Americans, enjoy your internet freedom. It may not last

[Vesayen]

I was just thinking about this.

This is all speculative, I am NOT saying this will or could happen.

If I want to, I can call anyone on this forum a [male rooster] sucking, [female sensitive body part cleaning] [donkey] hole and tell them to go die in a fire.

I would of course be banned but it ends there because of the anonymity of the internet, that is it.

If I walked up to a stranger in the street and said that, I could be guilty of a whole host of crimes, or civilly(lawsuits for money) liable.

Right now the only rule of discussion on the internet (for the most part) is:

As long as you don’t identify yourself and fear real life shame from what you said, say whatever the hell you want, the only penalty you can suffer is expulsion from that online community, be it a game, a forum, irc channel, email etc

What happens when tomorrow someone calls someone else a [male rooster] sucker and gets a court to subpoena a ISP and a website to find out who said that to them?

You don’t think it’ll happen in our lifetime? I don’t see why it could not, do you?

After it happens once, it will happen again and again by people hungry for money.

ISPs could then begin to fear lawsuits from people who were slandered/libeled/[other legal things which are basically saying something mean to someone else] by sites they host, the “victims” going after the ISPs, how far from that, to ISPs forcing all sites they host to police themselves to an absurd level we all hate?

Heck, what about sexual harassment charges from telling someone to go [fornicate] themselves? What happens when some 11 year old in counter strike tells you something vulgar on a forum and you respond in kind-are you now a child predator?

Non Americans I doubt would have this issue, I can’t imagine any court in Russia or any Asian country would allow the “first” lawsuit, I can’t comment on any European courts.

Thoughts?

[Zkribbler]

I doubt if you'd get into trouble anywhere if you responded to some kid who told you to go f-yourself by saying the same back to him. However, if you said something like you'd like to f-him, then you have problems.

I think, right now, it wouldn't be hard to use ISP's to find someone who'd committed a slander or extortion attempt. Although the users have privacy rights, a court would normally find that they were outweighed by the victim's right to find out who was targetting him, and so a court would order the information be revealed.

[Vesayen]

I am sure we all are in, or on occasion see, online communities[games, irc, forums etc] where people have said they want to F someone else there, or seriously graphic threats.

[GePap]

Since when is going on the internet license to act like a complete ******* without consequence?

There is a difference between liberty and license. It would be wrong for individuals to be afraid to express social or political ideas for fear of retribution, but if you do sexually harass someone, or start making threats, or start to spread libelous statements, or write in some way that in any other context could seriously place you in the way of criminal or civil charges, I am sorry but there should not be guaranteed anonimity.

The internet should not be some consequence free zone.

[Wezil]

I don't see the isp's as liable for anything unless perhaps they do nothing to curtail/punish abusive posters. The issue seems to be between the poster and the person slandered.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by GePap
Since when is going on the internet license to act like a complete ******* without consequence?

There is a difference between liberty and license. It would be wrong for individuals to be afraid to express social or political ideas for fear of retribution, but if you do sexually harass someone, or start making threats, or start to spread libelous statements, or write in some way that in any other context could seriously place you in the way of criminal or civil charges, I am sorry but there should not be guaranteed anonimity.

The internet should not be some consequence free zone.

It has been a liscence to act like a complete ******* since it became a part of our culture.

Originally posted by Wezil
I don't see the isp's as liable for anything unless perhaps they do nothing to curtail/punish abusive posters. The issue seems to be between the poster and the person slandered.

If gun manufacturers are held responsible for guns which are legally purchased and registered, then used in crimes, you don't think ISPs could be?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Vesayen

If gun manufacturers are held responsible for guns which are legally purchased and registered, then used in crimes, you don't think ISPs could be?

Nope. Jusy as car companies should not be held responsible for drunk drivers. Misuse of their product by consumers is not their fault.

Unless it could be shown that an ISP knowingly allowed someone to use their platform to slander/libel people then they are not to blame.

[Vesayen]

Just because car/gun manufacturers SHOULD NOT be held liable, does not mean they are not. They have been in some cases in the past.

One big case which comes to mind was a huge case against the manufacturer of the saturday night special(a sort of gun).

Being morally/justly responsible and being legally oblidged are 2 very different things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen


It has been a liscence to act like a complete ******* since it became a part of our culture.

No it hasn't. As Z said, if someone is writing in ways illegal someone else would most likely be able to get a court to force an ISP service to reveal their identity.

Maybe immature people have, while using the internet, thought that their actions are always going to be consequence free, but there are no laws or contracts protecting your identity from lawful intrusion (like someone breagin a court order).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Just because car/gun manufacturers SHOULD NOT be held liable, does not mean they are not. They have been in some cases in the past.

One big case which comes to mind was a huge case against the manufacturer of the saturday night special(a sort of gun).

Being morally/justly responsible and being legally oblidged are 2 very different things.

Maybe you missed the boat somewhere, but guns, as a product, were designed to propel pieces of metal at high velocity with the intent of causing injury.

Ergo, when you shoot someone, you used the product (the gun) in the manner in which it was design, and for its purpose. That makes the legal liability of the designer different from someone who makes a vehicle for transport.

[Vesayen]

People write illegal messages all the time. Threatening an act of terrorism may get you into trouble right now. Saying you want to drive to someones house and cut their balls off, will not.

[Cort Haus]

In the UK the directors of a football club has won right to disclosure and suing of individuals who were slagging off those directors. Rather worrying, really.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen
People write illegal messages all the time. Threatening an act of terrorism may get you into trouble right now. Saying you want to drive to someones house and cut their balls off, will not.

If someone feels trully threatened by your statement they can still file a complaint with the police, and if the district attorney was serious about persuing the crime they could very easily subpoena the ISP server for the identity, so there has NEVER been internet anonimity from criminal prosecution if the authorities decide to persue a complaint.

As for the legal liability of an ISP server, anyone who has a business is in some way responsible for what happens in it. Any business has to take some basic and common sense actions to prevent criminal action taking place on their space.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
In the UK the directors of a football club has won right to disclosure and suing of individuals who were slagging off those directors. Rather worrying, really.

Well, British libel laws are worrying anyways.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
In the UK the directors of a football club has won right to disclosure and suing of individuals who were slagging off those directors. Rather worrying, really.

That is what I have been saying. The directors aren't looking to the isp for damages but rather to the individuals they claim are slagging them.

When a drunk driver runs over someone we go after the driver not the manufaturer of the car.

To do otherwise makes an ass of the law. Would you hold baseball bat manufacturers liable for beatings administered by bat? Who do we go after if they use a stick instead?