Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Legal Briefs

View
5 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

5. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 10, 2014, 06:31 Agrajag
 
Scheherazade wrote on Jan 9, 2014, 22:46:
(AFAIK this right is the same that protects the anonymity of news informants)

I don't think anything protects the anonymity of news informants other than reporters willing to go to jail rather than divulge their identity... And, that has happened many times, because judges often order them to be revealed... But, reporters know that if they do once, no one will ever leak to them again in the future...
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 10, 2014, 01:17 Cutter
 
I disagree. What if it's a competitor trying to drive him out of business? Or just a troll? Or someone who complains about everything? One of the cornerstones of our legal system - and has been since Magna Carta - that you have the absolute right to confront your accuser. Specifically for this very reason - they had griefers in ever age it seems. If they're legitimate complaints why do they need to hide. Perhaps the owner has a shitty manager and crew working for him. He can't rectify unless he can deal with those customers - if they're legitimate.

No where did the judge say they - if they're legit - aren't entitled to their opinion or have no right to criticize. Merely that the owner of said business has the right to confront them. And that's how it's been and should be.
 
Avatar 25394
 

"Nobody wants to be nobody in America. Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that someone became famous because they were special. Now people are considered special just for being famous. Fame, itself, is its own virtue.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 9, 2014, 22:46 Scheherazade
 
The issue is that:

If these were real customers, then they have a basis for their review, and they have a right to stay anonymous.

If they were not real customers, then they have no basis for their review, and they get no legal protection for their anonymity.

So you end up with a chicken vs egg situation.

In order to determine if these people have a basis for their review, you have to unmask them.

Once unmasked, you get to find out who they are, and subsequently you find out if they have a right to stay masked.

But at that point, for those that had basis, it's already too late.
Their right to remain anonymous was already violated.

(AFAIK this right is the same that protects the anonymity of news informants)

The court has decided that since it can't prove that the reviewers were real customers (and can't prove that they weren't either), it will just assume that they weren't and will relieve them of their rights.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, which is why this decision is so out of place.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 9, 2014, 22:41 nin
 

Starts down quite the slippery slope...

 
http://store.nin.com/index.php?cPath=10
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 9, 2014, 18:45 Agent.X7
 
I happen to agree with the court. LIBEL, people. Anonymous assholes destroying your business reputation with negative reviews that have no basis? You can be sued for that, and so you must be identified. Big Shocker. Too many people use anonymity to act like giant assholes on the Internet and think that there will never be consequences.  
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo