Whether offensive nature of anonymous comments on the social networks is sufficient reason to limit the right to privacy?

Šio darbo tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti, kokiais atvejais, įžeidimas socialinių tinklų anoniminiuose komentaruose, gali būti laikomas pakankamu pagrindu, norint atskleisti anonimo tapatybę. Pagrindinis dėmesys buvo skiriamas asmens anonimiškumo teisei, jos reglamentavimui, apsaugai bei ribojimui. Pasitelkus aprašomąjį, aiškinamąjį analizės metodą, pirmoje dalyje buvo siekta išsiaiškinti ar apskritai teisė į anonimiškumą egzistuoja. Išsiaiškinus, kad anonimiškumas tai tarsi įrankis, padedantis asmenims įgyvendinti saviraiškos bei privatumo teises, antroje dalyje pritaikius saviraiškos teisės ribojimo pagrindus kaip analogiją, analizuojami atvejai, kuriais anonimo asmenybės atskleidimas yra pagrįstas. Siekiant išsiaiškinti kokie komentarai laikomi įžeidžiančiais, trečiojoje dalyje, analizuojami įvairūs faktoriai, lemiantys tokią jų prigimtį, be to, aiškinamasi, ar tie patys standartai yra taikomi internetinei ir tradicinei kalbai bei analizuojama, kaip tam tikras žodžių junginys turėtų būti suprastas tam tikroje erdvėje. Be to, visame darbe buvo naudojamas lyginamasis metodas, kuriuo nagrinėjama, kaip asmens saviraiškos, privatumo bei anonimiškumo teises užtikrina Lietuvos bei užsienio šalių teismai, kokie yra teisinio reglamentavimo panašumai bei skirtumai. Atlikus šį tyrimą, paaiškėjo, kad kol kas tiek Lietuvoje, tiek ir kitose šalyse, anonimiškumo ribojimas nėra aiškiai ir pakankamai sureglamentuotas. Be to, nors JAV ir Europos valstybių požiūris į įžeidžiančius komentarus yra panašus, procedūra atskleidžiant anonimo tapatybę, gerokai skiriasi. Lietuvoje, tapatybės atskleidimo klausimą sprendžia ikiteisminio tyrimo pareigūnai, o JAV – teismas. Tačiau pagrindai, į kuriuos atsižvelgiant atskleidžiama tapatybė ,yra panašūs, EŽTT ir JAV teismai yra išaiškinę, kad svarbiausia yra įsitikinti, jog komentaruose yra pateikiamas įžeidžiantis turinys, pažeidžiantis kitų, suinteresuotų asmenų, teises. Todėl teismas, ar kita institucija, sprendžianti šį klausimą, turi išlaikyti konstitucinių teisių, laisvių ir vertybių pusiausvyra, atsižvelgiant tiek į asmens, parašiusio komentarus elgesį ir tikslus, tiek ir į nukentėjusiajam asmeniui padarytą žalą. Jeigu, bent viena šių teisių bus suabsoliutinta viena kitos atžvilgiu, galima nelygybė ir nepagrįstas žmogaus teisių pažeidimas, Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad Lietuvoje apie anonimo asmenybės atskleidimą nėra jokios teismų praktikos, bei mokslinių straipsnių šia tema, darbe tiriama problema yra aktuali, mažai nagrinėta ir turi praktinę reikšmę.The purpose of this thesis was to investigate when offensive nature of anonymous comments online is considered to be a sufficient reason in order to disclose the identity of the anonymous commentators and limit their right to privacy. Thus, taking into account the fact that in Lithuania there is not yet neither legislative, nor judicial practice formed about the procedure for disclosure of the identity of the anonymous commentator, or particular requirements, also, there are no scientific papers on this topic, the theses is relevant, new and has a practical value. It is important to understand when the comment is offensive, and when the anonymous author’s of that offensive comment identity can be disclosed. The object of this research – is a content of the normative and non-normative legal standards that are governing the right to privacy and are setting limits of the persons’ privacy in the case of anonymous comments. In the first part of this paper, the aim is to find out, whether there is a right to anonymity in general, as well as whether it exists on the Internet. The research was based primarily on normative analysis for evaluation of laws and judicial decisions, it was concluded that the right to anonymity is used as a tool to help people freely enjoy their right to expression, and at the same time, the protection of personal privacy. In the United States, the right to anonymity is derived from the freedom of speech, which is established in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but there is nothing mentioned about privacy, while in Europe, the right to anonymity is derived from the right to self-expression, as well as the right to privacy. In the nascence of the Internet, another platform for self-expression also occurred, which, as the U.S. courts have established, is quite the same as other forms of communication, therefore it should be a subject of protection exactly the same as the traditional forms of communication, giving the same rights to express yourself anonymously on the Internet. In Europe, the right to speak anonymously on the Internet is established by European Union legislation. In the second part, explanatory descriptive analysis was used to examine the cases where there is a possibility to limit human rights, also, analyses the Lithuanian judicial practice and laws and compares it to other countries, seeking to find out what procedure is required, when injured persons are trying to disclose identities of anonymous commentators. In the course of this research it was found out that a person in Lithuania is subject to criminal and civil liability for personal defamation and libel. If a person founds out that anonymous comments are degrading his honour and dignity, then he has the right to apply to the Police where a pre-trial investigation will be started. If it turns out, that the anonymous comments are offensive by their nature in compliance with the features provided for in the Criminal Code of Lithuanian Republic, the anonymous commentator’s identity will be disclosed to the victim, and it is the victim’s discretion whether to start a private criminal prosecution against a commentator or to file a civil action claiming for damages. Meanwhile, in the United States, in order to disclose the identity of an anonymous commentator, victims should primarily file a suit with a court requesting to disclose the identity of a commentator. Only when a court discloses the identity of an anonymous commentator, the suit will be considered. Nevertheless, a uniform court practice, which could be the basis for passing judgements, is not yet developed up to now. However, despite the fact that there is no uniform case law dealing with this issue, it should be noted that the person's right to anonymity in the U.S. is much more protected than in Lithuania. Procedures of disclosure of the identity of an anonymous commentator through the court secure person’s right to privacy and self-expression much more stronger for when a question of disclosure of his identity is under investigation, the commentator can submit certain counterarguments, while in Lithuania, pre-trial investigation officers decide on their own whether to disclose the anonymous commentator’s identity or not, considering only victim’s arguments. It is important to mention, that upon trying the case of offence the court may acquit an offender, yet his right to privacy, expression and anonymity will be already compromised, because the identity is already disclosed. The third part examines three main factors that are important in determining whether the nature of online comments is offensive or defamatory. First, it was established that it is necessary to ascertain the content of the comment - whether it is a personal opinion, criticism, facts of some kind of information or news. In order a comment would be recognized as degrading a person’s honour and dignity, it should contain false facts about a particular person trying to embarrass, humiliate, and attack the targeted person and so on. The second factor that should be noted is the context in which the comment was written. Scholars and courts develop a theory that there are lots of different online platforms and each of them is characterized by different properties and characteristics of the content, therefore comments written in one website may sound as offensive, whereas in others, the characteristics of offensive comment disappears considering the full web page context. And the third factor is the need to pay attention whether a victim is a public or private person for criticism of public persons has wider limits than the one of private persons, therefore they have to meet higher standards in order the identity of anonymous commentator would be disclosed to them. Thus, the hypothesis that a person's right to privacy may be limited and the identity of an anonymous commentator can be disclosed when the content of anonymous comments is offensive, is confirmed and proved in the course of this research.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta