Court rules web trolls can stay anonymous

  1. … net-trolls

    An appeals court in California has ruled that the individual behind anonymous posts on a Yahoo message board cannot be identified.

    The case was bought by Lisa Krinsky, a former chief executive at drug testing firm SFBC International, over derogatory comments made on a Yahoo Finance message board.

    Krinsky sued the defendant, known only as 'Doe 6' as his onscreen name contains an expletive, along with nine other posters for comments made about the company.

    Although Krinsky initially won the right to have the posters identified, the new ruling stated that their right to anonymity must prevail under free speech laws.

    The court acknowledged that the comments were "unquestionably offensive and demeaning", but that they came under free speech laws since they could not be considered a assertions of facts.
  2. I wonder if this will set a precedent for all media? I can see both sides of the argument, but I think it will create some real ramifications with people being able to libel / slander others and get away with it.
  3. I think the courts made the correct ruling. People take the internet WAY too seriously.
  4. idk... what's the difference btwn these type of trolls? is it bc they're being nasty to a corporation and not an individual? where the the libel & slander laws come in?

    ..and i'm really asking, it's not a rhetorical question for effect... i'm honestly ignorant & would like to be filled in...