« The graphics RCJP wanted you to see | Home | Market Dynamics and Police Resources: A Lesson for Monrovia »
On Anonymous Comments, IP Addresses & More
By Centinel | May 8, 2008
So, in light of Robert Parry’s convincing argument that someone in Tom Adams office is besmirching the name of the Monrovia police, I think now would be a good time to give all our readers a primer on what all this IP address hooey means and whether or not it should bother you in the slightest.
First of all, as most reasonably savvy web browsers know, when you visit a website, it reveals your IP address. Now, that doesn’t mean that there is some master controller where I can see at any point all the IP addresses of everyone on the computer. Rather, it just goes into the Google Analytics and if I’m bored out of my skull, I can scroll through them.
However, when you leave a comment, the site does take note of your IP address, so you are leaving a mark, regardless of what name you use. Normally, that doesn’t actually mean anything: if you do a WHOIS query on 90% of IP addresses, it will kick back the name of your service provider. So, if you use Verizon at home or ATT DSL, a WHOIS search of that IP address will only reveal the corporate address of the company that handles your internet. So, guess what: I still don’t have any idea who you are (nor, I should add, do I usually care). Also, a sidenote: this is true of just about every site on the internet where you leave comments. So, there is absolutely nothing exceptional about our site’s abilities in this regard. Just remember that when you are commenting on other blogs.
That service does allow me to see if there is one lunatic running around and using fake names (but posting from the same IP address) to pretend like there is more of a conversation going on. This happens occasionally on Sierra Madre threads, but usually the other commenters see through it, so I have never felt a need to bring it up. But just to be clear: yes, if you are pretending to be a bunch of different people by changing your name, it is painfully obvious from my perspective, so you aren’t going to convince me that there is a groundswell of support for your position.
Occasionally, however, folks leave comments while they are on an internet setup that provides more information than just the IP. For instance, a WHOIS search of an IP from a corporate network may reveal the name of the firm that they work for, rather than just the internet provider. That was was Robert Parry noticed in relation to the Hay/Bad Boy comments.
Now, as far as talking about IP addresses goes, I think in almost all cases we should just keep that to ourselves, and that’s what we’ve done so far. In Parry’s case, he had amassed convincing evidence, however, that someone at least close to Adams (if not the man himself) was denigrating the police at a time when highly contentious negotiations were underway. Some readers may remember the uproar when the founder of Whole Foods was caught using fake names to try and pump up his company stock and talk down the competition.
This digital-age deception has a name, “sock-puppeting,” and a precise definition — the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.
Many readers will recognize the practice and certainly it’s one of the biggest limitations of our current commenting situation, in that it allows for such abuses. Hopefully, though, this abuse will allow people to recognize that it won’t work.
To reiterate:
- 90% of the time the most we could possibly tell is whether you are pretending to be the same person.
- 10% of the time, we can tell where you are posting from, but not necessarily who you are.
- Through the site itself, we don’t have access to any special knowledge that anyone else who runs a website with Google Analytics wouldn’t have. Wordpress identifies IP adresses in an easy way, but millions of people use Wordpress and other major blogging engines do the same.
That’s why Robert Parry has identified that Councilman Adams needs to explain this troubling evidence that someone in his office is behind these comments. For the record, the possibility of someone “hacking” onto his network (or them having an unprotected network that someone snuck onto repeatedly) to cast the doubt on his company is ludicrous in the extreme.
Hope that clarifies the issue.
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Band Needs A Hand! - May 11th, 2008
- Lonesome Blogger - May 10th, 2008
- The Art City: Monrovia (well one step closer to the dream) - May 10th, 2008
- Anthony Adams Is a Funny Guy - May 9th, 2008
- Vandals in Azusa/Glendora Call Attention to Cop's AWESOME Name - May 9th, 2008
Topics: Main Page, Monrovia, Sierra Madre |
May 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I have posted under different names for two different reasons. One reason is to avoid detection because in some cities, the powers-that-be really go after you for expressing yourself. The other reason is that sometimes a different name plays off of someone else’s, and becomes part of the poetics of blogging, which is, saying the most in a short amount of space.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I have a bit of a problem with the whole thing that happened. He obviously used his posting privileges on this blog to determine and track the IP’s of the commenter’s. As you indicated you can see the domain names in about 10% of the cases. So regardless of what was said, even if it was illegal, you can identify a place. I refrain from commenting on certain articles from my office as I know that my domain can be traced, and don’t want certain people (ie Sir Eric) to know these things.
So is it right to start this type of witch hunt regardless of how awful, slanderous and illegal these comments were based on the knowledge from this blog? Just food for thought.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
here’s a thought…
if you’re going to go on a message board and express your opinions, you should also have the guts to let your name be known. I’ve read this board from time to time, just to see what you all are saying. you guys should grow a pair and stand by what your saying instead of hiding behind your computers.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Excellent question, 91024, and it’s part of the reason I’ve been loath to publish any of that information. In the wake of this incident, I think we’re going to have to come up with a privacy policy, so readers/commenters have a reasonable expectation that they don’t have to worry about this (provided they don’t write libelous information).
It’s a fine line, and for a lot of reasons, I’d rather err on the side of not disclosing this kind of information ever, particularly after this experience.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I really don’t care about verbal threats or disparaging comments. People say a lot of things.Think of Hunter S. Thompson.I only care if it is followed by and connected to an actual destructive action and/or causes some other economic or legally estimated damage.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
This blog has downgraded into a vitriolic echo chamber of anger and misplaced frustration. This whole thing is the final straw. Have fun. I’m outta here. Lookup my IP address (since some people clearly have nothing better to do), I have nothing to do with Adams.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It seems to me, the corollary to the criticism I’ve received is this: We don’t care if a politian lies about his beliefs, so long as we can say whatever we want without a hint that we might be held accountable for it.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
People… if you dont have the cajones to speak your mind without the fear that someone can trace you down, then go somewhere else. Its silly to see some of you being such babies about this whole thing. GROW SOME is all I have to say.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
John Herkins: Amen. This has got to be one of the most incredibly hypocritical exercises I have seen in quite some time. On the one hand people are crowing about exposing the inane statements of some local pol, while on the other quivering with fear because their precious statements here might be traced to them.
Blog model:
http://www.mystiques.com/spitems/barbie_ken_doll.jpg
May 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Parry, Politicians lie all the time. Disclosing this type of information (IP tracking) usually only happens when there is some type of legal action associated with it. So being privy to it doesn’t necessarily make it ok to use.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Very true, 91024.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I’m sorry, I refuse to accept dishonesty as an acceptable element of political discourse.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
This issue has many sides.
First I can’t imagine anyone thinking they were anonymous as it has been well known for years what “cookies” are and that web sites remember you by your IP address. If this is news to someone might I suggest you do a little reading and catch up with the rest of us.
I use a site meter on my art blog, why? So I know what parts of the world are looking at me and what posts generate views. For me its a marketing thing. It is IP based, no biggy as I’m not worried about who rather interested in why they found me and what they looked at. Areas of interest help me prep for shows.
Here is a situation that took place a few months ago. Someone was using my name, posting some pretty slanderous bits and it wasn’t me. I wrote the authors of the various blogs and pointed out it wasn’t me and could give them times I was out of town. They didn’t need that as they could see the IP address used was not me. Easy delete for them and protected me from being associated with slanderous behaviors.
In this case the entity speaking were making slanderous and defamatory statements about the author, RCJP, police in general and an injured officer. All of which warranted reviewing the IP. Imagine the surprize when we learned the various names used came from one IP address. The IP could have just been blocked but that didn’t address the issue of the slanderous, defamatory and acrid statements.
Given we knew it was from one IP it made sense to track down who was doing it.
As far as comments and personal attacks go I figure have at it. A blogger is no different than any other person in the media, what you have to say is open for disagreement and comment. You just develop a thick skin and move one, lord knows I’ve had a few troll attacks. Did I look up their IP…nope. It would have served no purpose.
Do I think IP addresses need to be viewed regularily? No. Do I think anyone even bothers to review regularily? No. Do I think IP addresses need to be kept confidential? Nope as that is just like your street address its out there for public consumption.
91204 I have now given you many reasons why an IP addy is tracked outside of legal action. There are many reasons, most are completely innocent. I was surprised to see you say politicians “lie all the time”. In my experience that isn’t the case, there is the odd bad one who will but I don’t think that reflects well on the majority.
In the end anyone in a govt office or employed by the govt needs to be completely transparent in their actions and that includes on the web. If what is said in public differs than what is said
“anonymously” on the web and are caught it needs to be surfaced, shared and people given the chance to comment on it.
In short I see nothing lost or gained with telling people we know the IP. For as long as the web has been around I’ve known your IP is tracked and that same information is how your requests for webs gets back to you. Disclosing now seems silly unless there is a point to be made.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
With technology the way it is, anyone will probably be able to track things down in the not so distant future. For the most part, I agree with Mr. Herkins statement.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Why doesn’t the Foothill Blog require a sign in nick and have to register to post on the board?
Only valid email addresses accepted. No Yahoo or Hotmail, etc.
This is what big blog boards require.
That way, posters who flame others, can get days or for more serious offenses…booted off the board.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
The owner of this site maintains anonymity, and the expectation is offered that the anonymity of visitors will be maintained. Centinel should add a disclaimer that IPA addresses of those posting comments are available to authors who upload articles, else he might lose credibility.
If I felt that Centinal had betrayed my trust, that would be a rather large issue. It’s one thing for Centinal to know my IPA, another that you or anyone else know it.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Some of the people on this thread complaining about multiple personality posting, or the use of grotesque disparagement in the attempt to trump someone else’s point, are lacking in, well, irony at least.
And Centinel? Sharing and using IP addresses to call out an unpleasant protagonist? In another context I believe that was said by you to be a very bad thing. So how did this sharing of such privileged information come about?
If you step back and look at this episode in a big picture context, there are many more losers here than might first be appreciated.
I, of course, cannot claim to be surprised.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I don’t care that you have my IP because I am not worried about ruining anyone’s livelihood by posting crazy things from their place of business.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Badda bing, I do think it’s generally not a good thing. This is, to my knowledge, the first time we’ve let it happen, and we made a judgment call that given the circumstances, it was merited.
Maybe that was the wrong call, I’m not sure.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“…regardless of how awful, slanderous and illegal…” 91024, you sound as if you want a free ticket to slime. There are boundaries. Whoever blogged about the injured Monrovia police officer was wrong. People who damage people with lies do harm. “Cyber harrassment with deliberate intent to inflict emotional distress” is an actual legal phrase. There is also cyber stalking. Both are prosecutable, as is defamation. Remember the young lady who killed herself because of messages from a teenage boy who was really a neighbor’s mom?
Your defense of criminal behavior and assumption that all politicians lie is telling of your values.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Oh Winston, put a sock puppet on it. Defamation has got to have proven damages, and damages is money (both real and potential). As harsh as it sounds.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hurt feelings over lies is a no win case. There has to be $.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
You made the right call, Centinel. Leave it to the other local media outlets to cover up or ignore a politician’s misbehavior, or connection to it. My gut feeling is that you are being criticized by people who do enjoy going over the line, and they don’t want to be caught at it.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I think you’ve got something there, Winston.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Miss H., do you think if the officer is portrayed in print as a lazy doughnut stuffer that it could affect his career? Do you think if he applied for a job in another city, and they google him and that portrayal comes up, that could affect his career?
Do you think there is absolutely no cause with which to charge that mother (who disguised herself as a teenage boy,) although money was not involved?
Perhaps this site should have a sign-on similar to Huffington Post.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I think something good will come from this experience. I believe that the health and survival of the Blog should be the biggest consideration when forming any policies.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Miss H., pardon my outrage, I am very protective of the average citizen who gets the shaft.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Ghstrydr164 Huff Post is extremely successful. Full of ads, too.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
That is quite alright, Winston. I understand.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
My thoughts, in no particular order…
1. It seems to me that there is more weight being given to an IP address than it really deserves. Fact is, none of the evidence I’ve seen posted here is enough to conclusively prove that Hay, Bad Boy or Adams are NOT 3 different people. Any statements made or inferred about their identities are assumptions.
2. What bothers me most about this whole thing is the issue of anonymity. Particularly that Centinel and Publius make an effort to maintain their’s and they allow the same of their contributors, but they then turn the tables on their commentors. Doesn’t seem right.
3. Don’t like the comment? Then just remove it.
4. Given the amount of bullplop commenting we see here from what (appears to be) a couple of sockpuppets, I’d suggest that IP addresses get posted along with ALL comments, anonymous or not.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I think that CentiPub are being stretched here a bit between what they believe are ethical considerations and their desire to be the blog that depantses the big boys. They long for validity, which is charming in a way. Charming in that they actually believe that there is someone or something that can give it.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I have been slandered on this blog, on my blog and God knows where else. I prefer not to show my identity because I do not want my name drug through the mud. I try to post facts, and opinion, and not propagate poodle journalism. I do not advocate snarky slanderous comments, and I don’t advocate that they happen, but they happen and do not get deleted. The owners of this blog can delete any comments they wish to, and have in the past. If the comments were out of hand, why were they not deleted?
I think that allowing the contributors to see the IP’s of the commenter’s of their posts is not such a good idea. If I wanted to then I could tell you who has been commenting on my posts too. I could start to uncover things, but that’s not why I write here or on my blog. I do so for information, not for retaliation
May 8th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
As far as what you can and cannot determine with an IP address, interested folks might wish to read some of the following:
http://ask-leo.com/what_can_people_tell_from_my_ip_address.html
or, even more specifically:
http://ask-leo.com/how_do_i_find_out_whos_at_a_particular_ip_address.html
May 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
My Dear Miss Havisham,
Please pardon my slight correction with regards to your statement concerning lack of damages; I beg to differ. General damages are presumed by law and need not be proved by the plaintiff. They are intended to compensate the plaintiff for the general injury to his or her reputation caused by the defamation. Here,
it would appear that whoever made the libelous remarks regarding the MPD in general, or the injured officer specifically, can be sued in a court of law.
On another point, let’s assume that one of these injured parties does file an action against Mr. Adams for libel. (Of course, this theory is predicated on the assumption that Mr. Parry’s information is correct and provable.) It will then be up to Mr. Adams to prove that the injurious remarks did not emanate from a machine under his control.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I am dumbfounded. A person elected by the citizens to do what is right for the whole makes vicious comments about our police officers and you guys are whining about Parry tracking IP addresses.
Perhaps next time they uncover the next “Columbine to be” on the internet. They should not do anything to stop it because that would mean they have tracked the IPs to find the culprits.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
@BaddaBingCrosby: Hahahaha. Maybe that’s true. Blogging can you leave you desperate for validation.
@91024: I didn’t immediately remove the offending comments because while outrageous, they weren’t directly libelous, nor were they obscene or profane.
Also, we have sat on literally hundreds of comments that we could have “outted.” We were tempted to do so, but refrained for a lot of the reasons commenters have given. In this case, it appeared like the evidence justified making this information public, given the fact that there were such tense negotiations going on between the city and the police department.
But like I said before, I’m not perfect and maybe it would have been better if we just sat on it. Clearly, in the future, we’ll have to articulate a privacy policy that addresses these issues up front.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
91024: “I have been slandered on this blog, on my blog …”
Goodness gracious, 91024. It looks like you do have something in common with Nancy Shollenberg and MaryAnn MacGillivray after all. They’ve been slandered on your blog, too!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Again, Jefferson, the claim is that someone in Mr. Adams office is out there making those comments. It could be Adams himself, but there’s no evidence to make that claim any more so than anyone else in his office.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
My dear Mr. Pickwick,
With all due respect (Gilman), this is where I think you’ve obtained your law degree: Bevmo.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
This could get us close to 20,000 comments this week.
At the end of the day we find multiple ID’s, often minutes apart commenting on posts using the screen names as RJCP points out.
IT doesn’t mean Adams new about it or even did it, but sadly they do trace back to Adams and it doesn’t look good. My intent is to talk with him and get some details.
We’ve all heard the rumor which employee it could have been at this point, I’m going to find out if it was.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
My dear Miss Havisham,
I am shocked! Shocked! Such snarkiness from such a sweet old lady like you? Tsk.
Please be so kind as to illuminate and enlighten all of us with your legal authorities to prove me incorrect.
And no, I so hate to disappoint, but not Gilman.
Cheers!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Centinel- one thing we do know for sure – they were done from his server.
An elected official is responsible for anything that happens within his office or by his/her staff.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Mr. Pickwick,
I decline to help. “With all due respect” is my little joke to Gilman. I have no idea who you are except for what some hack writer in the 19th century told me about you. Perhaps you should consult with your partners at: Pickwick, Tupman, Snodgrass & Winkle.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Actually Jefferson an employer is on the hook for what an employee does.
What the employer needs to do is show it was a misuse of employer resources outside the course/scope of his employment. When the employer shows that he walks away with the scar of not having better security and control of his business resources and employees.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Most people who expect to be able to post or e-mail something completely anonymously don’t have the know how to do so.
If you’re going to post it, own it.
A lot of employers take a dim view of internet usage for personal reasons on their dime, and as a taxpayer, I’d be pretty peeved that someone in a local politicians office was screwing around posting comments on a blog rather than doing their job.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Yeah 91024, I love it when you go from vicious to pious. First you blog about the witch hunters, and then you claim to be a victim of slander. Nobody in their right mind would ever blog on an article written by you. People have had it with the retaliations by you and your friends, the dirts.
I won’t blog on anyone’s article unless it is centinel, publius, sir eric or parry.
91024, little of what you write is factual. Your website proves it. You twist and turn some facts with a whole lotta bull.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I must correct, the sentence about the benefit at Mary’s Market by 91024 was accurate. The questioning whether or not Sierra Madre city employees have been attending emergency seminars was a factual question. Still, 91024 is dangerous when 91024 gets in the mood.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
What concerns me most is the fact that a police officer could have very well been killed on that fatefull night. One inch is all that seperated life from sure death. That may not mean anything to most, but put yourself in the officers position? Would you want someone posting remarks about either you or a loved one that nearly lost his/ her life. No matter what your personal beliefs or feelings are towards police officers, they are the first line of defense and the ones you/all of us will be calling when the crap hits the fan. Now add the overwhelming facts Parry was able to demonstrate. Either Adams, an elected official, or one of his employees, were using his business web connection and made these comments from work. Adams doesn’t even address this fact and attempt to make any appologies to Sgt. Verna for the comments made. Knowing full well that this life threatening incident is still fresh in Verna’s mind.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
My dear Miss Havisham (or may I call you Aurelia?)
Although there is no need to do so, I did in fact consult my fellow barristers.
The consensus is: your declination to refute or clarify is a tacit admission that you were incorrect in your earlier postulation. Please, by all means, if we are in error with respect to the damages element in this case, provide elucidation via relevant legal authorities so that the world can be a better informed place for young Pip and Estella to live in.
The honor of my alma mater “Bevmo,” I believe you called it, depends upon it.
Ever yours, Still Not Gilman
P.S. Little Timmy Cratchit says you better not refer to Chuck again as a “hack.”
May 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I prefer to use a different name because I have the right to, have said nothing to harm anyone. Take my IP address, I don’t care. I’m here to learn.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Silly, silly man to think that I would give it away for free.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Did I read this same story on ‘The Liberal OC’ a month or so back? ‘Homophobic remarks tied to Measure D Opponent,’ I believe it’s called.
This is the thread that spawned my site, ‘The Centrist OC,’ which is part of an eerily similar situation down here.
Please check out my website and consider blogging with ‘The Centrist OC!’ All political inclinations welcome (no hate speech allowed of course) as we’re meant to be a topic-oriented site focusing on solving problems instead of playing politics.
SMS
May 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
And that,ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is exactly why Miss Havisham died a lonely old spinster
May 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Here’s Pip now with a missive from: American Rights at Work
This part is particularly interesting if you’re interested in case law and so on:
— employees filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that their termination was illegal because their communication was protected by labor law. This charge will likely be a test of the precedent-setting Register-Guard case, where the Labor Board denied protections for employees who email each other about union-related issues, failing to recognize technological advancements in workplace communication.
For more for your baskets full o’ irony here
May 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
The real Gilman checking in….
I believe Ms. “H” is referring to my use of “with all due respect” - which is often code for a bashing that follows.
I can disagree and still try to be polite…usually.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Dearest Aurelia,
Read your latest. Could you please explain your analysis of the applicability of the case you’ve referenced to defamation/libel/damages to the instant matter?
Cuz I just don’t see the dots connectin’.
Jurisprudentially yours, Mr. P.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Frazgo,
A real estate agent is not the employee of the broker. He is an agent for the broker in a real estate transaction. He is giving up part of his commission to the franchise if there is one and the broker who holds his license to make it valid. Many agents pay a monthly fee to a broker for the use of office space and equipment. They run their own adds print their own cards, flyers and pay for their own signs and on and on. The employee employer relationship does not exist between an agent and broker in fact things are done certain ways to insure that that relationship cannot be construed as existing.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Actually real estate agents are independent contractors working under the supervision of a real estate broker. Agents are not authorized to charge a fee, or commission, instead the Broker charges the fee/commission and then pays the agent a portion of the fee generated. California law requires that all transactions be supervised by a Broker, not simply an agent.
Ultimately, the Broker will be held accountable for the actions of his/her agents….
May 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
True, but only in real eastate transactions.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:21 am
What I find unexeptable is Mr. Parry exposing those who disagree with him and his political leanings yet leaving those that he either agrees with or has no opinion alone. I have read some very disgusting things here yet Mr. Parry leaves all of those alone. I did read in one where he told the poster not to speak ill of race etc. The only case I have seen of the action he has taken is this one. Wh is next?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
MonroMan-
There are several sockpuppets on this blog. I leave them alone, regardless of POV - unless they are obviously and closley associated with an elected or appointed government official who is publicly proclaiming very different things.
Also, you are wrong as to me leaving disguting things along. I’ve left up many comments that sullied my reputation, even vulgarities about me, and remarks about my wife.
However, when a salacious comment was made regarding an elected official (with whom I do not see eye to eye), I first asked Centinel if he wanted it down. When he did not respond, I deleted it myself.
Clearly you don’t know me very well.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Add to that-
On this and another local blog, I have strongly defended Scott Ochoa against certain attacks pertaining to his ethnicity. This occurred as recntly as Tuesday. In fact, I seem to recall deleting one or two of them.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:43 am
A fascinating discussion — FCblog remains a ground-breaking realm for modern blogging, and thank you for that.
One note to the paranoid: if you get online through a giant provider, your IP is essentially anonymous. It doesn’t tell investigators much to know that a poster is a subscriber to “Comcast” or “AT&T.”
But everyone should remember that in a legal dispute the lawyers can get a subpeona (sp?) and the provider will turn over your identity in a heartbeat.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I agree with you Mr. Pickwick. I believe proof of loss of future income would be considered potential $$ damages sufficient to carry the action through to conclusion and in the hands of the jury. If the case is emotional and outrageous enough, even the most jaded juror will likely side with the plaintiff. Being shot in the face seems fairly outrageous to me. Being mocked for such an injury is enough to engender some emotion. The emotion and outrage would likely be directed toward the defendant in such an action. Seems like an unlikely win for the defendant. Perhaps, Mrs. Havisham fancies herself as a legal expert but since she has not cited any case law to support her opinion, it appears just that, her opinion.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Dear Mr. Dublius*
Please note that whereas a plaintiff’s attorney may indeed attempt to subpoena the defendant’s records from the isp provider, that does not prevent the defendant’s attorney from filing a motion for a Protective Order. As to who would prevail in that instance, it depends on the Judge.
However, as this issue would go to the crux of the libel cause of action, my money would be on the Judge denying said motion.
Cheers!
Mr. Pickwick
*I like your name
May 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Strange, I just pulled something pointy from the inside of my cheeky cheek. Ah! A fishhook!
For the record:
Do not confuse legal authority relevant to a Wrongful Death action with that of a SLAPP, as Mr. Pickwick does.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Further, my dear father, rest his soul, used to run around the Satis yelling “FAP! FAP! Eeegad FAP!”
May 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Dear Miss H,
Imagine my disappointment in seeing that you have never once responded to my queries to support your position (supra), and instead have resorted to calumnious attacks or the improper usage of wholly inapplicable statutory authority to the situation at issue.
Ya know, it takes a big spinster to admit that she was apparently wrong from the beginning. Or to spell out the appropriate support for her thesis.
C’mon Havi, rise to the challenge! You can do it, I know you can!
I promise, if I’m correct, I shall eschew triumphalism. Even better, if incorrect, I will gratefully acknowledge your superior intellect.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Oh, bugger off.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Oh Havi.
Whilst your pervicaciousness does not surprise me, your employment of such a depreciatory vulgarism does, indeed, disappoint.
Nonetheless, Madam, I wish you good cheer, and bid you adieu.