That's great topic discuss here related to Judge Orders Commenter Identities Revealed!
thank's for sharing.

Also, whether it's a little naive or not, most people participate in online forums on the assumption that their personal info (real name, IP address) will NOT be revealed. To suddenly expose a person's true identity -- without, say, an initial disclaimer or some warning that this might happen -- is disingenuous and unethical, and IMHO should be illegal.

People really should read the terms of use and privacy policies of the sites they post on. Every one of them has something similar to Gothamist, which says:

Though we make every effort to preserve user privacy, Gothamist LLC may need to disclose personal information when required by law wherein we have a good-faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with a current judicial proceeding, a court order or legal process served on any of the Gothamist LLC Sites.

Not that they really need to post this. A subpoena is a subpoena, no matter if it's served on a newspaper or a website. If they get one demanding information, they have to comply.

It's somewhat common for law enforcement to issue subpoenas to get the identifying information for a person suspected of breaking the law from a website. The crimes are usually along the lines of a stolen computer, child pornography or fraud. They don't track people down for defamation suits, or talking smack in comments section, as you see in this case.

This is what I think most people take issue with. Who's to decide if the slanderous remarks are "criminal libel" and therefore warrant the release of the commenters' identity? Also, whether it's a little naive or not, most people participate in online forums on the assumption that their personal info (real name, IP address) will NOT be revealed. To suddenly expose a person's true identity -- without, say, an initial disclaimer or some warning that this might happen -- is disingenuous and unethical, and IMHO should be illegal.

If a person's comments strike one as particularly slanderous then the onus should be on the forum moderator not to publish it. Which brings me to the question: will the editors of the elizabethboro.com website be held accountable for publishing the offensive comments? I think they should, not those who posetd them.

I'm glad this person is doing this because there's too many assholes saying outlandish shit that they don't even believe and would never dare say it in person. They hide behind their keyboards and lie, harass, accuse, and fabricate all kinds of stories without any ramifications.

Anything I say here I'll say anywhere and to anyone because its true to the best of my knowledge and I believe that to be true of most Gothamist commenters. We may not agree and debate all day about it but we're discussing things we believe to be true, even if your truth might not be my truth, and that's ok because honestly I learn something new everyday here.

But this isn't about Freedom of Speech, this is about people who knowingly spread lies about someone. In this day and age of google background checks, I think people have a right to find out who is behind it if they are being defamed or harassed. If someone buys up my government name's (I bought my own name already and suggest you do the same) URL and puts up a website with my information and outrageous accusations and lies I'd want to know who it is too and the same thing goes for commenters because one bored person can go around slandering your reputation all over the web and make it look like your the worst person around.

We have one particular commenter on here named "cleanupnynow" and if you google him you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm sure he's being paid to disgrace Paterson. It seems that all this person does is google Paterson all day and wherever his name pops up he cuts and pastes the same nonsense. I'm not saying he's defaming Paterson because I don't think he is, but it's an example of how one person can wage a successful internet campaign against someone and destroy their reputation while just sitting behind their computer all day in obscurity.

Most trolls use dummy email addresses anyway if they're smart.

Comments on websites don't fall under the first ammendment, they are at the discretion of the owner of the site.

"Speech is free, but comments are moderated" is the easiest way to look at it.

Comments are more akin to the editorial page of a newspaper, than a person preaching what they want on a street corner. They fall under the policy of the site that is hosting the discussion, and since websites are privately owned, the owner makes the judgment call. It is also dependent on the country where the sites server is.

The slightly scary part is that the people who run a website already know who you are (or at least your IP address), so all that is keeping your identity anonymous is the actions of the person who owns the site. If they feel like revealing who you are, they can. What's at questions is whether they can be forced to reveal this information through a subpoena. Precedent so far says they can.

It's somewhat common for law enforcement to issue subpoenas to get the identifying information for a person suspected of breaking the law from a website. The crimes are usually along the lines of a stolen computer, child pornography or fraud. They don't track people down for defamation suits, or talking smack in comments section, as you see in this case.

I wonder when I read news reports like this one if the people who pursue these cases through the legal system are doing so for the good of the society as they see it, or if they have a genuine interest in stopping these specific individuals from posting comments on public websites.

When they figure out who these commenters are, what then? Do they get some sort of restraining order?

Well in the case of this dude, he apparently intends to sue them for defamation. I think the sum of $25,000 was mentioned.

So which Gothamist troll's identity would you want to be revealed? I'd go with Ides of March, just to see if my suspicions are correct.

Felix for the win, dummy

I don't think he's a troll. I think he really means that stuff he spouts.

his name is robert paulson.

This is nothing a few proxy tricks can't cure.

Or do everything wirelessly at a Starbucks or McDonald's free hotspot. Nothing a little wardriving couldn't fix.

whoa whoa how is this not going to violate 1st Amendment rights???

Defamatory comments aren't protected just because they're made on the Internet. Libel is libel whether you publish it in the newspaper or on a blog.

so LEGALLY what would happen to me if I were to call my local town supervisor or whatever a corrupt asshole? Will I get arrested for speaking my mind, even if it is to defame someone? Why should there be any legal consequence for speaking one's mind. If anything security would just remove me from said asshole's presence.

In this country, if it's true then it isn't libel. But people have a right to defend themselves against untrue and defamatory statements that threaten to damage their reputations.

i guess this is about the unspoken social hierarchy. i'm not too sure about the issue myself -- if i were to get extremely harassed, i will find them and murder them... i mean, uhm... *shrug* and *smile* :D haha.

so about the unspoken social hierarchy, which many people deny it exists, most people would agree that if a celebrity gets called names by an average person, the situation is much more digestible than the other way around. this is because the issue ultimately deals with one's self-esteem. but these are things one cannot see, and the only reliable factor lies in people's feelings. in an ideal scenario where everyone understands the unspoken social hierarchy, these feelings would be more tangible and (hopefully) mutually respected. and i believe that many asian countries have developed their sense of respect through their understandings of human social hierarchies.

but there's more to the issue. by talking about politicians, etc, one is not in direct conversation with the opposition. this is different from talking directly to a commenter, i.e. i'm writing to you. if i were to call you names in my response, you may suffer some bad feelings (i do not know you personally so i don't really know how you'd take it), and for a few the damage is even more than physically getting slapped.

the whole issue revolves around dealing with feelings and this is not an easy thing to decide -- feelings may be real, but there's no way to measure feelings (yet).

i say, trial and error, trial and error. one day we'll all get there. like it or not. our ancestors have done it and we're still here.

blah blah blah.

I love your response. Thank you. No sarcasm. I think that's where I was trying to get at but instead spewed what I spewed.