4 ms·
You stop it by compelling (as they did in this case) proof of a libelous claim. Anonymous speech, as long as it doesn't cross the line into destruction of reput
by enjo 17y ago
You stop it by compelling (as they did in this case) proof of a libelous claim. Anonymous speech, as long as it doesn't cross the line into destruction of reputation based on false statements is still protected.
- radu_floricica 17y agoMm. This works on paper, true. But in the real world the proof necessary to get the identity is much lower then the one needed to actually convict. Add to this the fact that libelous claims are in good part a subjective matter. Nope, proof of a libelous claim would merely make the above scenario somewhat more difficult, but far from improbable. It would simply require better lawyers.
- rapind 17y agoSo now we need to solve a problem in the legal system? Doesn't it get to a point where you can't solve any problems because of the other systems they're tied to? How about we just agree from a moral perspective that: 1. Anonymous defamation etc. is cowardly and should be persecuted appropriately. 2. Maintaining reasonable privacy is something we should strive for, and that it should be just as important as #1. 3. A legal system needs to be in place that we can trust to maintain both #1 and #2. Those are our requirements. Now I'm not saying we're going to solve it right here and now, but thinking about it this way, as a problem requiring a solution and not a big wall we can't get past, definitely isn't going to hurt.