Chatroom Laws

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does anyone know if it is illegal to post a person's name, address, and phone number on a public website if their information can be found in the whitepages on the internet and they were the ones that gave their real name in a chatroom?

Also, can you post their picture on a public site if they posted the picture on their Yahoo ID profile?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,449 • Replies: 10

No top replies

Re: Chatroom Laws

Arella Mae wrote:

Does anyone know if it is illegal to post a person's name, address, and phone number on a public website if their information can be found in the whitepages on the internet and they were the ones that gave their real name in a chatroom?

It can be depending on the context. Furthermore the consequences of actions that are not illegal can still result in a civil suit and liability.

Quote:

Also, can you post their picture on a public site if they posted the picture on their Yahoo ID profile?

Do you own the rights to the picture? If I wanted to prevent someone from posting my picture it'd be copyright law that I'd go through, not a privacy issue.

0 Replies

Scenario: There is a website that exposes chatroom bullies. One particular chatroom bully has stated many times their real name, husband's name, the fact that they are a pastor, where they live, the name of their church, and the radio station they broadcast on. In this instance, would it be illegal to post that information on the website that exposes chatroom bullies?

Doesn't the fact that they are a radio personality, however inconsequential, make them a public figure?

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Scenario: There is a website that exposes chatroom bullies. One particular chatroom bully has stated many times their real name, husband's name, the fact that they are a pastor, where they live, the name of their church, and the radio station they broadcast on. In this instance, would it be illegal to post that information on the website that exposes chatroom bullies?

It still depends on the context (e.g. any claims made about them). Posting someone's contact information online itself is a bigger moral question than a legal one in my opinion.

Quote:

Doesn't the fact that they are a radio personality, however inconsequential, make them a public figure?

You are at least on the right track by considering laws on defamation of character.

Look, here's my internet-forum grade legal advice to you:

My take is that you can (and likely would) get away with what it sounds like you want to do.

My take is also that you could possibly have legal liability for what it sounds like you want to do.

Lastly, I don't think you can get much more definitive an answer from this medium and a good lawyer would probably just tell you that the least risky approach is to avoid it (doubt that the lawyer would give a yes or no answer to this kind of question).

0 Replies

I am not asking about me posting information on the site. I was asking because someone else posted information on the site and I was curious about it.

I have done a bit of research since posting this thread. I am providing some interesting links. I do believe though that posting the picture is definitely wrong (possible copyright infringement) and will inform the webmaster on that site.

Thank you for replying! I greatly appreciate it.

http://www.abanet.org/forums/communication/comlawyer/fall99/hunter.html
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/
http://penangtalk.com/netlaws/netlaws.html

0 Replies

That makes me much more comfortable replying!

As to the picture, if that webmaster scaled down the resolution he probably could defend against the copyright approach with a fair use defense.

0 Replies

Hard to say (BTW, good morning to both of you), but cobbling together publicly available information is generally not going to be a problem except when it puts someone in a bad light or if a copyright is violated.

Truth is a defense to defamation laws, and also to false light (false light is a weird tort and hard to prove, but it may apply here) issues. The Webmaster could potentially be on the hook if it's found that he or she should have exercised due care before allowing postings to remain (probably not for allowing postings in the first place, but for allowing them to remain is another matter entirely). I don't think the ISP would be on the hook but I'm not sure under the Communications Decency Act, Section 230.

This is an area that I know I'd like to be more familiar with. Good questions.

0 Replies

Well, I vaguely recall that an anti-abortion group posted the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions on its website. One of the named doctors sued, and won a judgment in federal district court. But that judgment was overturned on appeal. Anyone recall that case? It might provide an answer to Arella Mae's question about the propriety of posting names and addresses on the internet.

0 Replies

Thank everyone for their replies. I contacted the webmaster and he felt that the pictures were perfectly legal, but took them off on the side of safety's sake.

The site claims that they only post information that is VERIFIABLE and true. They say that if any information is proved a lie it will be posted that it is a lie.

It's a very interesting site and it has helped clear up an issue that I had about someone telling a lie about my cat shelter. I was asking about the picture because a woman that was "exposed" as a religious chatroom bully seems to be having a bloody fit.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, I vaguely recall that an anti-abortion group posted the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions on its website. One of the named doctors sued, and won a judgment in federal district court. But that judgment was overturned on appeal. Anyone recall that case? It might provide an answer to Arella Mae's question about the propriety of posting names and addresses on the internet.

That would be Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists.

I'd have to go back and reread the rulings but I think the clincher was that the WWW site in question included a "call to action" which was interpreted as inciting viewers to kill (or attempt to kill) the doctors listed.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

That would be Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists.

I'd have to go back and reread the rulings but I think the clincher was that the WWW site in question included a "call to action" which was interpreted as inciting viewers to kill (or attempt to kill) the doctors listed.

Thanks for the link, fishin, but, for some strange reason, none of those cases are the en banc decision on that case. This site contains both the majority and dissenting opinions.

In a nutshell, the doctors won in the district court, lost on appeal, but then won when the entire 9th Circuit heard the case. And you're right, the case really revolves around whether or not the publication of the doctors' names and home addresses constituted a "true threat" under the terms of the statute. So it's largely inapplicable to the situation Arella Mae described.

0 Replies

Chatroom Laws

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know