A fascinating post on Big Law Board:
Isn’t it obvious, from all we’ve seen throughout the years on various message boards, that monikers are mainly acting names behind which someone hides in order to provide entertainment value for the owner of the moniker and/or others?
Now, I don’t condone the googlebombing and outing of the female Does in the XOXO case, and I think they will get what’s coming to them for causing damage to REAL law students, but I believe some of them just made some stupid comments, not directed at any one person, all in the name of acting and entertainment.
If Brad Pitt starred in a movie, playing a role as a racist asshole, that’s fine. What’s the difference? Teh interwebz should allow for acting without the formal title of “actor.” (source)
This seems like a valid point. As the court noted in Reno v. ACLU:
Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, “the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought.
If that is the case, then why can’t everyone also be an actor? I follow a few chat boards, and I do enjoy waiting for the next hilarious post by “Creepy Old Guy” or “Pale Blue Dot,” and I am certain that the real-life people behind these monikers are nothing like their online personas. And, I don’t expect them to be.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
I like the “the content on the internet is as diverse as human thought” quote. It’s true, our morals have changed in what we, as Americans, find funny. The most vulgar shows are often the most popular. The more vulgar the humor, the more attention it gets and, speaking for my friends in my age group, the more we like it.
Thanks for commenting! For everyone’s information, boskboks is the one who posted the initial thought-provoking comment.
And, your comment now provokes another thought — I have said to many that the whole auto-admit thing does have a generation gap component to it. Some of the stuff you kids say just doesn’t make any sense to me (DHAPMNG and WGWAG for example), but I see that it makes YOU laugh… and I realize that it isn’t there for me… as I had jokes my parents didn’t ever understand, so shall you.
It’s a very good assumption that, when my generation becomes Supreme Court Justices and Legislators, human thought will be much easier to escape through one’s mouth.
Can the same logic be extended to online predators? For example, on that witch hunt “To Catch a Predator,” one of the “predators” had a good defense. He stated, in sum:
I did nothing wrong. Yes, I was on a sex chat room. Yes, I was talking to someone that claimed to be an underage girl. Yes, i spoke provocatively with that person. Yes, I came to a house in order to meet that person. However, I never intended to do anything illegal. It was a fantasy site where everyone pretended to be someone else…including underage people. I intended to arrive at this house to meet an actual adult that pretends to be underage.
While I do not want to be on the side of an actual predator, the defense was compelling. The internet is a place for adults to pretend. We pretend to be movie critics, journalists, scholars and even pedophiles. The key is the adults pretend, knowing they are not really these things. So, the shy nerd has an outlet to be the internet extravert jock.
It appears that the answer lies in the middle…Not everyone is pretending. Some pseudonymous are alias for criminals while some are hooks for the internet savvy.
On a side note, the internet speak (eg PWNED) is ruining spelling.
As the “actor” behind the Creepy Old Guy schtick on BLB, I can assure you that I am nothing like my moniker. I’m also happy that you find my schtick amusing.
I’m sure you see the difference. The predator was lying to save his ass. This is apparent because he actually took “in-real-life” steps to follow through with his statements.
Very interesting post, though.
Do you happen to know the outcome of this case, or the case name? I would like to see some analysis of his defense.
My previous comment was hastily written without giving it much thought. It really is a good defense. However, I just hate those people so much that, I don’t care how it happens…just lock them up! One of the reasons I would be a horrific criminal attorney.
Blevins,
I don’t think that the “I was just acting” defense would work as a criminal (nor even in a civil) defense, nor do I think that is what boskboks was suggesting. You can’t barge into a convenience store and put a gun in the guy’s face and say “I was just pretending I was a pirate!” And even fiction can be defamatory, given the right facts.
What boskboks is suggesting is that the non-criminal, non-tortious statements on some social networking sites might very well be bigoted, gross, creepy, (see COG), but that doesn’t mean that the man behind the moniker is any of those things.
Re: Internet spelling — stop being such an old fart. ALL UR INTERWEBZ ARE BELONG TO US!
Of course, what Blevins posted was not an extension of what I was suggesting, and I think Blevins knows that, but he did raise an intersting point. A point that was promptly shot down by Randazza. Nonetheless, I would like to read that case.
My main point is: When ISPs are subpoenaed to find out who’s behind “insensitive” remarks, or when someone who posts non-PC remarks subsequently gets “outed”, then those remarks now associated with the moniker’s owner should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt –if not totally coated to the point of inedibility.
I agree, however, non-tortious & non-criminal are ends oriented. We do not know whether our statements are these things until someone acts on our statements.
I do agree to the underlying premise. As I stated above, I actually believed the defense of the charged “pedophile.” Perhaps he was just pretending. Perhaps he does not like having sex with underage children but does get off to pretending his partner is a child. So, just because he acted like a pedophile does not mean that he is a pedophile.
I am unsure whether he took any steps to further the act. I agree that every step the man took after logging off will hurt his case. However, he stated that he was on a fantasy site and the site had specific parameters. The role playing was expected. Thus, people pretended to be older people while some pretended to be younger. I am sure that some even pretended to be the opposite sex. Maybe he intended to set up mutual, adult, consenting sex with a person who would pretend to be an underage person.
Parallel the above example to a defamation case (like Auto admit with variation). You log onto a site and let the words fly. You do not intend to libel someone (or slander if you are from Baldwin, Fl). However, your words have a defamatory impact (applicable to NYT standard). I do not think your hook or online persona will provide the necessary armor.
I do not know the name of the case. I am sure that the Ft. Myers police got a plea out of this guy. In the alternative, he was just a scum bag and received an appropriate sentence.
BTW (haha), you are what you say and do…no matter what name or alias is utilized. In every lie there is an aspect of truth. Thus, the hook may just provide an outlet for the underlying bigotry you harbor. Perhaps Rev. Jackson needs an online name so that he can let the “N” word fly at his leisure.
The intertubes are everywhere! LOL, LMAO, OMG
You know, you’re somewhat convincing me here on a second read…
I do have an issue with laws, like Florida’s, that can put a person in jail, as a sex offender, for merely role-playing. In all fairness, the law requires the person to have a reasonable belief that the person on the other end of the chat is an actual kid. See Fla. Stat. Sec. 847.0138.
Nevertheless, there will be role players swept up in the actual predator dragnet.
This story is a bit scary. Not that the defendant didn’t get what he deserved, but the lengths to which we are willing to twist otherwise rigid principles in order to get at child predators.
While I don’t mind seeing them locked up, I do get worried when I see hysteria driving the law and not logic and established (or at least properly enacted) law.