Watch Out Trolls, Your Menacing Comments Could Lead to Big Fines
Two former Yale University law students have settled their suit brought against some 30-plus anonymous commenters who posted derogatory remarks about them on an internet forum called AutoAdmit. The comments, which ranged from standard insults to those of a more sexually explicit nature, were so vile they prompted the women to sue in order to out the identities of those doing the commenting. According to the plaintiffs, the suit was necessary because the discussion board, a site designed for law school graduates, was often monitored by firms looking to hire. Because the comments were associated with their names, the women claimed that it would hurt their chances of being offered a job.
The Case
This case had been in litigation for years, having been originally filed back in 2007. The problem stemmed from the fact that internet sites such as AutoAdmit are essentially able to operate under different rules than those that apply to TV and newspapers when it comes to libel. This is due to a law called "Section 230," which immunizes internet publishers from legal harm. At the time of its establishment in the 90's, however, those "publishers" were the ISPs themselves - the AOLs and CompuServes that delivered Internet access to consumers. The idea of bloggers, social media publishers, and anonymous blog and forum commenters didn't really exist yet and therefore wasn't taken into consideration. That meant the women weren't able to sue the operators of the discussion board website itself, but had to go after the anonymous posters instead. That, of course, was quite the challenge.
In the end, the women's attorneys were able to identify some eight or nine of the anonymous posters, according to the Hartford Courant and they settled with some of them.
Because the terms of the settlement were confidential, the lawyers representing the former students, Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller, would not discuss them. However, San Francisco attorney Ashok Ramani, whose firm, Keker & Van Nest took the case pro-bono said that their clients were "very pleased with how the case went." The women had sued for monetary damages so a settlement means they were likely awarded at least some of the amount they had hoped for.
Was the Settlement a Win or a Loss? Depends on Who You Ask
Marc Randazza, the attorney for one of the defendants scoffed that if the women's intention were to have the negative comments removed, their interests were very poorly served. "Now there's even an Encyclopedia Dramatica page for them," he told the Yale Daily News.
However, David Rosen, one of the women's attorneys and a Yale Law professor, countered that unmasking some of these anonymous posters who were hiding behind pseudonyms and then holding them accountable for what they said had accomplished "the fundamental goals of the case." He thinks the suit may even have some internet commenters thinking twice before posting. The possibility of a lawsuit "may make some people pause before posting comments that are malicious and completely indefensible," Rosen was quoted as saying.
Will This Really Change Things?
While obviously a major case, this suit isn't the first time a defamation case like this has been brought to court. In fact, only months ago, an anonymous blogger using Google's Blogger.com service was sued for rants she made about a fellow model, one Liskula Cohen, on her site "Skanks in NYC." The victim sued to reveal the identity of the malicious blogger. Thanks to a judge's ruling that Google must hand over to Cohen any identifying information they had on the site's creator, the blogger in question was revealed to be Rosemary Port. (She's now suing Google for not protecting her).
Although a slightly different case, the womens' suit involving the forum commenters also succeeded - at least in part - in revealing the identities of those posting the defamatory messages. Combined with the prior example, it will be interesting to see what impact these cases have on the online world. Will this lead to more lawsuits where alleged victims seek to out the identities of their internet foes? Will it lead to more self-policing among the commenting community? Will internet trolls actually think before they type?
It's too soon to say, but it's possible that a kinder, gentler - and possibly more boring - internet may be in our future.
Image credit: Troll - flickr user tandemracer;
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I'm excited to hear that concepts like libel are beginning to extend online. Cowardly comments posted by anonymous users are undesireable!
As an FYI, Rosemary Port is not suing Google, she and Ms. Cohen have reconciled. Furthermore, there is much more to the story and personal mitigating circumstances for Ms. Port. This doesn't to excuse her actions but should be given merciful consideration.
I would like to see Web application developers implement an additional layer of poor impulse control into every "submit comment" button found online. It would go something like this (tongue in cheek):
1. Click submit
2. Pop-up: "Is what you are saying nice, necessary and truthful? If it is true, but not nice, will it be generally beneficial to those who read it?"
3. Click yes (or "no, let me start over")
4. If yes, Pop-up: "are you sure? Did you take your happy pills today? Have you had your coffee? Would your mum let you post this? …..This is your last chance!"
5. Click yes (or "no, let me start over")
Regards,
Michael Roberts
Internet Libel Victim’s Advocate
www.rexxfield.com
Sarah, thanks for the article. However, I beg to disagree that a kinder, gentler internet may be more boring. Meaningful human interactions should be cordial, but cordiality doesn't preclude enthusiasm or excitement. Abuse and insults have no place in social discourse, or do they? We're privileged to live where we're all free to think whatever thoughts we wish; it's a human right that's not shared by many on this planet. When we exercise our right to freedom of speech, however, as members of a civil society, surely we also have the responsibility to consider the impact our speech will have?
Well done! In a democracy, people should have the courage of their opinions. Here is a rule of thumb: if you would not post something under your real name, then do not post it under a pseudonym. Critical anonymous comments are obviously acceptable in countries with severely limited freedom of speech.
@Michael: Thanks for that. I missed that update about the reconciliation. Editing.
While I doubt cases like this will do anything to curb rampant stupidity...because stupid is incredibly hard to control...I do think that libel laws should apply to electronic communication just as they do to printed communication.
I agree with the premise that publishers should not be held liable for comments on the site, even on sites where comments are "moderated", because publishers are not libel attorneys and shouldn't be tasked as though they were, but I do think that people who anonymously post libelous information in comments/blogs/etc., should be held to the same standards as are used in traditional media. (Keeping in mind that libel is an incredibly difficult thing to prove, at least in the US.)
The problem however, of instituting these sorts of regulations, is determining which body of law applies. Libel standards in the US are radically different than the UK or Australia, or Asia. There is no global consensus on what constitutes libel, what burden of proof is required to prove libel, or what penalties can be assigned if libel is proven.
@Andrea: I basically agree, was being a little tongue-in-cheek there but I guess it's hard to tell.
However, what would Perez Hilton do if restricted to "cordial social discourse"? :)
"...Tor is free software and an open network that helps you defend against a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security known as traffic analysis."
http://www.torproject.org
P.S.
tr0llz and p30pl3 wh0 writ3 "FURST!!1!" in c0mm3nts ar3 teh b3st th1ng that evar happ3nd to teh innarwebz
You said In what may be a precedent-setting case -- that is inaccurate. There is no "precedent" in this case, since there is no decision rendered by the court. The case settled, hence, no precedent.
I wish that the Yale Daily News had expanded on why I "scoffed." The fact is, out of a laundry list of defendants, at least three did nothing actionable at all, and the case against them was frivolous at best.
A couple of truly nasty commenters were tracked down, but we have known since the early days of the RIAA lawsuits that in order to remain truly "anonymous" on the internet, you have to take additional steps.
Which brings us to the final point about this case -- some of the worst offenders were never caught. Why not? Because they used tor, or were careful about not leaking information that could lead to their identities being discovered.
many cases that occur on the internet that is difficult for the finish, big cases often are about the humiliation and abuse.
Thanks for the comment Marc, I will have to think how I can rephrase that.
I'm excited to hear that concepts like libel are beginning to extend online. Cowardly comments posted by anonymous users are undesireable!
Michael Roberts
When exactly did Liskula and the blogger reconcile ? Funny I must have missed that story too.....perhaps it's one from your "storybook"? I'd like confirmation of that....what's your source? send the link.....let's not continue spreading false information.
@bjensen: I can't find a source either. I removed the mention of the 2nd suit while researching and the latest stories I found are about the countersuit...nothing about a reconciliation.
I'm leaving it out anyway because it doesn't really add to the story, but now I'm curious too.
Sarah
To date there is only one person showing "merciful consideration" and that was Liskula on GMA at the outset when she very publicly forgave the blogger.
Now there are two of us awaiting Mr. Roberts' response.
Nice and Truth are relative terms. There is no way to quantitate or qualify them.
Frankly, I find you all to be offensive to me.
You are just killing free speech more and more everyday to protect emotional states of mind and someone else's money. Soon, there will be no Internet content because everything will offend everyone. Glad you are satisfied with this state.
There are precedents currently available and that's in Cahill v Doe.
Marjorie...
Maybe Cahill should contact Steve Wagner...
And since when is the truth a relative term? I would hate to be your husband, if thats how you feel the truth is.
Don't you think it would just make for a better source of information, being the information super highway, if what we read was truth, not hate and jealousy, anger and defamation? Do you really need the internet as a way to get your frustrations out? Don't you feel like a big loser when you get into an argument on line? I mean who does it satisfy? Your sitting in front of your computer fighting with a screen, getting angry at a screen... Come on people, what is really wrong with a little civility? You can still express your opinions freely, you still can be anonymous, you just can't defame anyone... Just so you know there used to be no laws about drinking and driving, but after people got hurt and killed we made laws. people used to be able to beat the crap out of their kids, we changed that too. Why? For the same reason there should be laws about Internet bullying and online defamation, because it is hurting people, people are committing suicide, families are being destroyed. So Marjorie I hope nothing like what happened to Cohen happens to your child, or sister, or friend, you may find yourself changing you opinion. This is a problem and it is happening to our kids
everyday.http://www.isafe.org/channels/sub.php?ch=op&sub_id=media_cyber_bullying
Maybe you should look at the statistics and see how many lives have been ruined over this.
Meanwhile, somewhere in America real issues are pressing.
People don't generally say bad things about good people.
cks
This is a very real and pressing issue....it's called civility which seems to have been lost in this great land at least till now. Now thankfully there is some redress for the hateful things these on-line trolls spew. As to your last comment, the key word here is generally. Are you personally aquainted with any of these parties or are you just interested in making generalizations?
cks
It is easy to ignore the facts and dwell on issues that concern yourself, having lost a job, a wife, a child, the war and our government are all issues that must be dealt with on a daily basis for many Americans, but does that mean we should just turn our backs on the other issues at hand? Remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he waited until things got really ugly in Europe, and it only took him half of a decade to start to allow the refugees entrance to America, because of course there were other more pressing issues at that time, so 27,300 Germans and Austrians, mostly Jewish refugees, entered the United States in 1939. I wonder how many would have survived if he would have acted a little sooner? Or thought of the rest of the world, and not only his own back yard.
Yes, there are always going to be more important issues, but that does not mean we should all turn a blind eye to the issues that we are being forced to live with.
And I am sorry you think that generally people do not speak badly about good people, in my life I see it everyday. All you have to do is watch the news, or read a newspaper. People talk trash just to hear themselves make noise. And I am personally sick of hearing it.
And just out of curiosity if this issue is not one that interests you, why bother to read the article at all? I don't care for the sports pages, so I don't read them. Seem's simple, doesn't it?
Bjensen, I'll get back to you soon.
CKS,
IMHO your closing assertion is too general even though you qualified as "generally", but if you mean "healthy normal people" I would tend to agree with you. Search for "define sociopath"
Marjorie,
Anonymous free speech is a wonderful privilege and should be preserved at all costs, however like all good things is subject to abuse.
In many cases horrible problems have been avoided for the community as a result of anonymous blogging. This includes whistle blowing for white-collar criminals, community awareness when sexual predators move into the neighborhood, and many other alerts that are of great community benefit.
Benefits notwithstanding, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and anonymous free speech on the Internet is one such omelette. There is no such thing as free speech; there is always a cost. Sometimes that cost is acceptable, moreover desirable, particularly in the case of positive community awareness. However, often their many false and deceptive rumors, and libelous attacks are motivated only by hatred and vindictive antisocial promptings. More often than not, these serial cyber defamers have some type of antisocial personality disorder. They have nothing better to do than hurt other people; in fact they are actually fueled by other people's pain. Normal people like 97% of the readers of my comment cannot begin to relate to how these people think. Stop for a moment and imagine not having a conscience..... is simply impossible.
Let's cut to the chase here, if a farmer has his livestock destroyed and his barns and fields burned by a vandal, not many people would struggle with the assertion that his livelihood has been utterly decimated. However, if Ms. Cohen, who relies on her reputation to obtain new, and keep existing modeling contracts in the fashion industry comes under attack in the way she has, most people that have not experienced this firsthand will probably dismiss her anguish and complaints as petty and not worthy of the legal system or our sympathies. Yet, in practice her livelihood may have suffered even more damage. At least the farmer can grow new corn and raise new cows.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Roberts.
Internet Libel Victim's Advocate.
www.Rexxfield.com
CK:
People don't usually say bad things about good people?
A bit naive unless you mean saintly like Mother Theresa and there have been nasty remarks there -
Sometimes the "better" - not necessarily morally - but more successful, the worse the chatter gets.
People are angry, resentful, jealous or just worried and afraid. Emotional stuff.
And some people are just plain nasty.
Sources should ultimately be revealed if there is injury. Perhaps an injury court could weed out the idiots to keep from clogging the real courts. I think intent to harm is the operative word here, is it not?
Every night you see Lawyers begging people to find illnesses to sue about. I don't particularly like tort reform but when I see those ambulance chasers, I can't help but think there is little alternative than reform with some "ifs, ands, or buts"
Bjensen, I was just corrected by my source on my use of the word "reconciled". I am sorry for the error, thanks for suggesting that I check it out.
Here's the only concern I would have about the way the law seems to stand right now - say someone runs some sort of consumer activist blog and people make harsh but not libelous statements about the actions of a company. Then someone comes along and posts something over top personal about the CEO that could truly be libelous. (For instance saying he has a major mental illness.) The poster that did that could be just a troll, or even someone setting up a lawsuit against the legitimate activists.
With the site owner and blog author apparently protected by law, an uncaring blog author could choose to not remove seemingly libelous statements and even to instigate these dramas to get hits on the website, allowing the sincere posters to get drawn into a mess.
I've seen situations like this, and it is chilling to think about getting sucked into a mess that you might be forced to settle your way out of if you can't afford defense.
I think all this is a good reason to only post to well-moderated web sites if the subject matter is at all controversial. I just hope blog authors and site owners can't in turn get sued on any grounds for moderating posters. They need to be able to screen posts in order to be responsible.