Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳
    • File : 1274377837.jpg-(6 KB, 130x91, logo_usatech130.jpg)
    6 KB U.S. judge sides with anonymous online flamers Ned the Newshound !XBW.lrXjxw 05/20/10(Thu)13:50 No.1012236  
    In a victory for anonymous critics of corporations, a federal judge in San Francisco has rejected a company's attempt to force Yahoo to identify the online commenter who called the firm's chief executive a "known liar" who believes "humanity exists to be fleeced."

    "The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak anonymously," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in ruling against USA Technologies. She said a target of anonymous online attacks must have evidence that the postings violated its rights and caused serious harm before enforcing a subpoena to disclose the speaker's identity.

    USA Technologies filed a suit in its home state of Pennsylvania in August 2009 against the poster known as Stokklerk and sent a subpoena to Sunnyvale's Yahoo, which hosts a message board about the company, demanding the person's Web address. The suit claimed defamation and securities fraud, alleging that Stokklerk had financial interests in denigrating the company.

    Stokklerk went to federal court in San Francisco, Yahoo's home district, to quash the subpoena. Illston sided with the online critic, saying USA Technologies had offered no evidence of Stokklerk's financial involvement and could not prove defamation based on mere insults.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/19/BA081DHDL2.DTL&tsp=1
    -------------------------------------------
    This ruling practically insures that anonymous free speech, and websites dedicated to this end are protected by the US Constitution.
    >> Ned the Newshound !XBW.lrXjxw 05/20/10(Thu)13:52 No.1012247
    I also crossposted this on /g/ as well.

    >>>/g/10595874
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)13:54 No.1012266
    Fuck yeah

    Now /stormfront/ can stay online
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)13:55 No.1012280
         File1274378159.jpg-(55 KB, 351x450, 1274298288234.jpg)
    55 KB
    libural activists judges HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)13:56 No.1012287
    Not until is reaches the Supreme Court.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)13:56 No.1012288
    Those yahoo stock boards are filled with these posters. My company just did layoffs and now the board if flooded with people saying similar things.

    I really think the company is in the right, in this case.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)13:58 No.1012305
    Another victory for freedom.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)13:59 No.1012312
    >>1012305
    Freedom to harm a company financially is not freedom.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:01 No.1012326
    >>1012312
    omg NOOOOO

    the little corporation was harmed!!!!


    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:02 No.1012334
    >a federal judge in San Francisco

    Well shit me up and call me surprised. Those commie assholes usually undermine the Constitution for the "greater good." Half the supreme court cases come because of bullshit San Fran rulings that were appealed to the top.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:03 No.1012343
    >>1012312
    >Implying any real investor takes anonymous online commentary seriously
    >Implying 4chan has crashed the stock market over and over again
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:03 No.1012345
    >>1012326
    That's right all companies are evil, I forgot.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:03 No.1012346
    >>1012312

    you can't be real.
    >> Mature Related !K/L9IJgMJY 05/20/10(Thu)14:05 No.1012363
    brb anonymous defamation
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:06 No.1012374
         File1274378785.jpg-(18 KB, 300x265, 1271426129904.jpg)
    18 KB
    >anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:07 No.1012380
    >>1012312
    Oh no not a Yahoo message board! Surely that will get out to millions of people.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:08 No.1012393
    >>1012380
    Even if one person sold their stock on those accusations, that is enough to show harm. This will get overturned.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:10 No.1012414
    Only authoritarians or totalitarians dislike freedom of speech.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:10 No.1012415
    If they're asking to identify the guy then wouldn't that mean they're basically admitting to saying that and they want to silence him? For what reason would they want to know who he is?
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:11 No.1012422
    >>1012393
    no it won't. Learn what chilling effects are and why we would never allow corporations to be above reproach.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:13 No.1012432
    >>1012393
    Clearly you dont understand the legal definition of defamation.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:14 No.1012441
    >>1012415
    Quite the opposite if it were true they would probably just ignore it.

    Put this way. If someone put an ad in the paper accusing your of raping them, and it wasn't true. Wouldn't you fight to clear your name?
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:16 No.1012451
    >>1012432
    Calling someone a "known liar" is defamation.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:16 No.1012455
    >>1012393

    You're right. Shareholders should be kept in the complete dark, preferably like sheep. Ya know, so you can fleece them.

    I hope you get raped.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:17 No.1012458
    >>1012451
    They offered no evidence it caused them any harm, which, you know, is rather stupid of them. Proof of Harm is one of the required components of any defamation suit.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:19 No.1012476
    >>1012458
    USA Technologies also said it was libeled by Stokklerk's description of the company as a "soft Ponzi" and assertion that two top executives had "skimmed" more than $30 million from "the hugely unprofitable venture.


    That's pretty harmful if untrue.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:20 No.1012484
    >>1012476
    That's not evidence of harm, just evidence of what was said. There's a reason you aren't constantly seeing defamation suits in the US.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:21 No.1012491
    http://mysweetrevenge.info/index.php?c=viral&m=index&id=ee98e75ee05db5e4cb7925e04286a770
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:21 No.1012493
    >>1012476
    He's not talking about having their feelings hurt. He is talking about actual monetary loss that they need to prove. You can't just go "baww i sad now" and no proof for a civil case.
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:22 No.1012498
    in b4 trollface
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:29 No.1012538
    sources say that everyone at USA Technologies is a pedophile
    >> Anonymous 05/20/10(Thu)14:34 No.1012564
    >>1012538
    Sounds legit.

    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]chad warde...!kGWlEeUsjs
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymoushttp://www.sbsu...
    [V][X]AnonymousNorthern Irelan...
    [V][X]Anonymous4.5 billion peo...
    [V][X]©!aRAozRzGrI
    [V][X]AnonymousThai army masse...
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Ned the Ne...!XBW.lrXjxwFrance to fine ...
    [V][X]Amuro Rey!p4KYFcO.So
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Steve's JobApple Stores Do...
    [V][X]✞✟♱♰†☩x✠☨‡...news not involv...
    [V][X]Anonymous