People post here using screen names rather than their real names. But they are people just the same. The screen name is really not material. It is people who are subject to the TOS, not screen names. The screen names provide a degree anonymity, which is desirable for many online forums, but does not change that the screen name represents the person behind it. As Shakespeare stated so eloquently in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II:
"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By Any Other Name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.”
In short, I think you are straining to make a difference where there is none. The TOS do not expressly prevent a person who was banned from the forum from returning using another screen name. As a technical matter than ban simply prevents the person from logging in using the one screen name. But the moderators could, should they choose, ban you by IP address or take other actions to prevent you from using this regardless of screen name.
To say there is a person behind a post, well, show me the person.
Maybe we should be asking 'what is the definition of a person?' My very basic definition of a person is someone who can be seen, touched and identified. We have none of those qualities as we post here. Screen-name people are nothing more than etheric, anonymous thought patterns...using little tiny fingertips.
Sure there is. For example, if I were to defame someone on a post using my screen name rather than my real name you don't seriously think that would give me a good defense in the defamation suit, do you? No matter which name I choose to make the defaming statement, I'm still the person who made it and would be liable for that.
That's not because there is no real person connected with the screen name. It would be that you have not caused my reputation any harm.
Again, I did not mean to say a person is not behind a screen name. A person is behind it. However, a person must be first indentifed by name in order for him to be defamed. No connection, no defamation. The reason there's no connection is because TM is not you. It is false ID, or an undiscoverable alias.That's not because there is no real person connected with the screen name. It would be that you have not caused my reputation any harm.
Of course I gave a different scenario to make my point. There is indeed a link between the screen name and the person behind it.
Well, that's progress. What you said earlier is:
And my example proves that there is. I cannot defame someone using my screen and avoid liability for that because there is in fact an associative connection between me and my screen name. I would be the one sued for that, not my screen name. You are being very selective in your example to try to say there is no connection, but it takes just the one example I've made to show that there is a connection.
Note: I don't tweet so I don't know for certain, but I think tweeting, texting, email, billboards and ads are not anonymously written so they do not count. I am referring to what we do here where comments come from the ether world. Specifically: If someone here goes off on Kim Kardashian. Would she prevail in showing damages and winning in a slander suit against one of us? If so, show me when that has happened in a similar, truly anonymous platform?
And this link is OLD. I'm sure there are ones with more up to date info but there were already successful cases in 2001.