is it possible to defame an anonymous person?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Just a thought that's come up. If something is said in an online forum that
is potentially defamatory, could the person defamed take action if they
(the defamed) are anonymous, ie they post behind an avatar/pseudonym and
nobody (or a very small number) knows who they are? What role would
reputation play in the success or otherwise of their action? If the
anonymous person has a vexatious history in the forum, provable by archive,
does this hinder their action?

Cheers!

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Steve Walker]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1033527605391973067.405392REMO...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Just a thought that's come up. If something is said in an online forum
> that
> is potentially defamatory, could the person defamed take action if they
> (the defamed) are anonymous, ie they post behind an avatar/pseudonym and
> nobody (or a very small number) knows who they are? What role would
> reputation play in the success or otherwise of their action? If the
> anonymous person has a vexatious history in the forum, provable by
> archive,
> does this hinder their action?
>
> Cheers!

Let's play nicely on this one, folks. No sly references to individuals, no
clever allusions to present or past disputes. Just the legal question
raised. Thanks!

SteveModHat
(in bunker, instigating Modageddon Level 4 Emergency Procedure)

[Doctor Dave]

Why wouldn't they be able to? They may have spent many years building up a reputation under their pseudonym.

Calculation of damages might be an interesting exercise (as might any attempt to bring an action under their pseudonym).

[Vir Campestris]

On 03/06/2013 19:40, August West wrote:
> But pseudonymous, possibly. It would be a matter of establishing the
> reputation of the pseudonym, and damage upon that reputation, and the
> effect of that damage...

We're not the only people who are pseudonymous. Some newspaper
columnists (Cassandra springs to mind) are pseudonymous, but not anonymous.

Of course, if anonymity is truly desired, a sufficient insult would
result in the loss of anonymity as a requirement of bringing a legal action.

I wonder - anyone fancy insulting Banksy :)

Andy

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Vir Campestris" <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:koj4v1$hic$1...@news.albasani.net...

> I wonder - anyone fancy insulting Banksy :)

"I'm sorry Mr Rushdie, but I didn't catch your address - could you speak up
a little please?"

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <87r4gja...@news2.kororaa.com>, August West
<aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

> Interesting question!
>

Thanks!

> Actually anonymous, no, I don't think so.
>
> But pseudonymous, possibly.

Would a pseudonym not be anonymous if nobody knew the identity of the
person behind it? The example is an account in an online forum, all that
is known of the individual is the screen name that they post under.

>It would be a matter of establishing the
> reputation of the pseudonym, and damage upon that reputation, and the
> effect of that damage...

This is the really interesting part, I think. Let's say that the forum
pseudonym has a provable archive of their posts going back years, a decade
say. Now, how much of this archive would be used to assess the pseudonym's
reputation? All of it or just a portion? If the pseudonym can be
associated with repeated examples of antagonistic postings to the forum,
will it be safe to assume that their (anonymous pseudonym's) reputation
may be ajudged to be too low to defame?

Also, if we assume that an anonymous person cannot be defamed, is it right
to say that that pseudonym certainly can defame those whose identity is
known (and therefore potentially be prosecuted)?

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-06-04 06:35:02 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:

> In article <87r4gja...@news2.kororaa.com>, August West
> <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting question!
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>> Actually anonymous, no, I don't think so.
>>
>> But pseudonymous, possibly.
>
> Would a pseudonym not be anonymous if nobody knew the identity of the
> person behind it? The example is an account in an online forum, all that
> is known of the individual is the screen name that they post under.

I think the point about anonymity is that if a post is anonymous it
cannot be connected with any other anonymous (or otherwise) post: a
pseudonymous post is not anonymous, but the RL identity behind it is
concealed. Just a matter of terminology. You are discussing a
pseudonymous series of postings.

>
>> It would be a matter of establishing the
>> reputation of the pseudonym, and damage upon that reputation, and the
>> effect of that damage...
>
> This is the really interesting part, I think. Let's say that the forum
> pseudonym has a provable archive of their posts going back years, a decade
> say. Now, how much of this archive would be used to assess the pseudonym's
> reputation? All of it or just a portion? If the pseudonym can be
> associated with repeated examples of antagonistic postings to the forum,
> will it be safe to assume that their (anonymous pseudonym's) reputation
> may be ajudged to be too low to defame?

If the defamation was so serious as to lead to the likelihood of
right-thinking vigilantes looking for the RL identity behind the
pseudonymous posts, this could possibly be taken into account by the
court. And even if a pseudonym has a rather poor reputation in some
respects it may be possible to defame it other respects.

>
> Also, if we assume that an anonymous person cannot be defamed, is it right
> to say that that pseudonym certainly can defame those whose identity is
> known (and therefore potentially be prosecuted)?

A truly anonymous person cannot be defamed as by definition he can have
no identifiable reputation. If a series of anonymous posts contained
internal information linking them with each other, they would not be
truly anonymous. On the substantive point, you can sue an anonymous
person for defamation, and the court will help you find out who he is.


--

Percy Picacity

[Sara]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,

REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> In article <87r4gja...@news2.kororaa.com>, August West
> <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting question!
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Actually anonymous, no, I don't think so.
> >
> > But pseudonymous, possibly.
>
> Would a pseudonym not be anonymous if nobody knew the identity of the
> person behind it? The example is an account in an online forum, all that
> is known of the individual is the screen name that they post under.
>
> >It would be a matter of establishing the
> > reputation of the pseudonym, and damage upon that reputation, and the
> > effect of that damage...
>
> This is the really interesting part, I think. Let's say that the forum
> pseudonym has a provable archive of their posts going back years, a decade
> say. Now, how much of this archive would be used to assess the pseudonym's
> reputation? All of it or just a portion? If the pseudonym can be
> associated with repeated examples of antagonistic postings to the forum,
> will it be safe to assume that their (anonymous pseudonym's) reputation
> may be ajudged to be too low to defame?
>

My instinct is to say not - their supposed misbehaviour may only be on
part of the online world and they may have a gleaming reputation in
another.

I may meet a perfectly normal person in the pub and have a converation
with them in which nothing occurs to make me think badly of them. If
someone else came over a little later and started telling me their
version of what a complete and utter bastard my new friend is, and that
I can go and look it all up somewhere that they can point me to if I
want, would taste pretty much like defamation to me.

> Also, if we assume that an anonymous person cannot be defamed, is it right
> to say that that pseudonym certainly can defame those whose identity is
> known (and therefore potentially be prosecuted)?

--

Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Syd Rumpo]

On 03/06/2013 18:35, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Just a thought that's come up. If something is said in an online forum that
> is potentially defamatory, could the person defamed take action if they
> (the defamed) are anonymous, ie they post behind an avatar/pseudonym and
> nobody (or a very small number) knows who they are? What role would
> reputation play in the success or otherwise of their action? If the
> anonymous person has a vexatious history in the forum, provable by archive,
> does this hinder their action?
>
> Cheers!
>

My real name is not Syd Rumpo, but it could be. How would anyone know
for sure whether Stephen Thomas Cole is is a pseudonym or not?

Would my genuine belief as to the pseudonymousness (pseudonymosity?
pseudonymimity?) or otherwise of S.T.C. make any difference if I defamed
you?

Cheers
--
Syd

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <kokgjf$j5i$1...@dont-email.me>, use...@nononono.invalid wrote:

> My real name is not Syd Rumpo, but it could be. How would anyone know
> for sure whether Stephen Thomas Cole is is a pseudonym or not?

Indeed. Assume that the pseudonymous identity in question is, say, DiscoBoy1977.

> Would my genuine belief as to the pseudonymousness (pseudonymosity?
> pseudonymimity?) or otherwise of S.T.C. make any difference if I defamed
> you?

Well, that's more or less my question. Would it be possible to defame
DiscoBoy1977? No one knows anything more about him, other than he's been
using that forum for many years and has quite the reputation for
antagonistic behaviour, of many different colours.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article
<saramerriman-4B2D...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara

<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> My instinct is to say not - their supposed misbehaviour may only be on
> part of the online world and they may have a gleaming reputation in
> another.

That's interesting. How would such a thing be weighed up? Would it be
based on volumes of antagonistic postings in one forum versus positive
contributions in another? Or would the court compare their respective
standing in each community, look to see if he's objectively a bigger
nuisance in one than he is constructive influence in the other(s)?

[Sara]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> In article <kokgjf$j5i$1...@dont-email.me>, use...@nononono.invalid wrote:
>
> > My real name is not Syd Rumpo, but it could be. How would anyone know
> > for sure whether Stephen Thomas Cole is is a pseudonym or not?
>
> Indeed. Assume that the pseudonymous identity in question is, say,
> DiscoBoy1977.
>
> > Would my genuine belief as to the pseudonymousness (pseudonymosity?
> > pseudonymimity?) or otherwise of S.T.C. make any difference if I defamed
> > you?
>
> Well, that's more or less my question. Would it be possible to defame
> DiscoBoy1977? No one knows anything more about him, other than he's been
> using that forum for many years and has quite the reputation for
> antagonistic behaviour, of many different colours.

You're missing the point I made earlier - that may be the only place
*you* know of that identity. That doesn't mean it's the only place it's
used, or that what you describe as antagonistic behaviour is carried on
anywhere else.

[Sara]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> In article
> <saramerriman-4B2D...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > My instinct is to say not - their supposed misbehaviour may only be on
> > part of the online world and they may have a gleaming reputation in
> > another.
>
> That's interesting. How would such a thing be weighed up? Would it be
> based on volumes of antagonistic postings in one forum versus positive
> contributions in another? Or would the court compare their respective
> standing in each community, look to see if he's objectively a bigger
> nuisance in one than he is constructive influence in the other(s)?

I would think (or at least hope) they'd look at his standing in the
place where he was claiming defamation. If it was a place where he had
an otherwise good or even neutral reputation, then I would hope they
would agree that defamation had occurred.

Which is pretty much what I tried to explain in the second part of my
post which you snipped.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-06-04 13:20:01 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:

> In article
> <saramerriman-4B2D...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> My instinct is to say not - their supposed misbehaviour may only be on
>> part of the online world and they may have a gleaming reputation in
>> another.
>
> That's interesting. How would such a thing be weighed up? Would it be
> based on volumes of antagonistic postings in one forum versus positive
> contributions in another? Or would the court compare their respective
> standing in each community, look to see if he's objectively a bigger
> nuisance in one than he is constructive influence in the other(s)?

That is I think precisely what they would do if it was submitted by the
defendant that they had no reputation to lose. But, again, I think it
would depend on the nature of the libel. If it was such as bring even
a disreputable person into further disrepute or moral repugnance the
fact that they were known as rude and abusive would not necessarily be
conclusive.

--

Percy Picacity

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:40:02 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>The entity calling itself Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>> Just a thought that's come up. If something is said in an online forum that
>> is potentially defamatory, could the person defamed take action if they
>> (the defamed) are anonymous, ie they post behind an avatar/pseudonym and
>> nobody (or a very small number) knows who they are? What role would
>> reputation play in the success or otherwise of their action? If the
>> anonymous person has a vexatious history in the forum, provable by archive,
>> does this hinder their action?
>

>Interesting question!

>
>Actually anonymous, no, I don't think so.
>

>But pseudonymous, possibly. It would be a matter of establishing the

>reputation of the pseudonym, and damage upon that reputation, and the
>effect of that damage...

You certainly can defame a pseudonym. Cliff Richard has successfully won a
libel case even though that is not his real name.

However, if the pseudonym is being used as a means of concealing the
person's true identity (as opposed to being merely a stage name or pen
name) then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to
sue for libel without revealing their "normal" identity. So, in practical
terms, you could probably get away with defaming someone like that with
reasonable impunity.

As to the second part of the original question, yes, a person's behaviour
is a valid matter of comment and if the allegedly defamatory statement
could reasonably be interpreted as an "honest comment" expression of
opinion then that would probably be sufficient defence. But that only
applies to the extent that the comment is based on the person's observed
behaviour; "Mr Pseudonym is a serial abuser of Usenet" would stand a good
chance of being defended on grounds of either justification or honest
comment, but "Mr Pseudonym hides behind his online identity because he eats
kittens for breakfast" would not.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-06-04 21:20:01 +0000, Mark Goodge said:

> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:40:02 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>
>> The entity calling itself Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a thought that's come up. If something is said in an online forum that
>>> is potentially defamatory, could the person defamed take action if they
>>> (the defamed) are anonymous, ie they post behind an avatar/pseudonym and
>>> nobody (or a very small number) knows who they are? What role would
>>> reputation play in the success or otherwise of their action? If the
>>> anonymous person has a vexatious history in the forum, provable by archive,
>>> does this hinder their action?
>>
>> Interesting question!
>>
>> Actually anonymous, no, I don't think so.
>>
>> But pseudonymous, possibly. It would be a matter of establishing the
>> reputation of the pseudonym, and damage upon that reputation, and the
>> effect of that damage...
>
> You certainly can defame a pseudonym. Cliff Richard has successfully won a
> libel case even though that is not his real name.
>
> However, if the pseudonym is being used as a means of concealing the
> person's true identity (as opposed to being merely a stage name or pen
> name) then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to
> sue for libel without revealing their "normal" identity. So, in practical
> terms, you could probably get away with defaming someone like that with
> reasonable impunity.

This is assuming that maintaining the secrecy of their real life
identity is important to them. For instance, having resigned from
government employment, this 16 year old pseudonym's security is not
particularly important to me now. Potential libellors, you have been
warned!


snip second point.


--

Percy Picacity

[Paul Rudin]

August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:

> The entity calling itself Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> You certainly can defame a pseudonym. Cliff Richard has successfully
>> won a libel case even though that is not his real name.
>

> Ah, true; tat's very true. But I wasn't thinking of that kind of stage
> name pseudonymyty; more the kind of semi-freestanding idenity, without
> an indentifiable real person behind it.

Surely the problem is that to bring a claim for defamation the
defamatory statement must refer to the claimant? How could you bring an
action without identifying yourself as the person behind the online
persona?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Hmmm...

If a person whose identity was unknown beyond their user name
(DiscoBoy1977, say) revealed their identity in order to pursue a claim that
a defamation had occurred whilst they were only known as DiscoBoy1977,
would a court not look at this as the person bringing harm onto themselves,
as the defamation had not previously been tied to them beyond the screen
identity.

[Percy Picacity]

No. I leave the detailed exposition as to why not to any lawyer who can help.

--

Percy Picacity

[Paul Rudin]

I'm not sure that's necessarily fatal to success. AIUI it's not
necessary that the publisher has the claimant in mind. For example
consider Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20. "Artemus Jones" was said in a
newspaper article to be conducting an adulterous affair. The name was
intended by the newspaper to be fictitious. A real person called Artemus
Jones successfully sued for libel after people testified that they
thought that the article referred to him.

This is partly why the newspapers are careful when making a potentially
defamatory statement about e.g. "Ashley Cole", they'll also say "the
England and Chelsea defender". No other person called Ashley Cole can
say that the defamatory statement referred to them.

[Sara]

In article
<1133940269392110859.155823REMO...@news.etern
al-september.org>,

If DiscoBoy 1977 has a perfectly good reputation in (say) uk.70s.dicso,
but you thought he was a twat because of what you find is appalling
behavious in uk.cars.something, you would still be bringing harm to the
persona in uk.70s.disco if you started slagging him off there.

[Paul Rudin]

August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:

> The entity calling itself Paul Rudin wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure that's necessarily fatal to success. AIUI it's not
>> necessary that the publisher has the claimant in mind. For example
>> consider Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20. "Artemus Jones" was said in a
>> newspaper article to be conducting an adulterous affair. The name was
>> intended by the newspaper to be fictitious. A real person called Artemus
>> Jones successfully sued for libel after people testified that they
>> thought that the article referred to him.
>

> The fact that Mr (Thomas) Artemus Jones also happened to be a barrister,
> who had once worked for the newspaper in question, didn't help.

Ah - I knew he was a barrister, I didn't know he once worked for the
newspaper. Given that, the suggestion that it was an entirely fictitious
name seems odd.

[GB]

Maybe his name stuck in someone's mind? Artemus is rather splendid,
after all.

There was a firm of stockbrokers called Hedderwick Stirling Grumbar, now
dissolved, and I keep thinking that it would make a great title for a
children's story - Hedderwick Stirling Grumbear (a rather pompous,
bad-tempered brown bear, wearing a dark suit and a gold watch chain
across his overstuffed middle).

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1033527605391973067.405392REMO...@news.eternal-september.org...

Just a thought that's come up. If something is said in an online forum that
is potentially defamatory, could the person defamed take action if they
(the defamed) are anonymous, ie they post behind an avatar/pseudonym and
nobody (or a very small number) knows who they are? What role would
reputation play in the success or otherwise of their action? If the
anonymous person has a vexatious history in the forum, provable by archive,
does this hinder their action?

Cheers!

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

If the 'target' is identifiable then you can defame them and they can sue
you

For instance

"Labour politicians have an unenviable record of corruption in public life"
this does not identify anyone and is arguably defensible as way more Labour
MP's got prison over their expenses and round where I am about half a dozen
of their councillors have been done for fiddling benefits.

"the Labour candidate [in an election] is a thief" - defamatory (unless you
can prove it) as everyone voting in the election will know who s/he is.

[John Briggs]

The name "Beagle, Shyster, and Beagle" for the radio series had to be
changed to "Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel" after threats of legal
action...
--
John Briggs

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article
<saramerriman-FF85...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara

Fair enough. Are there any precedents where something like this has
happened? Has there ever been a case where the value of the reputation of
an online pseudonym has been assessed to ascertain damage? To my
uneducated eyes, it seems a bit ridiculous for the law to protect what is,
essentially, a nickname, at best. Especially if nothing is known about the
person behind it.

[Sara]

In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> In article
> <saramerriman-FF85...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1133940269392110859.155823REMO...@news.etern
> > al-september.org>,
> > Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmmm...
> > >
> > > If a person whose identity was unknown beyond their user name
> > > (DiscoBoy1977, say) revealed their identity in order to pursue a claim
> > > that
> > > a defamation had occurred whilst they were only known as DiscoBoy1977,
> > > would a court not look at this as the person bringing harm onto
> > > themselves,
> > > as the defamation had not previously been tied to them beyond the screen
> > > identity.
> >
> > If DiscoBoy 1977 has a perfectly good reputation in (say) uk.70s.dicso,
> > but you thought he was a twat because of what you find is appalling
> > behavious in uk.cars.something, you would still be bringing harm to the
> > persona in uk.70s.disco if you started slagging him off there.
>
> Fair enough. Are there any precedents where something like this has
> happened?

I've no idea.

> Has there ever been a case where the value of the reputation of
> an online pseudonym has been assessed to ascertain damage?

Do you know of any cases that have been rejected?

To my
> uneducated eyes, it seems a bit ridiculous for the law to protect what is,
> essentially, a nickname, at best. Especially if nothing is known about the
> person behind it.

--