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.'"
Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
For once, it's worth reading TFA until the end, when you find out: that the blog had "minuscule" traffic, it was taken down as soon as the lawsuit was filed, and it only had 5 posts all written in one day. Basically the blog was dead.
Sure, as a public figure, it's never fun to be insulted on the Internet (ask Mike Arrington if you don't believe me). But this didn't seem to warrant a full-fledged lawsuit.
--
Calling all indie iPhone developers: fair and open [fairsoftware.net] app crowdsourcing
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).
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.
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe this guy.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07312008/news/regionalnews/bar_goons_smash_and_slash_past_122359.htm [nypost.com]
The Manhattan doorman charged with hurling glasses at a woman's face at the Hudson Hotel served a month in jail for horribly disfiguring a top model by smashing a bottle across her cheek at a posh club last year.
Samir Dervisevic, 25, got into a drinking-tossing dust-up with model Liskula Cohen at Ultra on West 26th Street on Jan. 14, 2007, that ended when he cracked a bottle of vodka across her face, she tearfully recalled yesterday.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No offense, but you could be hiding Osama bin Laden in your house, we should check there. He could have an atom bomb and the Lindbergh baby. I demand to know who kannibal_klown is to justify my belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The fact that she is attempting to sue someone because she was insulted in the Internet is plenty of proof for all three.
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
This model was on Good Morning America today, she knew the woman a little bit. Here [go.com] is more of the story.
"Thank God it was her... she's an irrelevant person in my life," Cohen said. "She's just somebody that, whenever I would go out to a restaurant, to a party in New York City ... she was just that girl that was always there."
Re: (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 cal
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The two ideals really are opposi
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, news anchor is a public figure. A CEO of a large company is a public figure. A journalist is a public figure. A radio DJ or talk show host is a public figure. A model is a public figure pretty much by definition. Of... you know.. modeling stuff... to the public... to get attention... for a company or product.
She may not be Elle McPhereson, but she's still a model. The same way a radio host is a public figure, even if they're not Howard Stern.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Legislating "Celebrity" (Score:4, Funny)
My father also helped organize the Chicago Firefighter strike of '78 ... we had hundreds of firemen in our house on any given night
Isn't that against code?
Re: (Score:2)
She may not be Elle McPhereson, but she's still a model. The same way a radio host is a public figure, even if they're not Howard Stern.
Great! Because I think RobotRunAmok's wife's voiceovers on the news make her sound like *such* a slutty skank! Now I can say so with impunity!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm ... maybe we should disallow people from saying "actor/actress in someobscurefilm sucks bad"!?
Gimme a break!
Saying only "skank" over anybody is so lame that the judge should have thrown the case out immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on context. The local town newspaper could probably get away with calling many more a "public figure" in the community than the New York Times. People that have put themselves in the spotlight rather than being dragged into a public role have a weaker case. Pretty much anyone in the entertainment industry trying to catch exposure end up a public figure pretty quick, which probably applies for a model. Probably not by just walking down a catwalk or appearing in an ad, but once you start
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you that her being a skank or otherwise is simply opinion and obviously so. If something is defamatory and portrayed as objective fact then you may have something to cry about. Eg "she's a skank, she was outside in the trash giving a blowjob to a tramp" - if she wasn't then their is something to complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
But anonymous slander and libel were what the internets were invented for!
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Too late, we've had a separate legal standard for "celebrities" (public figures) for over forty years, starting with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967): http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/130/case.html [justia.com]
Re:Was it worth breaking privacy? (Score:4, Informative)
Every Man a Television Station! (Score:2)
Now, every man now can easily be his own television station. A guy with a wireless internet connection in New Zealand can broadcast to Uzbekistan, Iceland, and Santa Barbara.
The quality of that man's Internet TV station, right now, is better than very much TV reception was from the 50s through the 70s. The potential audience is vastly greater than it was then.
The ability of people to hurt other people through defamatory statements hasn't changed over the years. People certainly haven't become less vulner
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a defense of truth will be attempted to determine if in fact she is a skanky ho.
So after the dust settles are the supposed damages more than a penny? Then again maybe skanky hos suffer extreme emotional stress easily or something like that.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as a public figure, it's never fun to be insulted on the Internet (ask Mike Arrington if you don't believe me). But this didn't seem to warrant a full-fledged lawsuit.
She's got more money than she knows what to do with. It's a harassment lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that there is socially redeeming value in being able to publish anonymously predates the internet but at least a couple centuries.
The question is whether or not the current "defamation" issue warrants undermining that.
The "harm" here seems even more nebulous than the usual big media claims.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a fucking "privacy" issue, asshats. Nothing in privacy assures you the right to say whatever you want without anyone knowing it was you who said it. Privacy is a state of being concealed from view. Privacy is the ability to do what you want in your own home, where no one but you and those in your home can see or know it happened. When you go online and say something for everyone in the world to hear, you are no longer private. You are on the internet. The expectation that you should be able to hide who you are on the internet is foolish. Get over your entitlement, fuckwads.
You deserve a +2, Double Irony mod just for making that comment as AC and for throwing insults while you're at it. If I go to a doctor and tell about my medical issues, he might write me a sick notice for work. That I'm on sick leave is pretty much public, but the details of my issue is private. If I post on a forum where I can register with just a pseudonym, my posts are public but my identity is private. If information is being shared beyond the parties I have agreed to or could reasonably expect would be
AC Apology to a One Robert Malda (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we need to coin a new word for defamation on "electronic" media.
Please, no. Given the typical attempts to "Internetize" words, we'll either end up with eSlander or iBel.
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: (Score:2)
I wonder how works of fiction, such as what is posted in 4chan, would fit in all this. I say works of fiction as this is the disclaimer posted on top of the page. I presume those anons are fairly safe as long as they don't claim it's reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iBel
Sorry, you can't use the "i" prefix without Apple's permission.
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.
Maybe..maybe not (Score:2)
I believe both should be covered by the 1st amendment. Google should have gone to bat for the blogger.
The body of law that has evolved around the 1st amendment clearly provides different laws to different people depending on their role in society. The most commonly referred to categories are politicians, public figures, and private citizens.
The courts have found that the "public interest" related to finding things out about our politicians is so compelling, that one can say or publish almost any falsehood about them without fear of prosecution. The theory here is that the harm to such individuals (Can
Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho. (Score:4, Insightful)
So sue me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Would have been better if you posted as an AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't always call people I don't know bad names on the internet, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis.---The most anonymous man in the world
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're wrong, but if you can provide some information to back up your position I'd be interested to read it.
We (in the US) have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to anonymous free speech.
It's true that there's an important history of anonymous political speech, and it's true that you're free to take steps don and protect your anonymity, but it's not true that the law protects you if someone manages to unmask you.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in the situation where a spurned former lover was sending false statements of fact to people via e-mail.
I wasn't able to pursue any legal action in the matter, despite her actions being clearly unlawful, because there was no way I could show damages, for two reasons:
1. She had such a poor reputation that nobody would believe her, rendering her 'libel-proof'.
2. Even if she wasn't 'libel-proof', at no point was there a negative financial consequence to me as a result of her libel.
This lawsuit will e
proxy sieg heil (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or just add Allegedly after everything you say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_I_Got_News_for_You [wikipedia.org]
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....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
There's a bit of a difference being someone saying "ae1294 is a jackass" (insult) and someone saying "ae1294 touches children" (slander). Whether or not what the blogger did qualifies as a simple insult or active slander is for the courts to decide. Hard to get to that point if the person remains anonymous.
I don't have much sympathy for the blog author anyway. If she had the user agreement she would have known that Google has to respond to a valid subpoena. If she had been smart she would have used a p
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bit of a difference being someone saying "ae1294 is a jackass" (insult) and someone saying "ae1294 touches children" (slander). Whether or not what the blogger did qualifies as a simple insult or active slander is for the courts to decide. Hard to get to that point if the person remains anonymous.
Well G-wiz Shakrai not only did you just insult and slander my person but I bet you didn't check the /. user agreement before doing so...
or be a member of Congress (Score:2)
and use the power of your office to intimidate others.
There are all sorts of way to have power over people but none are as rewarding as having that power because they choose to work for and with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe you should have been a psychotic
Ummm I clearly am a psychotic, check my /. history.. And prepare for YOUR PARENTS TO BE SUED!
New development! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Keep in mind that Bush and Obama are public figures [wikipedia.org] and so therefore are valid targets. So if this model is not
* a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
* a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.
The blogger may have some issues. People's definitions of "skanky ho" vary and anyone presenting their body as most models do may seem like a "skanky ho" to a minor percentage of the population. It should be interesting to watch this case as "whoring" and "willingness to engage in oral sex" are probably pretty hard to identify when the blogger is only offering up photos.
Re: (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, ha
Re: (Score:2)
It's people like you that make this a bad ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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 wil
Re: (Score:2)
You called me a "cad", you sir resemble your very insult.
Being unkind, is, well, unkind. But if I have to visit your website for you to be unkind to me then I'll just not bother, simples.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.
Being a cad isn't illegal. How much weight does the public put into name-calling from anonymous hecklers? Practically none. If anything, I'd say that it would carry more authority if the poster had actually signed his name to it, because then a named individual would be signing his name to the fifth-grade insults.
I don't care who you are; someone on the Internet doesn't like you. What can suing them do other than to give their opinions a vastly larger audience?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but asserting that a lady is a "skanky ho" (also, "psychotic") is illegal, if untrue. It's called defamation. Do you want me to Google that for you?
Re: (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
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: (Score:2)
No it's not. Most people didn't agree with the first saying to begin with. There was just 1 really charismatic person that said it, and a few who kept it alive.
Guess what? There are still people who believe that.
It was never the country's motto, whatever you might think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People need to grow some skin. Not everyone in the world likes you and not everyone is going to be nice to you. Calling you a "skanky ho" is not the same thing as falsely posting that contractor did shoddy work or that a politician had sex with you when he really didn't. In those cases there is actual damage being done. Calling someone a "skank", even if they are a model, on an internet forum or blog is par for the course. Get used to it and grow some skin. Hopefully she'll
Re: (Score:2)
No, people need to get some etiquette. It's there to try and make sure that in general, you don't accidentally upset someone you didn't know was actually a psychotic lunatic and would take your head off for no reason.
Suggesting that people "need to get a thick skin" because being rude and obnoxious is fast becoming the norm isn't a solution (hey, there's a hole in the roof. Lets invest in better buckets).
Now if people actually grew a backbone and realised that there's no earthly reason to hide behind semi
Opinion vs. Fact (Score:2)
I was under the impression that it's perfectly legal to state unkind opinions of others. Calling a woman a skank and a ho are matters of opinion, not fact. If you've seen Penn & Teller's Bullshit! you know that they call people "assholes" instead of "liars" for this reason. You can't sue someone for calling you an asshole. I don't see why you should be able to sue someone for calling you a skanky ho either.
Re: (Score:2)
lady
[ citation needed ]
Not quite "Supreme" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Without a citation, I doubted this, but it's true: The New York Supreme Court is indeed a trial court [state.ny.us] and it is trumped by the New York Appellate Courts [state.ny.us]
Struck me as sort of funny (Score:2)
Meet the new media : like old media (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't the Enquirer. This is some person with a copy machine and enough time to plaster those copies around a bit.
The apparent lack of any real damages here seems to make this case ripe for summary dismissal.
Not quite the same (Score:2)
[pedantry] Slander is spoken, a blog post would therefore be libel. [/pedantry]
There is one significant difference between the World Wide Web and traditional media: globalisation. What you describe is a fine comparison if both the victim and libeller reside in say the USA but what would happen here if the blogger was not in the USA, perhaps in a country where there is no first amendment or right to privacy (like say the UK*). Google can provide the IP address, the US Court can authorise the revelation of th
Wow (Score:2)
Before I read this story, I had never even heard of this psychotic skank! That ho should fire her PR guy and hire her lawyer in his place!
Trick-ass bitch.
-Peter
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe since some people want blogs to be credible news sources, that is is an issue?
If a blog is an opinion written by someone then this court ruling should be tossed out.
If a blog is a credible news source then this court ruling is correct and should be carried out.
Pick one you cannot have it both ways. Blogs are opinions or credible news sources. Blogs cannot change from one to the other depending on the situation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a fascinating opinion. The legal fact is, you would not be immune from prosecution.
What matters isn't whether you claim the statement is one of opinion vs. fact. What matters is whether the statement itself conveys a matter of opinion or a matter of fact.
I do believe that the vast majority of ideas you might want to express can be framed properly as an opinion, but starting your sentence with "it is my opinion" isn't enough to keep you safe.
"It is my opinion that John Smith is a terrible businessma
what if she is a skank (Score:5, Funny)
This is going to be awesome if it goes to court and the court rules that she is, in fact, "a skank".
I can see the T-shirts now ...
Re: (Score:2)
When I see a blog attacking a single person... (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for our Constitution. (Score:3)
Uh, so the jist of this is, someone called someone else some names "out loud" (legal-beagle bullshit between verbal and print aside for a moment), and for some fucking reason this manages to bypass the 1st Amendment?
Uh, anyone else wanna get in line with me to bitch-slap the shit out of this legal ruling all the way back to 1964?
Give me a fucking break. I'd like to find the moron twitness they're going to bring in to give me the "legal" definition to prove she's NOT a "Skank" or "Ho". What, are they going to consult the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia as a reference for those, or does Webster stand as a more definitive source? If she's fucked more than 3 guys this year, does that qualify as "Ho" status, or does she need a pimp? Then again, don't all models have a "pimp" of some kind anyway?
Nevermind the fact that she's a model, and therefore should legally fall under "public figure" with regards to libel/slander/defamation. However, if she would prefer NOT to be a public figure, keep pushing, and I'm sure you'll manage to burn all your bridges for model work in the future.
Fuck, seems my sig manages to ring true every day...
Cry me a river (Score:2)
Come ON, people! First they create the 'crime' of cyber-bullying, now you can't have a negative opinion of someone without it becoming something you can sue someone in civil court over?
When I was growing up, you were considered a loser if you went crying to an authority figure because some other kids were calling you names. We're talking about adults here, peopl
It's times like this when... (Score:2)
I am reminded of this [wikipedia.org]
Granted that case is more about emotional distress than "defamation of character", but since I hadn't even heard of her and I had heard of Falwell... well how defamed can this chick really be? If someone in her industry really believed little bits of bullshit on a blog and didn't hire her, then maybe. Can you be subject of libel or slander if it doesn't cause you any damage?
Obviously IANAL
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."
History (Score:4, Informative)
Cohen had her face face slashed in a bar [foxnews.com] a couple of years ago (also here [nypost.com]). My guess would be that this lawsuit was an effort to find out if the same guy was after her again.
There's a little more to this than anonymous insults on the Internet, and in this case it is probably justifiable to reveal the blogger's identity. Ideally, the police would look into it and determine whether or not the blogger is a threat (without making his identity public), but they likely do not have time to investigate anonymous Internet insults.
Anonymity is a Useful Tool for Good and Evil (Score:2)
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: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 in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Publicity stunt (Score:5, Funny)
What a cunning stunt it is indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering about this myself. By bringing attention to this random blog apparently nobody reads, this model I've never heard of will now be the laughingstock of the internet for a few weeks. I saw this on the morning news on my way out the door, and I'm just amazed people still don't really understand how the internet actually works.
They kept talking about how they're trying to set the precedent that anonymity is not a shield against libel, as if this trial would magically end all anonymity on the enti
Re: (Score:2)
"But in order for people to truly have "free speach", we need to be given true anonymity unconditionally."
"Free speach"(sic) has always stopped at slander, libel, and yelling fire in crowded theaters. If you don't do these things then you have no fear of having your identity revealed. However, if you walk down that road, then you risk letting courts decide your culpability, anonymous or not. You should not be free to knowingly publish lies about someone else, especially when those lies seriously harm som