"'Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,' the court wrote."
The two issues are distinct, but they are often carelessly merged, to the detriment of both issues.
I've been rolling around issues like this. I'd like to post my complete reasoning someday, but for now, consider this. I think that yes, we do have the right to not have to identify ourselves on a message board. I also think that no particular message board is obligated to allow people to remain anonymous.
Free speech or cyber-slander?: "The chatters claim a First Amendment right to post messages on electronic bulletin boards using pseudonyms. They have scored some success in challenging attempts to pry loose their identities from Internet service providers."
"Bennett, the Texas Webmaster, said the controversy demonstrates that companies need to do a better job quelling the public's fears about privacy.
From C|Net: Are Security Fears Running Ahead Of Reality? Funny, I would think a better title would be "Why Aren't People Worried About Security?" Consider this quote from the end of the article:
Also, note the cluelessness exhibited by the responders (in true Slashdot fashion): "Does this mean NBC be suing [sic] SONY soon because it's not easy to remove that 'SONY' logo on my TV and remote? The SONY logo isn't inside the TV frame, but then, neither were iCrave's banners..." It's amazing how many people seriously believe that "bound together on a single web site" and "in one person's field of vision" are semantically identical relationships... I suppose this person believes his TV remote to be an integral part of the TV signal. (Another failed argument-by-metaphor... I've really gotta write that one up for this site.)
If he's for real, that's exactly what I was objecting to as well. Adding the advertising on top of it was what this was about, not the re-broadcasting per se. Communication modification.
"Anyway, the problem with iCrave was that they didn't make it easy enough to remove their advertising banners. If they had had a button to turn them off then we would have had no case because then they wouldn't have forced anyone to view their added material."
iCraveTV update: An interesting post at Slashdot emerged, claiming to be from "a media consultant for a major American network."