Anonymous online commenter sued for libel (updated)

Re: Anonymous online commenter sued for libel

This the obvious argument to make on a forum like this, but I think it's a false equivalency. There's a place for anonymous discussion on the Internet, nobody really disputes that, and the communities where more interesting discussion goes on tend to be subject to energetic moderation (which newspapers actively avoid for legal reasons). A newspaper's mission is fundamentally different than a free message board with no ambitions others than as a place to kill a few minutes every day, and I think it's fair to say what's appropriate for one isn't appropriate on another. Just like it'd be inappropriate for me to walk into work wearing sweatpants and no shoes. There's nothing wrong with one area of expression offering something different than another area of expression, even if they're both online.

 

Re: Anonymous online commenter sued for libel

The nutjobs are the main reason we stopped allowing online comments on most things. The only place where comments are allowed now are on editorials. Of course, you can still comment on our Facebook page, but the comments to be found there are different in tone. Not as many nutjobs.

 

Getting back to the lawsuit: The plaintiff has subpoenaed the newspaper seeking the name of the anonymous commenter, and the newspaper's lawyers are fighting it:

http://hosted2.ap.org/ALDEC/TDNational/Article_2012-04-30-GOP%20Official-Blogger%20Lawsuit/id-a03dec964a0440fabcee1d4b4af68ad6

 

The name of the commenter? Yeah, good luck finding "Amanda Huggenkist."

 

A conversation?
Not the comments I've read. They are racist, sexist and very very inflammatory toward the writer. Why would any business condone such trash? Why not just run pictures of naked women if all you are after are hits?? These comments are just as insulting as naked pictures.