32
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday April 18, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 03:56, 12 October 2008
, 03:56, 12 October 2008no edit summary
</pre>
</pre>
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
==Answer for Jon==
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote>
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
== Not everyone is going to agree ==
== Not everyone is going to agree ==
