<\/p>\n
Ruling runs counter to tradition of anonymous speech in the United States<\/p>\n
Kurt Nimmo<\/strong> The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Virginia Court of Appeals has ruled<\/a> that Yelp users have no right to anonymity when they post negative comments about a business online. The ruling was handed down after the owner of a carpet-cleaning business said criticism about his business was not posted by customers<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Virginia statute makes the judge a gatekeeper to decide whether or not there’s a common-sense reason for someone in our position to get this information\u201d on a Yelp user, a lawyer<\/a> for Hadeed Oriental Carpet Cleaning argued. \u201cIn order for someone like Joe Hadeed to find out who these people are, he has to explain his case, and if he can convince the judge that there might be a real lawsuit against this person, the judge can then say, \u2018Yes, you can get this information.’\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cGenerally, a Yelp review is entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a person’s opinion about a business that they patronized,\u201d the judge in the case ruled. \u201cIf the reviewer was never a customer of the business, then the review is not an opinion; instead the review is based on a false statement\u201d and the reviewer is not entitled to anonymity.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are disappointed that the Virginia Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that fails to adequately protect free speech rights on the internet, and which allows businesses to seek personal details about website users \u2013 without any evidence of wrongdoing \u2013 in efforts to silence online critics,\u201d a lawyer for Yelp said.<\/p>\n Vince Sollitto, a spokesman for Yelp, said Virginia should adopt \u201cstrong protections in order to prevent online speech from being stifled by those upset with what has been said.\u201d<\/p>\n The court ruling runs counter to the tradition of anonymous speech in the United States. The Supreme Court has recognized on numerous occasions the right to speak anonymously and has associated this right to the First Amendment. The right to speak anonymously transcends any supposed harm a business claims negative comments have done to its reputation.<\/p>\n \u201cProtections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views,\u201d the Supreme Court ruled in the McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in 1995. \u201cAnonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority\u2026. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation\u2026 at the hand of an intolerant society.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States,\u201d notes the Electronic Freedom Foundation<\/a>. \u201cFounders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym \u2018Publius’ and \u2018the Federal Farmer’ spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n Polls show Americans value the First Amendment and the right to online anonymity. In September, Pew Internet<\/a> posted the result of a poll showing that nearly 60 percent of those surveyed believe people should have the ability to use the internet completely anonymously.<\/p>\n This article was posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 10:53 am<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <!– this is where we need to show the related articles <\/p>\n
Infowars.com
January 14, 2014<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n