Several months ago, we reported on the efforts of the Paris Regional Medical Center to squelch criticism of its practices, by asking the courts to identify the anonymous blogger(s) who had dared to question them [ed: nice run-on sentence, Prof].
Well, according to The Paris (TX) News, the "6th Court of Appeals in Texarkana Tuesday issued a stay of 62nd District Court Judge Scott McDowell’s order for internet service provider SuddenLink to reveal the identity to the court."
It's only a brief reprieve, however, because "the Court of Appeals granted a stay of the disclosure until Wednesday, Oct. 24. At that time oral arguments from both sides are to be heard to determine whether the information should be revealed."
This poses somewhat of a dilemna for me: as a blogger, I can choose to post anonymously (or not), knowing that my privacy is maintained. On the other hand, anonymity can also be a shield protecting one from the consequences of malicious or inaccurate posts. It's a delicate balance, and I can actually see both sides of this.
My natural inclination is to side with my fellow blogger (after all, at IB we've often been critical of insurers and providers), but if the information the blog put forth was indeed obtained illegally (as has been alleged), then it seems to me that justice is better served if that cloak of anonymity is removed.
Well, according to The Paris (TX) News, the "6th Court of Appeals in Texarkana Tuesday issued a stay of 62nd District Court Judge Scott McDowell’s order for internet service provider SuddenLink to reveal the identity to the court."
It's only a brief reprieve, however, because "the Court of Appeals granted a stay of the disclosure until Wednesday, Oct. 24. At that time oral arguments from both sides are to be heard to determine whether the information should be revealed."
This poses somewhat of a dilemna for me: as a blogger, I can choose to post anonymously (or not), knowing that my privacy is maintained. On the other hand, anonymity can also be a shield protecting one from the consequences of malicious or inaccurate posts. It's a delicate balance, and I can actually see both sides of this.
My natural inclination is to side with my fellow blogger (after all, at IB we've often been critical of insurers and providers), but if the information the blog put forth was indeed obtained illegally (as has been alleged), then it seems to me that justice is better served if that cloak of anonymity is removed.
Posts
