RSSAnonymous message board posters must show IDs to government
By Tim Conneally | Published October 8, 2008, 10:08 AM
A Pennsylvania judge has ordered the owner of a Web site dedicated to Lackawanna County, PA political affairs to disclose the identity of six anonymous posters for posting defamatory remarks about the Scranton City Council President.
This is a "Lackawanna Six" of a completely different nature. In a case centering around whether anonymity protects citizens from responsibility for defamation claims, an initial complaint was filed last year by Joe Pilchesky, a Scranton resident and webmaster of DohertyDeceit.com, a journal of local political criticism. Pilchesky claimed that he and his site were the victims of harassment, retaliation, and defamation at the hands of City Council President Judy Gatelli.
Gatelli filed a counterclaim against Pilchesky and nearly one hundred anonymous posters on his site for defamation, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Gatelli petitioned for the identities of all the anonymous posters be revealed. Though Gatelli's counterclaim was incontrovertibly denied, she was given time to renew and re-file her petition, and in the process, collect new evidence against the anonymous posters.
On the first of October, Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter J. O'Brien handed down his judgment on Gatelli's re-filed petition: Some 98 anonymous posters were safe, but six posters were ordered to reveal their identities.
Citing such cases as Roth v. United States (1957), which determined that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment; Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), where libelous statements were found to be outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech; and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) finding that First Amendment protections do not extend to "fighting words," Judge O'Brien determined the six posters to be outside of the protection of the First Amendment.
In his discussion of the case, Judge O'Brien remarked, "The First Amendment protects opinion criticism of public officials. The above quoted statements attributing serious sexual misconduct to Defendant Gatelli go beyond the bounds of those protections afforded by the First Amendment."
One of the posts in question read, "Just when you thought Judy Gatelli was the world's biggest a**hole, she shows up as the world's dumbest, biggest a**hole. And where was the w**** of all w***s tonight? She was a no-show once again. Too afraid of questions? you can't make this crap up, she goes down in history as the ugliest woman to ever take council and the most dysfunction moran [sic] to ever be president."
On a scale of one to ten for Internet diatribes, this is a three at best. Yet this post, and five others of similar severity, were found to adhere to the court's definition of defamation or libel, and therefore were unprotected by the First Amendment in the eyes of the court.
O'Brien said, "There is no question that generally, the constitutional right to anonymous free speech is a right deeply rooted in public policy and falls within the class of rights that are too important to be denied review...The right to speak anonymously is not, however, absolute."
Some of the anonymous posters were defended by Public Citizen civil rights lawyer Paul Levy, Esq. who spoke to BetaNews Tuesday afternoon. "This is a potentially vulnerable decision," Levy told us. "And it's not over yet, both Pilchesky and Gatelli have publicly said they will continue the appeals process."
Indeed, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future cases against anonymous Internet posters.
In regards to the identity disclosure, Levy noted the user "Adam" who wrote: "I had an encounter with her at a drug store. That b***** had the nerve to mention to me that Scranton is a far better place than it was before she was elected. I couldn't help myself and called her a Doherty ****job right to her face' I gave it to her good. She left her stuff on the counter and all upset she walked out. Looking into her eyes is looking into something that transformed into something unhuman. she's got a cold deep look to her, pretty scary."
Levy said, "Was discovery really necessary for this instance? If this user actually had this exchange with Gatelli, I should hope she'd know who he is already."
A Real Work at Home Opportunity as an Independent Advertising Executive. We offer home workers the opportunity to earn extra money from the comfort of their own home. Visit Us at http://www.clicknearn.ne...liate/a/1415.php?page=9
Score: -1
Me thinks the operative clause here may be "Malicious Intent".
Who cares anyway? Send 'em to Gitmo for some gentle behaviour modification.
Score: 0
we all know, or better all need to know how things works.
Use anonymizers, how are really good to protect you against spam, tracking and lawsuites ;)
Score: 0
nothing is Anonymous. PA also has the most jails in the USA. also stay out of AZ they don't put up with loud mouth people either.
Score: 0
When did the Gestapo move to Pennsylvania?
Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere!
Score: 0
I heard Obama state that McCain was "planning to annihilate North Korea" last night. Is he accusing him of a conspiracy to commit mass murder? Can McCain bring suit for slander?
This lawsuit is ridiculous.
Score: 0
"Anonymous message board posters must show IDs to government"
This Is Just WRONG!!
If that's the case then whoever put up the site can be sued for misrepresenting the site since it's CLEARLY not anonymous.
And sue I owuld.
Score: 0
"And sue I owuld."
He owuld folks.... be afraid...be very afraid...
Score: 0
Don't tell me to be afraid or I will Sue oyu!
Score: 0
In the era of the lawsuit where a rube can sue the Golden Arches for tripping on the sidewalk and get a million bucks out of it, you don't think that this is lawsuit material Big Time? I can smell the lawyers circling like sharks. And for one those buggers would be doing a good thing.
Score: 0
No you own't...
Score: 0
verbal assault is freedom of speech . . and they should respect that, if you don't like what they say you can just ignore it.
otherwise the alternative is horrible . .
if we silence every criticism of the system then we have a fascist state.
Score: 0
verbal assault is freedom of speech . . and they should respect that, if you don't like what they say you can just ignore it.
..and what about those that hear it and don't?
Say I told everyone here I had pictures of you getting nasty with a horse. ( I don't, obviously.)
Sure, *you* could ignore me. But what about all of the opinions of the folks that read this site? Can you be sure *they* will ignore it? Can you be sure it won't do irreparable damage to people's perceptions of you?
This is why laws regarding slander and libel exist.
Without them, well...the alternative is most definitely horrible.
Score: 0
Ooooh, horse porn. Hand it my way!
/I'm on the internet. I really don't give a monkies what people think of me here
Score: 0
...horse porn, huh?
LOL!
What do you really expect here?
This is the land of entitlement and absolutely no responsibility - except for the fact that the same geniuses who demand anonymity and immunity from the laws are the same that SO LOUDLY demand culpability from everyone else!
Ironic, huh?
And if you did catch them in the act with the horse, where does the horse sue? As THAT is the injured party...just by virtue of association.
Score: 0
verbal assault may be protected by freedom of speech.
but it does not protect anyone from civil liability, eg emotional distress, etc.
further, yelling fire in a movie theatre is a violation of the law.
compare the above with the rights of free speech.
Score: 0
Given that more than a few of the denizens here don't think, I can certainly see your point.
Score: 0
"/I'm on the internet. I really don't give a monkies what people think of me here"
Because you are anonymous?
Score: 0
Freedom of speech does not grant the right to commit verbal assault, and as to what might be deemed verbal assault... that is up to the courts.
Personally, I think that attacking someone anonymously instead of face to face is the mark of a coward.
If I made a comment about an individual with that intensity, I certainly DO want them to know who I am.
Score: 0
"Sticks and stones... "
Learn it, live it, love it.
The alternative will move you even closer tot he police state you already are close to being.
Score: 0
Yup, not at all like that haven of democracy and fairness devoid of corruption you call your toilet of origin, is it?
Score: 0
But but but...
...I'm not from America. (BFEG)
Up here in Canada the Privacy Act would make even the suggestion of such actions as described in the article beyond laughable.
Gree speech, protection of the right to privacy of citizens and all that, y'know...
A name-calling contest is no reason for what is being forced and the losses far outweigh the ego-stroke of the gain.
Then again, given your response, I doubt that the understanding of such concepts lies within your capabilities.
Score: 0
The Jamaican Palmetto Bug that hitched a ride to Canada on a batch of bananas takes credit for the Canadian system of laws.
Yeah, and you act like you Canadians are morally superior. LOL!
What, you haven't introduced yet necklacing to the masses?
Here's a concept nitwit. If someone is going to make allegations of substance about someone, then the law also allows one to face his accusors. Of course, you seem to miss this much more fundamental aspect of the law.
Oops...
Score: 0
...and when he loses the argument (and consequently face), he resorts to cheap racial slurs.
Quite typical of your type and not at all unexpected.
"Sticks and stones... " sweetheart. :)
Had you read elsewhere, you owuld have seen that I said that slander can be proven in a court of law and then damages can be assigned. Cheap namecalling isn't exactly accusation bu then again, I obviously didn't have to put up with whatever happened to you on the schoolyard in your childhood and perhaps I'm somewhat less easily offended by mere words (and less interested in wasting the court's time and taxpayers' money) as a result.
To answer another point, it's not that we canadians consider ourselves superior. It's quite simple, actually:
We see the royal much-up you make of so many issues and the immediate response of Canadians coast-to-coast is "don't do the same thing the Americans did or we'll end up in the same incomparable mess". Don't want to believe that? you'll see the proof in less than a week when we have our own Federal elections and even if we elect another Conservative government (a thankfully watered down version of your own hapless Republicans), we'll do it in such a way that they'll be neutered and unable to do anything stupid (a minority government).
And that will be the DIRECT result of seeing your screw-ups Due South. In fact, some of the commercials of the political parties say just that (those of you living near enough to the border to get Canuck TV can verify that).
You see, in a most peculiar way, your example helps us maintain the rights and freedoms of OUR citizens.
Thank you.
Score: 0
I'd rather live in a police state than one where individuals aren't held accountable for their actions.
Thankfully, I live in a country that tries to stay somewhere in between... with a never ending tug-o-war going on between the two extremes.
Score: 0
great!
go get those trolls and pathetic cowards...!!
take that site down too.
if there are people that demand their rights to free speech, then let us know who they are!
what are they scared of?
Score: 0
like owilliams said, freedom of speech does not cover slander.
Score: 0
IANNL, but, I think they have to be able to prove that someone might actually believe it.
Score: 0
it is always soo easy to be on the side of the goverment, why? because anyway you win and people will HAVE TO obey, being true to what really matters and to the TRUTH is hard work becuase you have to take a lot of comments like yours . .
and by the way you are doing the same thing you are criticizing. . .
Score: 0
OK...
Go to the address bar in your browser.
Type in "google.com" (without the quotes).
In the search field on the page that shows up, type in "sarcasm" (without the quotes).
Read everything about that word you can find.
Then re-read his post.
Score: 0
typing "define:sarcasm" would be quicker.
Score: 0
A mob led by people with that attitude?
Score: 0
Slander is something that can be proven in a court of law. Then punitive damages can be assigned.
Been called a "butthead" in the schoolyard as a kid?
Score: 0
Idiot, the lack of substance by the accusor determines whether slander or libel has occured.
Slander is anything but that which can be proven in court!
I can see why you cite the example of having been called a "butthead" in school. You must have heard it frequently.
Score: 0
oh! ok sorry
it's just that it's not easy to identify sarcasm when it is written in another language . .
Score: 0
What a laugh, this judge really thinks his ruling will hold up on appeal? Where is the NY Times v. Sullivan element of malice? This woman is still in office and she wants the identity of anonymous posters because some 1971 case in PA says accusing a man or woman of fornication or adultery is grounds for a libel action? She's a public official, she needs to accept this kind of criticism.
Finally, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) speaks on point that it is not reasonably believable that this politician committed adultery or fornication, so the demand for the anonymous posters' identity is moot.
This article is a little misleading, the attorney Paul Levy filed appearances for 7 unrelated defendant posters. I guess he was assuming the judge would be intelligent enough to use common sense and settled law to dismiss the counterclaim completely. Not his fault the judge chose to ignore the entire scope of 1st amendment law.
Score: 0
This is ridiculous.
Aside from the "wh*re" comment, and even that's questionable, all the name calling is subjective (not to mention immature), and thus a matter of opinion/perspective.
Is PA really that backwards?
Score: 0
Take a look into the Liquor Control Board and your question will be answered.
Score: 0
Did you guys all lose your real jobs or what is going on with this 10AM EST posting this week..?
Score: 0
We're doing it specifically to throw you off. It's a conspiracy.
-SF3
Score: 0
All conspiracy's are a conspiracy by the Illumanti...
Ever notice how the word conspiracy is made out of cons and piracy?
Score: 0
: - S
Score: 0
Weak economy = in work 1 hour a week less to save costs.
You know I'm right.
Score: 0
fnord.
Score: 0