Judge Rules To Reveal Anonymous Blogger's Identity Over Insults 271
Several readers have written to tell us of a ruling in the New York Supreme Court which will allow model Liskula Cohen to find out the identity of an anonymous blogger who posted some of her photos with captions including the words "psychotic," "skank," and "ho." The site was part of Blogger.com, and Google has already complied with a request for the author's IP address and email. "[Cohen's attorney] said that once his legal team tracks the e-mail address to a name, the next step will be to sue Cohen's detractor for defamation. He said he suspected the creator of the blog is an acquaintance of Cohen. The blog has not been operational for months. The unidentified creator of the blog was represented in court by an attorney, Anne Salisbury, who said her client voluntarily took the blog down when Cohen initiated legal action against it. ... the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line. 'The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions.'"
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this anonymous poster isn't so anonymous. Maybe she suspects that it's someone she knows (ex boyfriend, ex friend, stalker, etc). If said person was harassing her in other ways as well, perhaps this could be the straw that broke the camel's back and can allow something to be done about it (such as a TRO).
Publicity stunt (Score:1, Insightful)
I strongly suspect this is a last-ditch, desperate publicity ploy by a second-rate has-been model.
No matter what, bring on the Streisand effect!
Slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
But in this case, I don't think it is the case. Putting "SKANK" on a picture of a model is no different than putting "SOCIALIST" on Obama's picture. I believe both should be covered by the 1st amendment. Google should have gone to bat for the blogger.
I didn't see the guys blog so I can't say, but unless the blog contained more than just pictures with editorial descriptions, this ruling should be reversed.
Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho. (Score:4, Insightful)
So sue me.
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the desire to protect individuals from slander and libel on the net. It's unfortunate that a potential audience of six billion people can see some horrendous things asserted about you no matter who you are, by anybody with a grudge or any nutjob who just doesn't like you because you turned them down or... any other reason imaginable.
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure. There is a big difference if I call your sister a slutty skank (by name, no less) on the internet versus calling Kate Moss a slutty skank.
Clearly this is an unfair action/ruling, but at the same time, I understand that it's a complex situation because when you're the one being ripped apart for no reason on the internet (especially if you're a nobody) where it will be indexed by search engines and archived forever by services and viewable by every potential friend, date, employer, and so on for eternity... it must completely suck.
The problem is two ideals here that seemingly can not exist and be re-enforced together. Presumably, one must win-out in the long run.
Should have went to LAW school. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow it must be nice to be able to force people to do whatever you want. If I could file a lawsuit to force slashdot to reveal the IP and email of every user that has ever insulted me and then sue them for 5000 each I'd be a very rich and happy man...
Should have went to law school....or had a wealthy mommy and daddy... or become an actor....
Decency Trumps Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
And Civilization lurches slightly forward.
Lookit, you want to call Bush a Nazi Warmonger or Obama an Incompetent Puppet, or speak any kind of Truth to Power, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you on the ramparts in defense of your Freedom to Speak, you're a Patriot. You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.
The Internet has changed many things, but it has not changed everything.
Meet the new media : like old media (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if this is indeed the right way to go about it. I figure that if you're famous enough, there's going to be loads of fora - public and semi-private, mind you - stuffed with defamatory comments. I figure you should just ignore it, set up your own blog, and only react if people really seem to be getting wrong ideas - but then, do so with honesty and integrity on your own blog. Insert a good troll filter so people can comment and avoid the trolls. There's always gonna be shortsighted individuals who'll gripe anything or anyone, whether that person / thing is known to them personally or not. Let 'em rot in their own juices - they'll either shower eventually or rot away, and in the latter case they're hardly worth anyone's time. Also, this avoids Streisand effects and means that anyone seriously interested in what you have to say about something will refer to your blog and not some random forum; the news sites already do so. Just keep on truckin', apologise if you're wrong, react calmly and clearly when you're right, and let the lawyers stay at home.
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
The two ideals really are opposite, but I think the court is a decent method of finding a middle ground. Sometimes anonimity is more important, sometimes privacy is.
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that you are my ex-girlfriend stalker that has been harassing me for months and I feel that your post is an intentional attack at me and my public image so as such I am now going to sue to get your IP, email and identity.
Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
In my view, we should now preface everything we say with "I think" or "In my opinion". I think. In my opinion, we would then be immune from such lawsuits, which I think are idiotic. At least that's my opinion. Hereby released into the public domain, in my view.
Legislating "Celebrity" (Score:5, Insightful)
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure.
Is she a celebrity? I've never heard of her. My wife does voice-over work and is a news anchor on a bunch of local radio stations. You've never heard of her, but is she "essentially a public figure" and fair game? I know dozens of people who act in and produce independent films, they're all over IMDB, you've never heard of these performers, but they're professional actors and movie producers. Are they "fair game?"
How many people have to recognize your name before you are a "public figure" and thereby forfeit your right to know the identify of your accusers?
Why some old advice is still very relevant (Score:3, Insightful)
The lesson here is simple: Whether you are a "whistle blower" of government or business abuse, a "wannabe" revealer of crime sources, or (apparently in this case) someone who desires to slander, libel, or otherwise defame someone without justification, you will remain anonymous only until someone in authority decides otherwise.
For those in this forum who use other examples of people who appear to have successfully used web anonymity, be cautious before drawing premature conclusions. After all, in any given case, who is to say that someone who thinks they have been anonymous for the last five years is not merely in the middle of a 6 to 10 year investigation that includes secret monitoring by federal authorities?
In the end, the old advice still stands, "do not post anything that you would not want attributed to you on the evening news at the worst possible time and with the most unkind possible bias."
Re:Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho. (Score:3, Insightful)
> There are no privacy rights related to free speech
Actually there are. It's a dangerous and destructive thing to try and claim otherwise.
This ranks right down there with the notion that audio CD's imply some sort of license.
When I see a blog attacking a single person... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AC Apology to a One Robert Malda (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree.
I strongly believe the producing an internet-specific version of libel/slander would re-invigorate the paradigm, enable a net-new market, and actualize synergies of cross-medium defamation that would allow a best-of-breed convergence of mission-critical turnkey insult infomediaries while recontextualizing frictionless compelling channels.
Re:Decency Trumps Anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)
What damage to her reputation? Do you really think that a movie director or fashion show manager is going to be looking for a model and turn her down because some random, tiny, once updated blog calls her a skanky ho? If I were looking for a model and saw that I wouldn't think anything of it, if I saw that she was a litigious, self-righteous pain in the ass (as evidenced by her overreaction to said blog), that would make me think twice about hiring her.
If someone is posting false information that actually damages a persons reputation then sure, but this does not qualify.
Re:Decency Trumps Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
"I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is being replaced with "I do not agree with what you say and I'll sue you to death for my right to suppress it"
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
What possible difference does it make whether the subject is a public figure or not? All are supposed to be equal under the law. Heaven help us if we actually start having separate laws for celebrities.
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the Streisand effect was the desired outcome in this case. For many celebs, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Any publicity is good.
Ex-model (Score:4, Insightful)
She's in the miserable position of being a 36-year old second-tier ex-model. That's tough.
Modeling is a low-paying job, except at the top. The top 100 models make real money. The next 500 models do about as well as a successful office worker. Below that, nobody is making real money. The pay is high during work, but there are long dry spells. It's like acting in that respect. In LA, you meet broke actress/model/waitress types so often that it's a cliche.
The work isn't really that much fun, either. Most models aren't doing fashion shows; they're doing catalogs and ads. "OK, next is dress DL-3342, blue, and hurry it up, we have fifty more to shoot before lunch."
Re:Decency Trumps Anonymity (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but that's not correct. I can call anyone names that I like. Whether they're "public figures" is not relevant. Are you seriously suggesting that every child on a playground or everyone who has had an unflattering opinion about someone that they've shared is looking at a potential valid lawsuit? I can say that I think Tiger Woods is a slut, but not your mom, because you'll sue? That's ridiculous.
More frightening than violations of free speech are willful misunderstandings about free speech.
Now, harassment is a different issue. But calling someone names or otherwise giving your impression and opinion of them alone is absolutely justified and acceptable. Combine that with other elements of harassment, and it may be a completely different beast. I'm completely willing to concede that calling me names and saying you think I'm a fuckwad asshole is fine while if you're posting that online *and* you're spending your weekends staring at me through my living room window as you stand just off of my driveway with binoculars while sniffing my used underwear and rummaging through my garbage can may be a major legal problem.
And that is what we're missing here. It's bullshit to say there's anything legally wrong with saying ANYONE is a skanky ho - public figure or not. But if there are other compelling elements that the Judge and her legal representation have that the rest of us do not, it is just possible this whole thing could be justified.
Re:Legislating "Celebrity" (Score:5, Insightful)
EVERYONE is a public figure.
Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago, is a public figure.
Late retired Chicago Fire Department Commissioner Rober J. Quinn was a public figure.
My father was Quinn's right hand man... Is HE a public figure?
My father also helped organize the Chicago Firefighter strike of '78
What about the other firemen that were at my house? They're public servents, doesn't that make them public figures?
I was in a few plays and musicals in college, does that make ME a public figure? (or gay? no, definitely not gay!)
What about anyone who posts in a public forum? Are THEY public figures?
Are you catching my drift?
Re:Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho. (Score:3, Insightful)
The judge can only reveal the identity of the blogger in the case that there's an actionable offence. If you believe in freedom of speech, then there is no actionable offence. Therefore, the judge can only reveal the blogger's identity if there is no freedom of speech.
At least, in my opinion.
Anonymous defamation is not a right, full stop. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever right you may think you have to anonymity -- a dubious concept, just because you're used to it doesn't make it law -- it comes to an end when you defame someone. If you want to be anonymous, then behave yourself. Otherwise, man up and take responsibility for your actions.
Anonymity is valuable in repressive regimes and when people need certain kinds of assistance -- like gay teenagers or people seeing advice about venereal diseases. But most of the time, it's pernicious.
Re:It's people like you that make this a bad rulin (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that is pretty much the way American law is, and also the way American law should be (IMHO); and the important arbiter of the disagreement is truth. If she is, in fact, a skanky ho, then that will be demonstrated in court, and the skanky ho will lose. If she is not, in fact, a skanky ho, and that can be demonstrated, then the slanderer has in fact diminished her reputation, and is liable for that indecency. Furthermore, the law only begins to apply at sufficiently egregious degrees of speech, which will also have to be demonstrated to the judge. That is how it is, and how it should be (IMHO). Do you think it should be different? If so, do you think there should be no line at all (all slander is permissible) or do you think the line should be drawn somewhere else?
Re:Defamation isn't a crime, it's a civil violatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
In the court order, the judge specifically states that impugnment of her chastity is the reason for granting the order.
However, if she's a public-figure then it need be proven that it was done with actual malice, and not simply negligently.
I find it more interesting that if you say that impugning the chastity of a woman is always wrong, what kind of insults can you hurl at her? All general insults for women are rooted in impugning the woman's chastity. Namely, "bitch" "ho" "skank" "slut"... the general insults of "jerk" "asshole" and "fucker" rarely are applied to women.
To me, it takes more than simply using a word that is rooted in impugning the woman's chastity in order to actually impugn her chastity. One has to specifically specify that one believes that she is unchaste. Simply calling someone a "slut" often is not intended to be a statement of fact that she is unchaste... it's simply the insults that our language affords for women.