to the protest because you can use them to harm others’. And they got harmed!
They need her information in order to prove the other people intended to harm them. Why? If they know who she was talking to and they received that message that shows intent, the intent doesn’t’ really change based on who said it does it?
I mean that’s just my take. It sounds like the courts are already aware and know how to weight the rights of the anonymous vs the rights of other people in the case, so they should continue to do that.
I’m guessing they want her testimony, and they can’t get that without knowing who she is. Don’t they have a right to call witnesses?
I don’t know that their want of testimony outweighs her rights. That’s up for the courts, but they have what was said already or they wouldn’t be asking for more.
It’s not really clear to me that she has a right that conflicts with theirs. She surrendered her identity to a third party when she decided to use their infrastructure for communication. If she said those things to you, and you passed them on to someone else on her behalf, and now you’re being asked to ID her, does she have a privacy right you’re bound to defend? I don’t think so.
Here around the nation’s capitol, we are bracing for the NAZI APOCALYPSE this weekend. It’s the one-year anniversary of the Charlottesville demonstration/murder, and the alt-right idiots are setting up for a “protest” in front of the White House. If you listen to the local news, you’d think that millions of Nazis and Klansmen were going to be descending on the region, burning minorities at every highway rest-stop.
In reality, it’ll probably be a handful of agitators put out like roped goats in the hope that the actual thousands of counter-protestors beat the crap out of them in order to give Fox and Breitbart some ammunition to show that “the Left are the actual violent ones”.
I don’t envy the US Park Police in their job this weekend: Protecting these shitlords from the ass-kicking that they desperately desire/need/deserve.
It’s been interesting to see the otherwise-apolitical companies that have announced “we don’t have to support Nazi” policies. Uber came out and said that their drivers are absolutely allowed to refuse service to alt-right scum if the driver feels that their potential passenger is “acting discriminatory” via their signs, attire, or actions. Likewise, Airbnb has given permission for folks to cancel reservations if they feel that the border is an alt-right idiot: They cite the Airbnb user’s agreement, which requires users “to treat everyone in the Airbnb community — regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age — with respect, and without judgment or bias.”
These are good optics for the companies to have, but they also provide some cover for the “gig economy” workers to protect their assets. I can imagine an Uber driver unwillingly driving Nazis to the rally getting his car damaged by counter-protesters, or an Airbnb renter having their house/identities doxed because they had to rent to Klansmen.
As noted upthread, The DC Metro (the trains and buses) originally hoped to segregate the alt-righters onto separate vehicles, probably witht he semi-laudable goal of preventing violence. That was scuppered when the union representing the Metro employees (who are 85% minority) said that no one wanted to drive a white-supremacist-only bus or train.
There was a report on this on All Things Considered on my drive home yesterday. They were saying that Charlottesville might have grown the Alt-Right overall, but for the individual members who attended that rally last year, it had a lot of negative consequences. Which is why, they explained, a lot less people are expected to come this year to the DC rally.