Facebook App
I've always said one thing I hate about blogs and message boards are the gutless adults who hide behind their computer. If you have a comment, stand up and stand behind it.
But blogs and message boards have allowed the goons of the world to be heard.
It's going to be very interesting once this case is final to see how the world changes. It took another big, positive step in the right direction today.
Date set to reveal poster's ID in Web comment case
November 18, 2009
BY STEFANO ESPOSITO Staff Reporter
A Cook County judge today set a Dec. 18 date for Buffalo Grove Trustee Lisa Stone to learn the name and address of the person who allegedly made nasty -- and anonymous -- comments about Stone's teenage son on the Daily Herald's Web site.
But an attorney for the online poster, listed as "John Doe" in legal proceedings, vowed to appeal Judge Jeffery Lawrence's ruling.
Experts and attorneys are keeping a close eye on this modern-day First Amendment case in which Stone filed legal papers asking the Herald's publishers for the identity of the commenter known as "Hipcheck16." The online poster made a series of unflattering comments on the Herald's Web site earlier this year as Stone was running for trustee and just before she took office.
In his six-page ruling issued last week, Lawrence said the poster's name and address can be turned over to Stone, but she is not permitted to distribute the information publicly. Lawrence had asked Stone's attorney, Stephen Tyma, to write an order specifying how to carry out his ruling, which was presented today in court.
John Doe has argued, through his attorney, that his identity is protected by free speech.
Stone's husband -- but not the trustee herself -- appeared in court today. After the hearing, Stone said he sees the ruling as a partial victory, because the Stones had hoped Lawrence would allow them to disclose John Doe's name to the public.
"I don't think he deserves any protection," Gary Stone said. "Certainly the comments are public, and (the name of) the commentator should be public."
- Joe Trost
Cell Phone Alerts
When I read the article this morning somehow I knew you would write something again.
But I will say exactly the same thing that I said last time ( that you were obviously too afraid to allow appear )
You are attempting to compare two completely different things. If you were to actually READ the article you will discover that the court case involves the publishing of derragatory and defamatory comments about the son of a women who was involved in a political campaign and which were very likely made to damage the political campaign of this person.
To my understanding, to courts have always been very clear on matter of deffamation of PRIVATE individuals. Personally I do not believe that deffamatory statements made about private individuals carrys the protection of the First Amendment.
However commenting ( anonomusly ) about the statements made and published by PUBLIC figures such as yourself is entirely different matter and the courts have always held these comments protected by the First Amendment.
So do you understand the difference yet or are you just going to delete this post too?
First of all, visit the clue station. It's been waiting for you. Secondly, if something was deleted, repost it. It's pretty simple. Thirdly, as I've said, reading and understanding is a skill.