Legal Research

Anonymity and Torts

By John Gregory

[Slaw editor’s note: John Gregory is, among many other things, a Slaw member and also the manager of a highly successful and interesting private email list, ULC_ECOMM, on e-commerce and related matters. He is kind enough to allow Slaw to republish his provocative contributions to that list. We hope that, as they do on his list, they will stir up some discussion here on Slaw.]

Internet Law News today tells us this:

YALE STUDENTS NAME ALLEGED HARASSER IN WEB LIBEL SUIT [Boston.com]
Two female students at Yale Law School who say anonymous, defamatory comments were made about them on the Internet identified one of the defendants in their federal lawsuit. The move threatens to expose law students and renews debate about whether anonymous Internet scribes should be identified - and held legally responsible - for malicious postings.

Is there much a ‘debate’ in Canada, or should there be, over finding out who has posting such nasty stuff as was involved in the Yale case?

How does this compare with the BMG case in which the Fed Court refused to compel the release of names of alleged file sharers?

Is the difference the fuzziness of the evidence of the tort, or of the identification of the perpetrators, or of the degree of awfulness the court assigns to the tort?

How much evidence of identification should one have to have before getting an order against an ISP or web hoster for disclosure of identity?

Does it matter if there is some arguable justification for the behaviour or comments?

What else is relevant?

I do not think there is any controversy that someone who has defamed on the Net can be just as liable as the person who does this offline.

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on August 08, 2008 (boomark / email).