>Tim:
> > It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed
> > in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be
> > subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who
> > may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing
> > subpoenaed material in a criminal or civil trial!
I'm a bit confused by Tim's use of the nym John Doe,
since in cases like that, the John Doe isn't the sysop,
John Doe is/are the unknown-to-the-court person or persons
who made the allegedly libelous comments,
and the court is or is not deciding whether to force the
known sysop to reveal the names of the Does.
Some recent courts have made (IMHO good) decisions that say
that the plaintiff needs to prove that the allegedly
libelous or otherwise actionable statements
are in fact actionable before forcing the sysop to reveal the names.
There's some conflict between this and the right to
confront your accusers in court - probably the real mechanism
needs to be something like "preliminary decision,
if yes, then out the Does, then retry the case",
though if you've got two-way anonymous communication,
the Does may be able to argue their preliminary anonymously.
Choate:
>What IT DOES say is, that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED -
>including ones that might 'compel' one to reveal them;
That doesn't necessarily follow from the first amendment -
Supreme Court cases in recent decades have been fairly consistent
in interpreting freedom of the press to include the right to
try to publish anonymously if you can figure out how,
but they're addressing whether you can be punished for anonymity,
not whether it's legal for someone to out you if you're careless
(e.g. leaving your fingerprints on your anonymous leaflets),
or whether someone who does know your identity can be compelled
to reveal it.
Besides, in most of these cases, the people who know the
information are businesses, and under a Choatean theory of
business regulation, businesses don't have rights and
must be regulated, so telling the business to reveal what
IT knows is perfectly ok, right?
The whole mess sounds like more good reason to use
technical means for anonymity, and for businesses that
offer services like investment chat rooms to not keep user records.
