Can a Court Order Forum Admins to Reveal Posters' Identities? - Perhaps.

[Michael OLeary]

It may be in a US jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean it can't happen in Canada.  Offering up such data could potentially be a forum operator's only option to avoid being the target of legal action themselves.

Hundreds who posted views on sex assault trial targeted in Tarrant suit

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/020809dnmetlawsuit.2bd48105.html

04:39 PM CST on Saturday, February 7, 2009

By CHRIS HAWES / WFAA--TV

FORT WORTH — Hundreds of people who posted their opinions of a sexual assault trial in an online forum are now the targets of a lawsuit.

The authors of those comments on a Web site thought they were anonymous, but this week, a judge ruled their names should be revealed.

Mark and Rhonda Lesher lived quietly in northeast Texas; Mark practiced law, Rhonda ran a beauty salon.

Then, last year, a woman accused the couple — along with another man — of sexually assaulting her. That's when the anonymous comments started appearing on Topix.com.

An estimated 1,700 statements were too graphic to be included in this story, going far beyond the criminal charges.

...

And so this month, the Leshers sued 178 anonymous posters on the Web site. A Tarrant County judge ordered Topix to turn over potentially identifying information about the users listed in the lawsuit.. The site has until March 6 to comply with the ruling.

...

More at link.

 

[Lil_T]

That's disturbing.  But in that respect, the things I say online are what I'd say in person anyway.  There's no such thing as true anonymity.

 

[ModlrMike]

I suppose it goes back to the first rule of internet posting:

"Never say anything on the internet you wouldn't say in a crowded room."

 

[Kat Stevens]

Can't wait for the various HRCs to get sued after posting hate mail.

 

[geo]

I think this is great!
This'll give a lot of TROLLS the comeuppance they deserve...
You should/must be able to live in public with the comments you think you have said in private.... cause there is no such thing as completely private.

I love it!

 

[ballz]

I'm not so sure it is as cut and dry in Canada... unless I missed something in the very short article.

Isn't the reason Canadians have been getting away with filesharing so much compared to Americans, who have faced some serious legal action for it, because the ISPs can't be ordered to give up the information?

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'm not so sure it is as cut and dry in Canada... unless I missed something in the very short article.

Isn't the reason Canadians have been getting away with filesharing so much compared to Americans, who have faced some serious legal action for it, because the ISPs can't be ordered to give up the information?

That could be the current state of affairs, all it takes is one judge to be convinced that it could or should be changed to start opening the door to alternative measures.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

A ruling like this was bound to happen sooner or later. If you've spent anytime surfing the net you now there are a lot of people out there who post some nasty remarks in the belief they can't be held accountable. Having said that I wouldn't put to much into this; the ruling is from some county judge and is bound to be appealed to a higher court, possibly all the way to the top.

If I remember correctly, here in Canada its a CRTC ruling that , not a judicial ruling that says ISPs don't have to provide info on posters.

 

[c_canuk]

I'm not so sure it is as cut and dry in Canada... unless I missed something in the very short article.

Isn't the reason Canadians have been getting away with filesharing so much compared to Americans, who have faced some serious legal action for it, because the ISPs can't be ordered to give up the information?

from what I understand

we get a lot of leway because back in the day when recordable CDs came out, the RIAA freaked thinking that we'd be copying like mad, at the time people working on the problem had half a clue and basicly said

"look, we'll never be able to stop people copying music, and laws against are going to be very hard and expensive to enforce, so how about we pay you a levy on all recordable media and leave downloading (not filesharing) out of the laws."

the RIAA at the time saw dollar signs and agreed.

Uploading may possibly be chargable, and of course reselling bootlegs is most definitly chargable.