here's a few excerpts from an article today on net postings. . .

"On the Internet, the joke goes, nobody knows you're a dog. But the anonymity that has emboldened countless Internet users to post their opinions on everything from stocks to religious cults is increasingly being punctured by a simple legal maneuver. Publicly traded companies and other targets of such postings are filing a surging number of "John Doe" lawsuits that enable them to subpoena the identities of their online critics from America Online, Yahoo and other Internet firms. The trend underscores the difficulties of striking a balance between anonymity and accountability on the Internet, a medium on which millions of people--rightly or wrongly--have come to expect the ability to communicate anonymously with others. Companies that file the "John Doe" suits say the tactic is one of their few weapons against what they consider digital defamation. It seems to be working, often forcing online critics to slink away from message boards and in some cases exposing critics within the companies themselves who subsequently leave or are fired. "

[snip]

" "What we're seeing is an all-out assault on anonymity on the Internet," said David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "No one assesses the validity of these suits before the identities are disclosed." Dozens of "John Doe" suits--so named because they are filed before the real name of the defendant is known--have been filed across the country in recent months, including a flurry of them in Southern California. In one of these cases, a "John Doe" defendant is fighting back for the first time. "

See full article at http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/ASECTION/t000053520.html

-- jjbeck (jjbeck@recycler.com), June 14, 1999

Answers

This makes me furious. This is just another way that corporate America has to "shut people up" as one company lawyer said about a defendant. They are called Stragetic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). They began in the l980's as a way to stop citizen's protests. Companies filing SLAPPs hope to intimidate the protester into silence before a discerning judge can see the malicious suit for what it is, and before a First Amendment case can be made by the defendant. Most people just cow down and "shut up." Fortunately there are still a few people who have the balls to stand up to these bullies, and I'm glad to say that I know one from Missouri. When all the social clones who didn't want any unpleasantness deserted her, she fought a million $ lawsuit against her, lost her job, went into debt and mortgaged her house to defend herself. Then she turned around and sued this lying, harassing mega company and won a huge settlement. She said, "By God they wanted to go to court, so we went" That's called guts!

People have had their lives ruined financially and emotionally over these suits. Often they are protesting an airport, or polluting factory being built next to their homes, or a product. It doesn't matter, coprorations think citizens have no right to object to their grandiose schemes to make more money.

This is one reason I speak out so passionately against censorship. There is never a stopping place. First you placate those who object to "obscene" words, then you placate those who hate disagreement, then you censor those who argue, next those who yell, or flame or cast blame, and finally the censors have total agreement, until someone goes after them and that brings the censorship full circle.

That's what corporations are doing to the Internet. Stopping people that criticize their products, or companies or pollution or dirty deals..

I hope some of you saw the show on Discovery Sunday about Echelon and how it can pick up every email or communication. It picks out key words like DOD, etc and in it goes to the computer. One critic made the point that citizens aid their own loss of freedom for the sake of supposed pleasantness, safety or security or for the children. Some of you people better wake up. Just keep on taking away freedoms, so everyone "plays nice," and see how long it takes to lose your own freedom.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 14, 1999.

For those of you who are Art Bell listeners, it is my opinion that this drive to stop anonymous posters is behind the attack on Bell. An "ex" FBI agent is among the attackers. It would be a snap for him to get the info on Art's son that would most hurt him, to find the info on where he had lived before and who he had associated with. Classic disinformation... enough true facts to make you accept the B.S.

Think what a victory for the gov't if they can get the most popular talk show host and owner of one of the most visited web sites to call for internet control and user licensing? In his efforts to get even with his attackers Art will likely accomplish THEIR goals.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), June 14, 1999.

Ah, lawyers being used to finacially nuke people with frivilous law suits. Perhaps we should take the money factor out of justice. Maybe if it became the law of the land that niether party in the suit could spend more than the party with the least amount of resources could afford we could negate the frivilous law suit attack. After all, right or wrong, how long could any of us sustain a legal defence against a big company or the department of justice?

Hold tight to your wallet and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), June 15, 1999.

Hey, not a bad idea, eyes open. Big corporations have always had the clout and money to beat up the little guy. And one of my big gripes is that big polluting corporations don't have to prove they *didn't* pollute an area, it is up to the little guys, the homeowner's, or whomever is at risk, to prove the corporation *did* pollute. Totally unfair.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 16, 1999.