I have always been of the opinion that if a blogger is going to say something, they should do so under their real name. Hiding under a "nom de plume," or hiding behind any form of anonymity may be legally protected (except in cases such as this), but it renders anything that the blogger has to say moot.
Simply put, if someone truly believes in what they are saying, they say it under their real name, and accept the consequences. Now, this blogger will find that hiding behind the cloak of anonymity will not protect them.
Sheamus
· 3 months ago
I concur. I believe absolutely in free speech but unless your regime is hostile to this (i.e., North Korea or China, say) then if you're going to say something, have the balls to say it with your real name/account.
Anonymity on the internet, except where necessary for personal protection, is a plague. And while I don't really like the idea of courts forcing Google (or anyone else) to give up people's identities, I very much doubt this critic would have been quite so forthcoming if they were using their real identity to begin with.
If you want to be anonymous, fine - just don't expect your comment to be given equal weight (or to even be posted). As social and 'old' media continues to blend I believe that you'll see less and less anonymous commentary in blogs, news portals, etc, as more and more of them implement verification protocols and require a user to be logged-in to post. Of course there will still be all-anonymous communities, and that's fine. But increasingly, rarely the twain shall meet.
Phil
· 3 months ago
OK, first of all, I seriously doubt that your real name is "thetruthhurtsya," which logically means that you don't believe in what you're saying, since you didn't use your real name.
Second, anonymous commentary has a long and storied history in this country, beginning with but not limited to The Federalist, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, but originally published collectively and attributed to "Publius." Did that render Jay's, Hamilton's and Madison's arguments concerning ratification of the Constitution moot? Do you really want to make that argument?
If not for an anonymous source referred to as "Deep Throat," the US might never have discovered the truth concerning the crimes of the Nixon administration.
emily_wk
· 3 months ago
Anonymous commentary also has a long and storied history in YouTube comments, where things are "for fags" and "fucking retarded" and you should "shut the fuck up" if you disagree. I have cleaned up the spelling and grammar there so as not to offend. Do you really want to make the argument that those are meaningful?
Probably not. Just like the person you're responding to didn't make the argument that there is no value in anonymity. Notice how they specified bloggers? Deepthroat.blogspot.com is in trouble. Deep Throat not so much.
pfuse
· 3 months ago
I will put up with all of the "for fags", "fucking retarded", and "stfu" comments if it preserves the rights of free and anonymous speech. As a matter of fact, nearly any person who has served in our military has demonstrated that THEY are willing to die for it.
emily_wk
· 3 months ago
Dude, free speech is something I can get behind. You're missing the point. You took the most noble examples of anonymous speech and shook that in the face of the person you were responding to.
Free speech means free from government retribution. It means I can say that I hate the president if I want to. It does NOT mean I can threaten the life of another person and except to be kept anonymous by my ISP or other service provider. Or are we supposed to keep safe the privilege of threatening people's lives and otherwise breaking the law?
Ryan
· 3 months ago
Are you really trying to compare The Federalist and Deep Throat to this blogger?
thetruthhurtsya
· 3 months ago
Well, if you bothered to check (and you obviously didn't), you'd see that my profile does in fact contain my real name and a link to my Web site. There's nothing wrong with a handle, and I practice what I preach by adding my real name to my profile. I realize that may be too hard for you to understand, cupcake, but there it is.
Calamity
· 3 months ago
thrtruthhurtsya, what of people who are in danger if they use their real name? Eg: spreading simply the truth about certain organisations can make you a target for life ruination.
thetruthhurtsya
· 3 months ago
Well, retaliation is no excuse. If you feel strongly enough about whatever you have to say, you use your real name. It's just that simple.
Signed,
Michael Crook
nom de plume
· 3 months ago
Your comment suck.
normsy
· 3 months ago
People blog anonymously because, for example, their employees may not approve of their personal views.
thetruthhurtsya
· 3 months ago
If someone's employer would have a problem with what they're posting, perhaps they shouldn't post it.
Brad F.
· 3 months ago
I guess you don't truly believe what you're saying then, since you're using a "nom de plume" yourself, and it must not really matter.
thetruthhurtsya
· 3 months ago
Once again, my profile carries my real name.
K N Ajit Narayan
· 3 months ago
Not sure if judge Madden's decision was right or not. But if everyone starts getting sued for negative comments, the lawyers will surely make a lot of money :)
jamesdotlane
· 3 months ago
Deformation is deformation. The Internet is no longer a place to hide. If you choose to make comments about other people, that is course your decision, but there are consequences. This blogger will now have to face those consequences.
No sympathy I'm afriad. (S)He brought it on them self.
Devina
· 3 months ago
If you feel the need to speak with authority on the subject, I suggest you use the term "defamation" instead.
Maggie Mayhem
· 3 months ago
this girl is a model right? maybe he thought DEFORMATION would be scarier for her...
jyothiprakash
· 3 months ago
Who knows, we might have a John Doe (Se7en) on our hands!
jamesdotlane
· 3 months ago
Who said I was speaking with authority on the subject? I was expressing my opinion, as openly requested to do so.
I make a mistake and spell words incorrectly, and suddenly you feel the need and right, to criticise this?
Seemingly unnecessary.
Michael
· 3 months ago
You didn't "spell a word wrong". You used the wrong word entirely. The truth is, there was a lot of unintended humor in your post because you used the wrong word, but with such importance! LOL.
Just laugh at yourself and move on, rather than becoming indignant.
jamesdotlane
· 3 months ago
Hardly indignant. I simply don't appreciate condescending comments, or people, like 'Devina' [made].
But a fair point to just laugh at myself.
Mike Abundo
· 3 months ago
Your comment is a deformation of the English language.
Maggie Mayhem
· 3 months ago
BWAHAHAHA. ok. I have to stop commenting on this thread or it's going to turn into a chat room war a la Prodigy circa 1992.
nacho
· 3 months ago
what's next? Ahmadinejad forcing Google/Twitter/Facebook to reveal the names about those reporting on the post-election crackdown of opposition in Iran?
TariAkpodiete
· 3 months ago
nacho, that's actually, a VERY good point. this particular case is frivolous, BUT the wider implications are frightening. people - usually Americans - who rant (incorrectly) about free speech forget that in some parts of the world there's no such thing as the right to safely speak out against one's government.
in places like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (America's "friend"), many dictatorships in Africa & South America, not to mention China, speaking one's mind - or being one's self (like gay, for example) can actually get you imprisoned, and or thrown off a roof and even hung, drawn and quartered, by the government.
nacho
· 3 months ago
Cheers, that is exactly my point!
The blogger's comment was out of order and the model taking it seriously is even more frivolous but a judge requesting Google to reveal the identity of the blogger is way out of line.
I know totalitarian goverments have forced Google, Yahoo et al to comply with their repressive laws in their countries but this judgement might set a precedent against civil liberties.
Urziel
· 3 months ago
That was a heck of a comment! +1
Janiece
· 3 months ago
Very good point! I think this just went a little too far.
Les
· 3 months ago
I agree that this might have set a precedent for forcing ISPs and content providers, etc. to reveal the identities of anonymous bloggers/posters/etc. However, I don't believe that any US based company would have to fear a foreign court order to reveal people's identities. At least, I would HOPE they could ignore such legal threats. What is Ahmadinejad going to do? March on Google? Invade the US to force the issue? Unlikely. But, your point is well taken.
nacho
· 3 months ago
Well, maybe not in Iran, but how about China? It has happened already .. back in 2005
Thank you, Nacho, that was EXACTLY the case I was thinking of.
nacho
· 3 months ago
Well, maybe not in Iran, but how about China? It has happened already .. back in 2005
Beauty
· 3 months ago
Not sure how good of a point this really is. I don't see how non-American citizens and/or foreign countries/leaders can use American laws to further thier goals and aims in their country in a case like this. If Google/Twitter/Facebook, etc. were based in Iran or elsewhere, then that citizen/leader would then have a better chance of forcing the identity release of anonymous commentors/bloggers. I just don't see how this would work.
Glenn Jenkinson
· 3 months ago
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Defamation of character is defamation of character, regardless of the media used. So, this defaming blogger has earned a lawsuit and common sense says they are guilty.
The fact that the defamation occurring on the internet, with real potential for the defamation to occur globally, supports that the sentence set for internet defamation probably should be the highest of all defamation types.
For Google or any other media to not reveal this person's identity is obstruction of justice. This person is not a member of the press, nor a confidential source used by a legitimate press reporter, so they do not have any rights to anonymity or confidentiality.
The internet is not even a professional service provider like a doctor or lawyer with whom one can rely on some level of legal confidentiality. But even that is gone when the client breaks certain criminal laws or invokes information relating to their professional relationship as a defense in court.
Leonard Smith
· 3 months ago
There will always be immature and hateful people and the internet, as it is, offers them a platform from which they can throw garbage. This is not a 1st amendment issue. As the judge decided: It is an issue of defamation. If you believe strongly in your words, whether right or wrong, have the strength of character to put you name to them. Hiding behind anonymity to insult someone is cowardly. Leonard Smith
Rudolf Blodstrupmoen
· 3 months ago
Congratulations, you just got offended by something found on the net. I applaud your complete lack of intelligence and reward you 10 Internets
mobiusinformer
· 3 months ago
This is just another Cohen thing. Google won't appeal it, they're too much part of the grid now, but eventually it'll be overturned.
For what it's worth, the blogger was spot-on correct in his OPINIONS. Interpreted as anything else is judicial malpractice on Madden's part.
iquanyin
· 3 months ago
@mobiusinformer just how do you know the blogger was "correct" in his opinion? what, she's your ex or something? you follow her around? i'm curious as to what makes you so informed.
croneandbearit
· 3 months ago
I think people need to be held accountable for their words and their actions. Our freedom of speech was never intended as a free-for-all right to be hurtful. It's one thing to print that you don't like someone but to refer to them as 'whoring' is something else entirely. I'm on the judge's side on this one. I will defend anyone's right to free speech, but spewing hate does not qualify as free speech.
DJ nkokhi
· 3 months ago
An eye opening event. There is line between free speech and pure hatred.
Sandy Hajek
· 3 months ago
I think the judge made the only right decision. If someone is going to say such derogatory statements about someone they don't even know they should have to show their face. Only a coward would say such things and hide behind Google. He had enough balls to say it but not enough balls to show himself. What a coward! Be a man and face the music Loser! He could potentially be dangerous, too. Sounds a little like George Sodini to me. Probably hates women because he can't get a date because he is an ass! How pathetic! Get a life! Hope she sues him for his last dime! Sandy
kstadden
· 3 months ago
The gutless creep should be exposed and sued. Anonymity has brought out the worst of humanity on the Internet. For every hypothetical situation where the protection of anonymity might be beneficial, there are a million examples of why it enables this sort of abuse.
TP
· 3 months ago
There is freedom of speech and then there is defamation of character. The fact that the anonymous (aka cowardly) blogger was calling her "psychotic, lying, whoring" without any factual evidence is defamation. Something that could cost her a career, family etc.
"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech" which this clearly is. Good for the judge because while freedom of expression/speech is important, it is also not absolute nor should it be abused. We have the right to bare arms....but there is still a limit to it.
Lorne Pike
· 3 months ago
I think the court made a good call here. There's a wide gap between free speech and personal attacks. Constitutions were written to protect rights, not to bestow the right to maliciously attack others. Yes, the ruling may open the door for some to launch trivial lawsuits, but any ruling or lack of a ruling is subject to abuse. The Google blogger in this case clearly showed that to be true.
kreedy
· 3 months ago
The fact is, the internet isn't the wild west it once was. It is becoming more and more main stream media now. If that blogger had written that in a news paper or magazine then nobody would be surprised about a law suit. But, what about a personal diary? Or personal blog? When is it no longer personal? Where the line is drawn will be interesting to see, and I'm sure it will move many times.
I also think that the blogger shouldn't be anonymous. If you're going to spout stuff like that have the guts to show your face.
Tristan
· 3 months ago
Ohhh, that's right. We don't have free speech rights on the internet anymore. I forgot.
rousso
· 3 months ago
Free speech and anonymity are two different things. The blogger(s) is not forced to shut up by this decision, nor to recall their words or change their views. They are just forced to reveal their identity and allow interaction to take place between them and the person they are attacking. I think it's only fair.
TariAkpodiete
· 3 months ago
What do you mean by 'free speech'? All speech is free, technically, whether it's on the internet or not. In other words, you can say what you want, but should be aware there can consequences. Including libel and defamation suits (although the above is a ridiculous example, both for the blogger and the model).
If you're talking about 'free speech' American-style, once again I find myself pointing out to someone that it does not mean you can say anything you want without fear of consequences or having to take responsibility. It means - according to U.S. constitution - that people can speak against their government without fear of government agents coming in the middle of the night and taking them away.
bradhart
· 3 months ago
I quite agree that too many people think they shouldn't have to take responsibility for or face the consequences of what they say. Freedom of speech has the implied responsibility of knowing when to keep your big fat mouth shut. I have no pity for people who run their mouth and then claim discrimination or repression when someone kicks the living crap out of them either literally or legally.
natalie
· 3 months ago
Well said Tari.
rousso
· 3 months ago
You probably meant to reply to Tristan because we seem to agree in our point. Nevertheless this reply is tied to my post and everything beneath it makes it look like I disagree with all you guys. Anyway... To many reply buttons sometimes mix things up.
Rhonda
· 3 months ago
Well said Tari
financialguru
· 3 months ago
What are you talking about. This topic has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. All it is saying is that you can't be anonymous and you must be held accountable for your actions.
George F. Snell III
· 3 months ago
Defaming people in public by lying about their character and actions isn't freedom of speech (and in this case may have violated the law) - especially when you take the cowardly route and do it behind a wall of anonymity.
Renaissance
· 3 months ago
It goes to show - we should all be using gmail accounts and blogging from public locations or on other people's wifi - the guy's probably got an Adsense account too... lol
CatSea1959
· 3 months ago
well... only if your goal is to post trash anonymously and not be held accountable for your actions, I guess.
Jag
· 3 months ago
If you consider "misinforming the public" or "wrongfully ruining someone's reputation" right to free speech, it is fair that the person should know about your identity. Indemnification is fair in this case, because if someone talks bad and lies about me I would like to confront that person and find the cause for their behavior. It is rational human behavior.
Plus, if people want to take credit for their good opinion, why not stand up and take credit when they say talk bad and slander someone.
While I empathise with her plight of being the subject of something of a smear campaign, unless there is a real and actual threat to her person or she is being stalked, this sets a very dangerous precedent.
While anonymity shouldn't excuse people from being rude to others online and it shows your true character should you abuse that privelege, neither should rudeness be a reason for a CORPORATION such as Google to reveal someone's personal information to other individuals, especially if no crime has taken place.
Hugh Briss
· 3 months ago
You really should learn more about defamation and libel laws in the U.S. There's no law against saying rude things but when those things hurt someone's career it is a crime.
TariAkpodiete
· 3 months ago
actually Hugh, under American laws, libel and slander are not 'crimes' although they may be actionable under civil law.
Hugh Briss
· 3 months ago
Agreed, I shouldn't have used the word 'crime' but it certainly is something you can be sued for a lose a lot of money and it will involve the court system and even if you are found innocent you'll be out a lot of time and money defending yourself. Smart people will avoid saying anything about anyone in print on their blogs that they can't either prove without a doubt or show to be an "opinion".
Saying someone is ugly is not libel but saying they use drugs if they don't certainly is.
Frankly I'm surprised that Perez Hilton's site has never been shut down because it's full of libel.
Renaissance
· 3 months ago
Bullshit laws if you ask me - there are going to be a ton of people suing for comments on the internet "hurting their career" and if these comments appear on YouTube and/or Blogspot and Google doesn't remove them, is Google at fault as well? Could they be held liable? If so, the next thing you're going to read about is Google and other sites perhaps like Twitter censoring comments/tweets. And then there's the end of the internet and we'll all have to go underground - screw our government... seriously this is bullshit!
KLM63
· 3 months ago
I highly doubt that anything this blogger said had any affect on her career. And their is a difference between opinion and slander of libel. Defamation of character See below:
Defamation of character can include slander (spoken derogatory statements), libel (written derogatory statements) or both. To constitute actionable defamation, the statements must be false and expose a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt. You also can sue if the defamation harms you in your occupation.
Generally, to make a successful defamation of character claim, you must show that there was a false statement of fact, this statement was conveyed to a third party and the statement is understood to be about you and tending to harm your reputation. In the case of a public figure, actual malice must also be proved.
Matt George
· 3 months ago
Absolutely scary! Identities should be protected. The only time I could see Google needing to reveal an identity of someone online is if it dealt with law enforcement trying to track down a criminal. Such, as theft, sexual predators, or threats. Then it would makes sense. In this case it does seem to me to be a gray area to me, but I guess the courts feel different.
Sandy Hajek
· 3 months ago
How can you say what he said is not criminal. It is defamation of Character. He sounds like a hateful person who could potetially be dangerous. Someone filled with that much hate for women is definately dangerous. The decision could save someones life before it is too late!
Renaissance
· 3 months ago
I can see now why the judge ruled the way he did - golly, take a chill pill - no one should be liable for calling names - have you ever heard "Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?" Grow up people!
nc
· 3 months ago
But the blogger is (potentially) a criminal - the crime is defamation of character, i.e. libel.
TariAkpodiete
· 3 months ago
attn Sandy and nc - that's NOT 'criminal'. while it may be objectionable (at least to the model), it's a civil matter.
Sandy Hajek
· 3 months ago
Point is it's against the law! Let's not get technical! That is the problem with people, they confuse the right to free speech - doesn't mean you can say anything about anyone. You have the responsibility of the truth! Or you can get sued, and you will win. Unless they can prove what they said to be true!
TariAkpodiete
· 3 months ago
this comment is addressed to Sandy Hajek. as i am looking at this page his/her comment is directly below mine and starts: "Point is it's against the law! Let's not get technical!" for some reason, i don't seem to be able to reply directly to it. oh well...
anyway, Sandy Hajek - what law exactly (in the States, Canada, UK or EU) is calling someone a 'skank' against? please point it out to all of us. we'd sure love to know. when you say "let's not get technical", you really mean let's not be ACCURATE. previously, you said the alleged slanderer committed a crime. no, they didn't. now you're saying that what they said is against the law. no, it isn't.
is what the blogger said libel (that's published slander, by the way)? i have no idea, and neither do you. for all we know, that blogger's opinion maybe accurate. maybe that model is a skank or acted like one. and really, is calling someone a skank really all that bad? is it worse than saying that Obama is Hitler as some people are now doing? anyway, factual or not, it's that blogger's opinion, and they have the right to say it. of course, they may have to face some consequences for it. free speech isn't really free as i pointed out in a different response.
and just because the model says it's defamation and sues, doesn't mean that it is defamation and that she'll win. she just know has the right to know the identity of the person who called her a skank. probably so she can sue them. as if people hearing about this nonsense already don't think that she's at least an idiot, if perhaps not a skank.
anyway, as i also pointed out, this legal decision has a wider implication than some alleged skanky model with hurt feelings. what if someone is blogging from Iran (or some other such skanky place), and says his govt is arresting, jailing, torturing and killing people who try to speak against it - by the way, THAT sort of free speech IS protected in the States meaning the govt can't come for you just because they don't like what you say about them - will Google turn over his or her name? so that the agents of that govt can come in the middle of the night and disappear him? maybe.
actually, didn't Google already tell the Chinese govt the name of a dissenting blogger who ended up in prison? um, yes they did. was there even a court order, or did China's tolitarian govt just ask nicely. not sure. either way, they got the name. now, the Chinese government generally doesn't kill citizens who say bad things about it, no they just leave them to rot in nasty prisons.
On the other hand, Iran hangs such people in public, from a crane (so they strangle and don't die quickly from a broken neck), usually after flogging them a few hundred times. sometimes, for variety, they stone them. oh, if they are female and virgins, they are forced to marry a guard and then they are raped before they are executed because in Iran, it's against the law to execute virgins. it's actually considered to be a crime.
croneandbearit
· 3 months ago
I think people need to be held accountable for their words and their actions. Our freedom of speech was never intended as a free-for-all right to be hurtful. It's one thing to print that you don't like someone but to refer to them as 'whoring' is something else entirely. I'm on the judge's side on this one. I will defend anyone's right to free speech, but spewing hate does not qualify as free speech.
Leslie @ NOLA Eats
· 3 months ago
She has a Wikipedia entry with no picture??
If the blogger in question were to go around the neighborhood, verbally trashing her, could he/she still be sued for defamation? I think this is all a bit silly. Sites like thedirty.com are worthless pieces of crap, but who takes it seriously? Unless there are defaming pictures, who cares what people write about you. And if there's pictures, then you probably deserve it. Ok, kids. Just remember that school yard adage: Sticks and stones may break my bones...
Sandy Hajek
· 3 months ago
Maybe you don't mind people trashing you but some people do. Yes he could get sued for going around the neighborhood, verbally trashing her if what he is saying is not true. It is called defamation of character. It is against the law to spread rumors about someone and dirty their name. The reason is because it could potentially hurt someone financially, or to get a job or to purchase a house. If someone thinks things about you that are not true, it could hurt you in business otherwise.
Tom
· 3 months ago
To answer your question of whether the blogger could be held liable for walking around the neighborhood verbally trashing her, the answer is yes, she could. What is important is the actual content. If she walked around saying the model was a drugie, then absolutely, because they are stating as a fact that the person uses drugs when they actually don't. If they said, the model is rude, there is no liability because that is sheer opinion. See the difference?
Maggie Mayhem
· 3 months ago
I'll say this: free speech is free speech. BUT I think there's something to be said for "manning up." If you have to hide to say something, then don't say it at all. FOR SHAME closeted blogger. Show yourself and own your opinion. Or STFU. Because if you don't care enough to stand behind your own opinion, why should I?
Olabode Oruku
· 3 months ago
For every action you must be ready to accept responsibility. Whether online and offline we must strive to be responsible. I think it's a step in the right direction.
pm
· 3 months ago
This is not a question of free speech. If you can't say something or express an opinion under your real name it's probably because it's not worth saying it anyway. If it's worth it, say it with your real name and argue free speech if you are sued.
Use some courage for god sake!
Maggie Mayhem
· 3 months ago
agreed. I think my opening statement on free speech was misinterpreted. It wasn't meant as a defense for this dumb shit blogger, but merely an acknowledgment.
Wibisono
· 3 months ago
"On the other hand, it might trigger a flood of similar lawsuits, perhaps for trivial reasons, which can in turn have serious implications on everyone’s online privacy."
what if it something to do with nation/society security and safety?
as we fight terrorism in all kinds google should reveal the identity of the blogger without trial
don't you think?
None needed
· 3 months ago
sandy, you've just done the same thing this guy did. does it make it any more right because you used your own name? methinks not.
George Por
· 3 months ago
What "free speech rights on the internet"? What would you say if your mother or sister was treated by the foul language of a blogger?
MJ
· 3 months ago
Hate speech against women is no less offensive and harmful than hate speech against a person's race, ethnicity, or sexual preference. If the target were gay and the blogger used language targeting her choice, all types of people would be up in arms. But it's always cool to degrade and humiliate women in this country. God bless America!
Maggie Mayhem
· 3 months ago
I don't think it should have anything to do with her being a woman....
TariAkpodiete
· 3 months ago
actually, people write bad things about gays all the time. and they say them on tv too. regular people, famous people, etc. always safely trashing the gays. it's pretty much the last group that can be safely trashed with no consequences. in the States, most jurisdictions have no legal protections for gays so they can be harassed, fired, denied their equal rights, etc. same with transgender people too. one can do a lot of bad things to them and not have to worry about consequnces or punishment. sometimes one even gets applauded for doing bad things to them. like firing them, denying them jobs/housing/right to marry, etc. it's also apparently ok to demonstrate at their funerals too. just ask Fred Phelps and his family. they get away with doing that because of 'free speech'. oh, and it's not 'sexual preference'; it's 'sexual orientation'.
sam Ekanade
· 3 months ago
Thats right.we need some sense of online decency
sam Ekanade
· 3 months ago
Thats right.we need some sense of online decency
dalelarson
· 3 months ago
Mean people suck.
Anonymity is abused too often online, and in the US, or any country with good human rights including free speech, shouldn't be a legal protection to wrongdoing.
For criminal acts, one fully expects ISP and web companies to respond to a subpoena in an investigation for an anonymous subject. Why should the standard be any different for tortious acts?
joec
· 3 months ago
Stan,
This is a thoughtful, sober look at a volatile topic. Great, great job with this article. I believe defamation laws exist for a reason, and a judge shouldn’t reject a claim out of fear that others with weaker cases might follow. In other words, anticipation of a potentially unjust outcome shouldn't preclude an individual from taking a just action.
Again, excellent work, JoeC
Mike Ricks
· 3 months ago
Social commentary and criticism in which names are named require personal responsibility on the part of the blogger/poster. To me most anonymous posts are the web equivalent of graffitti : characterless, ubiquitous, and self absorbed intrusions into public space. If you have something real to say then post your comment with your name. Situations in which a person would suffer persecution for expressing their views, as in Iran or China for example, are obviously exempt.
Igor Kheifets
· 3 months ago
LOL! I though the reason the internet was invented is because people wanted to spill dirt on other people ANONYMOUSLY. Was I wrong all this time? :/
blogbrevity
· 3 months ago
This is not new. This already happened in Jacksonville, Florida, and I covered it in my post, "Blogger Unmasked by Subpoena to Google" http://bit.ly/1NNW5X The real question is whether or not anonymous blogs fit in this era of authenticity and transparency.
When it comes to more serious issues, Jimmy Midyette, Esq. advises a look at 42 USC 1983, and states, “for those who need a reminder of the importance of anonymous public comments against powerful institutions should re-read Common Sense, by Thomas Paine.”
This is a debate.
patrick
· 3 months ago
Well, who is a bad mouth like this guy and feels the urge to express his opnion publicly on the internet, you must be an idiot as well, to sign up to any blogging service with your real identity. Nowhere else it is easier to have a second, fake personality, which can maybe be traced back by IP Address. But if you blog let's say from your workspace cubicle or Starbucks, you are vanishing in the crowd. So, in this reagards he gets punished for being an idiot, not for being a dirty writer. And here in Europe, we really enjoy funny lawsuits like this one, as they are never happening over here. ;)
Katherine@sterlingminerals
· 3 months ago
I personally feel that if someone is defaming another such as in the case of Perez Hilton doing this kind of stuff on a regular basis, but at least he is up front about it....anonymity should not be allowed. If this person is so proud of the trash talk he or she is writing about then step out from behind the shroud and claim it. People like this should be exposed!
asimsah
· 3 months ago
Nothing new . Google has tendency to bend backwards to please authorities. In china they actively help authorities to single out dissenters and even censor news.( BTW china is too big a market for Google to ignore)
kipdurney
· 3 months ago
It's a slippery slope...
asimsah
· 3 months ago
Nothing new . Google has tendency to bend backwards to please authorities. In china they actively help authorities censor news but also weed out political dissenters!
David Green
· 3 months ago
Yeah, Legally her character was defamed. Not only that, it's just plain rude
Marcel
· 3 months ago
Bloggers should be able to remain anonymous if they want to, otherwise the internet will end up as heavily regulated as the press and any inkling of free speech will be a joke!
Edward Virtually
· 3 months ago
How wonderful to know the protection of whistle blowers and others who's safety depends on being able to remain anonymous has suffered a serious legal blow because some self-impressed fashion model was mad some jackass called her a whore. I hadn't heard of Ms Cohen prior to this, but I will now remember her as someone who damaged privacy protection on the Internet. Now looking up her appearance so I can be sure to associate it with any of her sponsors so I can boycott them.
Doubledown Tandino
· 3 months ago
YES YES!! I can't wait for the Streisand effect to hit this skank whore slutty model slut slut. Who is this model again? I haven't even heard of her... but now I know her as the skank.
Calamity
· 3 months ago
The only people who might change their opinion about her even slightly after reading the blog are the ones that didn't like her already anyway. I have never heard of her, but now I think she is an insecure middle-aged model who needs to grow a skin or get off my internet.
Guest
· 3 months ago
The world goes mad. SIGH Absolutely nothing new to say... Just to quote myself "People quite often tend to say to each other on the Net things that they would never possibly tell each other in face-to-face communication. And you may like it or not but in my opinion that is what makes the Internet so attractive: something different from the ordinary, something different from offline, the ability to say to someone those things straight regardless of social standing - and you, boarding school girl, get offended by that? Common! Get use to it! This mode of behavior had been around for about 20 years already." http://sexyseo.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-name-is-...
Nick
· 3 months ago
I agree that if you aren't prepared to say something under your own name, don't say it.
bradhart
· 3 months ago
It is without a doubt the right decision. Liskula Cohen was protecting her credibility and financial interests by filing this suit. When bloggers take it upon themselves to chastise, comment on, or defame any brand or person, they should not be allowed to hide behind any notion of anonymity. Simply put if you are going to run your mouth, then you need to be accountable for it.
Too often these days we hide behind the notion that free speech gives us the right to say whatever we want without having to face the consequences. This is just isn't the case. Freedom of speech gives people like this blogger, a teenager spouting off on myspace about people she goes to school with, or limbaugh and other vile little trolls the right to say what they want, but in the end everyone must be held accountable for their actions either through a lawsuit, a good ass kicking, or your own enablers taking action against you.
Chris
· 3 months ago
yahh everyone has a freedom for speech.
Marryam H Reshii
· 3 months ago
There's a feeling out there that nothing on the world wide web is accountable. Judge Madden's decision will go a long way in proving that statements - and those who make them - ARE accountable. I may not like a particular model, but to make salacious comments about her in a public forum AND then, not to leave your name - it says more about the coward than the model, doesn't it.
Hugh Briss
· 3 months ago
I think it's funny how many commenters assume the blogger was a man. The blogger in question was actually a woman and someone the model knew.
normsy
· 3 months ago
This is dangerous -- from the bit I read, the blogger did not post any evidence that the model was "sexually promiscuous." To me, only if the allegation is backed by plausible claims that suggest possible truth, should it be labeled defamation and force someone to give up their anonymity. Saying bad things about someone anonymously is immature, but this is slippery slope.
financialguru
· 3 months ago
Why does everyone keep talking about free speech. This has nothing to do with Free Speech. The judge is only saying you don't have a right to be anonymous on the internet anymore. I think its fair don't you?
Henry
· 3 months ago
I not defending this but we have lost our right to our own opinions I understand that it is defamation of character but who would take a anonymous blogger seriously. So maybe that's wat he thought of the person so does this deny how we judge people so are going to simply follow in happy land in which everyone has happy thoughts about everyone else. There are always going to be negative comments about someone else we have a choice to take this in and sue someone or ignore it. I just think that with this are going have to censor ourselves and limit wat we say based upon what some defines as hatred or defamation
Heather
· 3 months ago
I don't think Google should release the identity of the blogger. Obviously, Americans have rights to free speech, and I hardly think calling someone a "skank" and accusing her of "whoring" is defamation in the classical con law sense of the word. What next, is Perez going to get sued for calling celebrities b*tches and whores? Get over it, Liskula, it comes with the territory. You're lucky there's anyone talking about you at all...I've never even heard of you.
bradhart
· 3 months ago
You're wrong there is a difference between what this blogger and what Perez does. Perez could be sued for defamation very easily, he walks a very fine line. What he does not do however is hide his identity, which is the basis of this entire case.
The verdict basically says you have the right to run your mouth, but you don't have the right to do it anonymously, there is nothing challenging the freedom of speech.
What no one is talking about is why google never canceled the douchebag's account. I have seen this happen for far less blatant TOS violations.
Heather
· 3 months ago
Google shouldn't release the identity of the blogger. Obviously Americans have rights to free speech, and I hardly think calling someone a "skank" or an "old hag" and accusing her of "whoring" is defamation in the classical con law sense of the word. What next, is Perez going to get sued for calling celebrities b*tches and whores? Get over yourself, Liskula. It comes with the territory. You're lucky there's anyone talking about you at all...I've never even heard of you.
Heather
· 3 months ago
Google shouldn't release the identity of the blogger. Obviously Americans have rights to free speech, and I hardly think calling someone a "skank" or an "old hag" and accusing her of "whoring" is defamation in the classical con law sense of the word. What next, is Perez going to get sued for calling celebrities b*tches and whores? Get over yourself, Liskula. It comes with the territory. You're lucky there's anyone talking about you at all...I've never even heard of you.
Steven
· 3 months ago
invasion of privacy much?
josephgelb
· 3 months ago
I am not a fan of people who do that, and I believe that if people want to offend they should show face to who they are. On the other hand this is also an invasion of privacy, on conditions that are blown out of proportion. Ultimately the judgement is aimed at limiting free speech online. I am conflicted on this, but when people want to go famous the haters come out of the woodwork so in my mind it comes with the territory.
James
· 3 months ago
This may be good as long as it isn't abused by people for silly reasons, like they say in this article.
Diary.of.Alice
· 3 months ago
A good decision. It is not necessary write offensive remarks about others in a public arena.
Renee Landon
· 3 months ago
Hmm. I love free speech, but no one should be harrassed. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't troll in the first place.
Morgan
· 3 months ago
The First Amendment protects our right to discuss the GOVT without censure. This woman obviously depends upon her reputation i her modeling career; I can easily see "over 40 skank" comments causing trouble for her professionally.
Comments from anywhere that negatively affect someone's ability to do their job -- esp if false and inflammatory -- have to place under the First Amendment. I'd get a lawyer, too, and expect to win. A name in the public eye gets googled and a blog like that comes up: you know any negative stuff is going to make fashionista employers nervous. Same diff with lies printed in those tabloids.
Diary.of.Alice
· 3 months ago
A good decision. It is not necessary write offensive remarks about others in a public arena.
Matt
· 3 months ago
I like John Stuart Mill's take on it with his 1850's (no, he's not on Twitter) article "On Liberty" and the harm principle:
"...that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." http://bit.ly/QOkTw
"Anonymity" in this particular case appears to be driven by cowardliness to deal with consequences much more than a statement on our common online privacy rights...!
danie
· 3 months ago
As a blogger, I don't like to admit it, but I think the decision was a good one. I'm finding a lot of people like to send hateful things via the Internet. Those people feel empowered and protected by anonymity. But their words are directed at real people whose feelings are hurt. I know nothing about the model in question, but I work with people who appear on television - people I know to be good people out to do good things - who get berated by strangers with comments no reasonable person would make face to face (or real name to real name). So if the outcome is more constructive criticism or more decent people, I'm all for it.
Peter
· 3 months ago
How about if another juridicial system in another country orders the same? And for slightly different reasons... Myanmar? North Korea? China? Iran? ...
You see it coming?
wesleyE
· 3 months ago
The issue here is that what the blogger wrote is defamation or hate speech and thus not protected by freedom of speech.
The issue you is NOT whether the blogger should stop being cowardly. I honestly don't think the law cares if someone is acting heroically or cowardly, if you break the law, you break the law.
wesleyE
· 3 months ago
The issue here is that what the blogger wrote is defamation or hate speech and thus not protected by freedom of speech.
The issue you is NOT whether the blogger should stop being cowardly. I honestly don't think the law cares if someone is acting heroically or cowardly, if you break the law, you break the law.
Lydia
· 3 months ago
That's why you should just be straight up with your identity and call her a skank to her face re: Perez Hilton. But that is total BSSSSS what a terrible precedent to set.
Lydia
· 3 months ago
That's why you should just be straight up with your identity and call her a skank to her face re: Perez Hilton. But that is total BSSSSS what a terrible precedent to set.
Logan
· 3 months ago
another point for those who hate free speech.
Craig Raysor
· 3 months ago
Some commenters seem disturbed by the idea of bloggers stating things and then hiding by anonymity, however, pseudonyms have been a major part of our literary history for many years. There is value in the veil of anonymity when writing about a variety of issues, however the veil should not be protected to create a shield around an actionable offense.
He defamed her with a libelous statement and if she brings a lawsuit she should be able to bring a lawsuit against the defamer. However, I believe there should be some step that requires a motion to dismiss type of showing similar to a medical panel in malpractice suits before the court allows the case to go forward and require additional steps such as forcing a publishing company or host company to give up the goods on the author or blogger. I say this because I don't know how much of actual damages she can prove, since it seems she is still working with little hindrance (hence the comment from the blogger).
I would use the "motion to dismiss" model prior to disclosing names to discourage frivolous lawsuits being brought to simply unmask authors and bloggers, but allowing cases with merit to go forward.
vegas
· 3 months ago
She's doing this for the money not because she's 'hurt' by some random words a blogger wrote on his blog.
owenvideo
· 3 months ago
Glad to hear there are consequences. Some days if feels like people can get away with anything. Whether or not the lawsuit pans out one way or the other, I'm glad that the anonymity isn't in question any longer.
Jamie
· 3 months ago
For those to tired to read, Model can't take criticism from random person on the internet. Court bends over.
yt
· 3 months ago
Anyone got a link to the blog in question - sounds like it's worth a read.
3Polars
· 3 months ago
I guess that means 1 judge has changed the entire way we look at freedom of speech. I guess that means that Justice Joan Madden made a really stupid decision. Hey Joan, come get me, bitch.
dedlines
· 3 months ago
Sticks and Stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me...This is not a dictatorship and judges cant make it so. Supreme Court will throw it out. Also, funny how this story is on cnet first then here, http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10312359-71.html
Augure
· 3 months ago
When I look at the various comments, that's funny how people are yet ready to give up their right in the name of some recent and bad interpretation of the constitution. But that's not new, I just hope all these people will have to face the consequences of their ignorance and growing non-perceptiveness.
Anyway one more reason, and there have been a lot lately, to not use Blogger and switch to Tumblr, Wordpress or whatever.
Rudolf Blodstrupmoen
· 3 months ago
Congratulations, you just got offended by something found on the net. I applaud your complete lack of intelligence and reward you 10 Internets
Janiece
· 3 months ago
I really do not agree with this decision. The internet is (in my opinion) one of the most liberal spaces to voice your thoughts and opinions and this is exactly what this one blogger did. Strictly opinion, the reader is able to create a separate conclusion. Some call this a "sexually promiscuous woman" while another may see it has "adventurous and full of youth"
Its all in interpretation. As far as I am concerned, something about this judge does not seem to be ticking right.
Rudolf Blodstrupmoen
· 3 months ago
Congratulations, you just got offended by something found on the net. I applaud your complete lack of intelligence and reward you 10 Internets
RJ
· 3 months ago
I think this is a great decision. Until now the attacker had all the rights and the victim none. If you want to exercise your right to say what you want you shouldn't be able to hide behind screen names and fake IP addresses. Have the guts to use your real name and address if you want to attack someone as this person has. Accountability is the issue here. You have no rights if you hide behind deceit and fraud. This decision was a long time coming.
charbrown
· 3 months ago
The Fifth Amendment protects our speech, not our identity. It was written to protect people who had the courage of their convictions, primarily in the area of political speech. But there is nothing courageous about anonymity.
The argument of free speech will no doubt arise in the civil lawsuit and it may very well be a winning argument. The burden of proving she was harmed by this speech is on Liskula Cohen.
This blogger may not have to pay damages because of his offensive, yet protected, speech, but he cannot hide and at the same time spout off his opinions. That is not a protection the constitution gives him.
charbrown
· 3 months ago
The Fifth Amendment protects our speech, not our identity. It was written to protect people who had the courage of their convictions, primarily in the area of political speech. But there is nothing courageous about anonymity.
The argument of free speech will no doubt arise in the civil lawsuit and it may very well be a winning argument. The burden of proving she was harmed by this speech is on Liskula Cohen.
This blogger may not have to pay damages because of his offensive, yet protected, speech, but he cannot hide and at the same time spout off his opinions. That is not a protection the constitution gives him.
kmslogic
· 3 months ago
Stupid decision by a lying whoring skank of a judge who apparently isn't aware of this whole internet thing and how it works.
Nick Seaman
· 3 months ago
Don't say anything bad about anyone ever or else the gov't will hold their hand while they cry and then help them sue you.
Rod
· 3 months ago
Everyone has the right to free speech, but no one has the right to slag off another person. If you want to make a comment, you have to be prepared to stand by that comment. Anonymous comments are a coward's voice. YOU either said it or your didn't. And if you say something hurtful, untruthful or misleading and present that comment as fact, then you have to face the consequences. There's a big difference between saying "From everything I've heard, I think she's a slag" or saying "She is a slag". The first is a comment put in context. The second is a statement of fact which you need to prove. It's interesting to note that people are all too quick to attack professional critics who justify their negative comments (and are paid to do so), but those same people then mouth off about things they've read or assumed without any basis.
Susan Christiansen
· 3 months ago
No one has the right to say mean and offensive things about anyone!
jason
· 3 months ago
I hated putting my email on here to make a comment..i might be sued by the judge. But that judge is an effin moron!!! first there is free speech, 2nd, if this person has 1 follower on that blog, they are essentially writing a documentary of their life and opinions for others to read. This really does make them a journalist. Maybe not a professional, but either way there should be some kind of freedom of the "press" rights as well. This country has really gone to shit.
Bekka
· 3 months ago
I wonder if the blogger actually registered his Google account with his real name.
Renaissance
· 3 months ago
I don't like it - most bloggers don't have the funds to fight suits like this one and a ruling like this will make it difficult for bloggers to speak openly for fear of being sued by the people with a lot of money. Chalk another one up to the rich people...
Paul W. Homer
· 3 months ago
I don't think we want to start allowing lawsuits against anonymous comments. It would be madness as everybody seeks to win a lawsuit lottery against each other (while trying to encourage people to say bad things). Anonymous comments hold no weight exactly because they are anonymous. They should stay anonymous (no information should be captured), they are a good thing.
On the other hand, if one is trying to establish a reputation, and intends to use that to influence other people on a particular topic, then even if they are writing under an alias, simply because there is weight, they need to be held accountable for their statements. Blogging is no different than setting up a podium outside in a public place and giving speeches all day, if you do this you have to live with the consequences of your actions (even if you wear a mask).
Alex
· 3 months ago
I think it was a matter of opinion and he should be able to say what ever he wants That's what happens when you're famous unfortunately.
laura
· 3 months ago
Slander is slander. Whether it's in print media or online. The blog is making false accusations against her character, and she is entitled to legal recourse. I applaud her for initiating the case.
Freedom of speech is a broad term. We should be able to say or write anything we desire, if we're willing to stand by it. We don't have freedom from responsibility for what we say.
I hope they throw the book at them!
smilie12
· 3 months ago
I think this type of thing must be a case by case basis. There are many scenarios where anonymity should always be protected. Cases related to medical situations and political views are two large examples. Some others like the anonymity for security as related to identity theft or privacy to not have everything they say be followed by a stalker or paparazzi magazine. In this case, there is an attack on an individual where no benefits exist for anyone unless you say that being hateful is good. It is time for the internet to grow up and remove the mask of these people who want to thrive as trolls by degrading others for a thrill. If our laws don't currently properly handle this situation then a change is needed.
mamapainter
· 3 months ago
.
Bob Cozzi
· 3 months ago
Interesting that I have to reveal myself to post this comment but to Blog I don't? Freedom of speech is absolute, that's true, however stand in the public square and say it, don't hide behind a mask of obscurity.
You do have the right to face your accuser (except, apparently in Photo-Enforced Red Light camera cases) so if someone chooses to defame someone in public, their identity should also be in public.
Kevin Thompson
· 3 months ago
I'm a lawyer that's dealt with an identical issue in Michigan. Anonymous speech is the hallmark of the first amendment. However, the first amendment privilege does not protect tortious (damaging) statements. There's a big challenge right now with how to go about treating online comments and blog posts. In the past, it was easy...there were very few content publishers and those folks knew the laws. Today, EVERYONE is a publisher, yet very few people know the boundaries of the first amendment.
In the case I witnessed, a company sued over 30 anonymous bloggers. The court ended up forcing the ISP to disclose the identities of the bloggers ONLY WHEN the plaintiff demonstrated first that the statements were actionable, meaning the statements met the elements of a legitimate claim. You can't just sue someone just to find out who they are, you need to have a legit claim. So bloggers beware...it's not that hard to file a John Doe lawsuit, prove that your statement is positioned as factual, and get your name.
Kevin Thompson
· 3 months ago
I'm a lawyer that's dealt with an identical issue in Michigan. Anonymous speech is the hallmark of the first amendment. However, the first amendment privilege does not protect tortious (damaging) statements. There's a big challenge right now with how to go about treating online comments and blog posts. In the past, it was easy...there were very few content publishers and those folks knew the laws. Today, EVERYONE is a publisher, yet very few people know the boundaries of the first amendment.
In the case I witnessed, a company sued over 30 anonymous bloggers. The court ended up forcing the ISP to disclose the identities of the bloggers ONLY WHEN the plaintiff demonstrated first that the statements were actionable, meaning the statements met the elements of a legitimate claim. You can't just sue someone just to find out who they are, you need to have a legit claim. So bloggers beware...it's not that hard to file a John Doe lawsuit, prove that your statement is positioned as factual, and get your name.
Brandon
· 3 months ago
It's a sad day for the 1st Amendment. The internet was made for people to call other people stuff like this. I've been called much worse than a skany whore, and you don't see me filing a lawsuit. This whiny model needs to grow a thicker skin.
Also, the original blog has been deleted (within the terms of service) and the blogspot address is available.
B. Chan
· 3 months ago
ahahahaha!
Rhonda
· 3 months ago
Yes, I agree. There is a lack of respect. I think People have to watch what they say in life why not on the web, and be responsible for their actions as well as what they say. This is redicules and childish as well as hurtfull to people and there reputations.
demosthenes2010
· 3 months ago
problem is that we should have both. Its a slippery slope that you start down when you can no longer post anonymously online. The internet is the last place we should be forcing people to show their identities.
Random Surfer
· 3 months ago
I dont know whether You guys are aware of the Fake IPL Player case @ India regarding Indian Premier League. A blogger, called IPL Anonymous, wrote @ http://fakeiplplayer.blogspot.com/. It was direct personal attack on lots a cricketers from different nationalities though the blog was amusing enough. As far as I can remember it was on the twitter trend too. But the identity of the blogger is yet undisclosed. But i guess after this court hearing authorities may go after this blogger.
Yes, I agree. There is a lack of respect. I think People have to watch what they say in life why not on the web, and be responsible for their actions as well as what they say. This is redicules and childish as well as hurtfull to people and there reputations.
Paul W. Homer
· 3 months ago
I don't think we want to start allowing lawsuits against anonymous comments. It would be madness as everybody seeks to win a lawsuit lottery against each other (while trying to encourage people to say bad things). Anonymous comments hold no weight exactly because they are anonymous. They should stay anonymous (no information should be captured), they are a good thing.
On the other hand, if one is trying to establish a reputation, and intends to use that to influence other people on a particular topic, then even if they are writing under an alias, simply because there is weight, they need to be held accountable for their statements. Blogging is no different than setting up a podium outside in a public place and giving speeches all day, if you do this you have to live with the consequences of your actions (even if you wear a mask).
Random Surfer
· 3 months ago
I dont know whether You guys are aware of the Fake IPL Player case @ India regarding Indian Premier League. A blogger, called IPL Anonymous, wrote @ http://fakeiplplayer.blogspot.com/. It was direct personal attack on lots a cricketers from different nationalities though the blog was amusing enough. As far as I can remember it was on the twitter trend too. But the identity of the blogger is yet undisclosed. But i guess after this court hearing authorities may go after this blogger.
Chris Ballance
· 3 months ago
Speech is still free, libel will still get you sued. If you can't own it, don't say it.
smilie12
· 3 months ago
The one interesting part of this will be if the supposed source claims they never made these statements. Supposing several adults live under the household where the computer is available, does this make only the owner of the computer guilty or do all members of the household become liable? And with the ability of hackers, does this end up incriminating some innocent people who fall victim to internet Trojans. As mentioned in someone else's post, we have another "Red Light Camera" situation here.
omis
· 3 months ago
yeah that's right
Vicki Flaugher
· 3 months ago
To me, it's all about intent and facts and there certainly seems to be more than one side to it. Making up crap that flies in the face of verifiable facts doesn't seem so much free speech but an attack. If done knowingly with malicious intent, under current jurisprudence, it can be grounds for a civil action (libel/slander). If that is the case for this model/blogger scenario, she will probably sue and win and she's allowed to. If you don't like it, change it. I'm thinking you wouldn't want people spreading lies about you that harmed your reputation and career, but principles are principles, right?
Observing government regimes, making opinion/belief based comment on the actual actions they take and condemning that is a far cry from lying about someone. It's not the same free speech issue. Since when was the Internet a pass for being responsible for what you say? It's not. Google agreeing to allow China to block specific websites that the government doesn't approve of is a far worse stab at free speech then them removing a cloak of anonymity from a blogger.
Indy
· 3 months ago
*thumbs up*
laidbackman1
· 3 months ago
I beleive the ruling is correct with the upside you indicated. There are already trivial lawsuits so I don't see this as a problem. It is a stimulus plan for lawyers. Slander and libel are still prohibted even if it is easier to do it online. We do require some level of civility to function as a society. I need to finish, I am running lateI have to clean my assault rifle and go to a online townhall meeting on healthcare.
Guest
· 3 months ago
This guy needs to take anger management classes. The take away here is that the Judge followed the letter of the law.
iquanyin
· 3 months ago
no, it was wrong. did it impact her ability to earn a living? no. did it put here life at risk? no. so basically, someone said something about someone that displeased them. that's actionable? i doubt it.
iquanyin
· 3 months ago
no, it was wrong. did it impact her ability to earn a living? no. did it put here life at risk? no. so basically, someone said something about someone that displeased them. that's actionable? i doubt it. the blogger should appeal this silly ruling.
Vicki Flaugher
· 3 months ago
It's not our place to say whether or not it hurt her - it's her's to prove in a court of law. None of us have all the facts.
I don't think the blogger has any cause of action - the case was between the model and Google. I think Google would have to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (since this ruling came from the state's supreme court) and it's questionable whether they would. Google's terms of service forbid hate speech, inflammatory language, etc so they might choose to ditch the blogger. It's not like someone wanted information about someone doing nothing.
The blogger may have cause to sue Google for revealing his information but I'm guessing he doesn't since his actions violates Google's terms of service. Google could get in trouble for being inconsistent (i.e. discriminatory) with the application of punishment for violating their terms of service, and that's probably not a can of worms they want to open so basically they are not shutting down the blogger even though they probably technically could. A silent out of court type of nod. It will very interesting to see how it all sorts out. Lots of issues and yes, potential precedent with unintended consequences.
Vicki Flaugher
· 3 months ago
Minor correction - apparently Google did shut the site down. Who knows how that will go. They sure leave lots of things just as bad out there up so they probably have exposure for their consistencies.
ryan
· 3 months ago
I think this case will set an important precedent in the future of blogging and online media. Too many people hide behind the guise that computers and the internet allow them to construct. Anonymity on the Web can be a great thing, but I think that people also take advantage of the fact that they can say things and, before now, get away with them without bringing the slightest bit of attention on themselves. This ruling will bring a new level of accountability to bloggers, and should encourage cleaner, more constructive blogging. Just because you can hide behind an avatar or a screen name does not mean that you should say things you wouldn't say to a person's face.
Indy
· 3 months ago
I like your comment - simple and straightforward. I hope that it does lead to more constructive blogs, and I'll always agree with the don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all deal. At least not to someone's face. Good comment.
Marius Patrascu
· 3 months ago
I think it sucks big time! This guy had a problem with her, she's a woman right? We all have problems with them :) Other blogspot blogs are full of warez and nobody gives a damn ... but the poor guy has to get it for calling a girl a skank! :)) The world is a funny place to live in!
Giannii
· 3 months ago
Free speech and anonymity are two different things , however I'm very interested to see how this pans out.
Kenneth Livingston
· 3 months ago
Hey Mashable,
I think it is fantastic that this model took up her issues in court. What you think is true and this man obviously has some trouble with thinking properly. It should be a lesson to him to think about what and how he is thinking and maybe will improve himself and his life in the process.
Nita
· 3 months ago
Agree with the majority of people here. What's the point of even expressing ideas if you're not willing to stand behind them to take credit/responsibility? While the Internet is a marvellous tool, this is a sillier example of how it's being misused. Some examples, like hate groups, are much darker. The idea that people can be held responsible for their ideas/thoughts will proably lead to more responsible use and content.
Rob
· 3 months ago
This model was on Good Morning America on Aug. 19th and she revealed that, through Google, she found out that the person who was defaming her on the website was one of her acquaintances.
This model was on Good Morning America on Aug. 19th and she revealed that, through Google, she found out that the person who was defaming her on the website was one of her acquaintances.
I think that this could go both ways. I'm using the entire example of the LA Fitness shooting and the guy's blog, because that brought up, whose responsibility is it to monitor the net? I know the situations are completely different, but after the shooting, I got into several conversations about libel and slander and this and that. I'm leaning more towards, this is a good thing. My ideal net would be a place where privacy is protected in the form of obviously too personal information (social security numbers, or hey, if you don't want your mom to see what you did last night, don't post it). To an extent, it is like this. You can control your own image on the net pretty decently. But that doesn't mean you're completely safe from someone just completely defaming you online.
I'm swinging out on another branch here - but this could be really beneficial for more popular celebrities (not to knock the model) in terms of how far people are willing to go. Maybe if there's a lockdown on articles/blogs (read: paris hilton) then maybe there won't be such a demand for info, either...
Maybe celebrities can be a little bit safer, and journalists a little more respectful. Dignified, even.
And - I'm really sick of going on message boards and having mean 14 year old girls tell me off just because they can. I've seen way too many "fights" and examples of bullying online, things that have just gone way too far. I think this will help. A ton.
Indy
· 3 months ago
After reading through the comments, I'm thinking that I wouldn't mind if someone legally shut up the really rude people. But that's just my free speech talking, letting me say what I want, when I want, how I want, blah blah blah.
Dmytro
· 3 months ago
just don't reveal your real name, that's it. oh yeah,no static IP as well.
Craig Foster
· 3 months ago
Free speach, libel, defamation. Who cares.
Is she a skank whore or isn't she?
MichaelADeBose
· 3 months ago
This is a very important moment and dovetails well with the renter and the property management company situation a few weeks ago. Free speech doesn't necessarily mean free to say just about anything. I've not reviewed any of the material, but it is interesting that the poster may be an acquaintance which she may have guessed perhaps due to things posted that she recognized possibly. Translation, a complete stranger, ordinarily anyway, has no chance of standing up to the charges leveled. While, completely telling the truth doesn't get the poster 'out of jail free', putting the guy on the stand may not feel like the win she wants, depending on the veracity and accuracy of any actual knowledge this guy has. Yes, there is spurned and angry and there's also spurned, angry and 'in-the-know'.
On a related note, I am curious to see how this pan's out for television perhaps and in politics more specifically. It seems a little wrong headed that expense would be spent in revealing the identities of people on the internet for calling someone 'aged' and indiscriminate, while the political venue allows any number of distortions and unsupportable assertions everyday. Of greater concern is that routinely links are put forward between video game violence and the people that play them on one hand and gangster rap and the people that listen to it on the other. Being neither psychologist nor behaviorist I don't know one way or the other. Just the same, I am entertained by the fact that in politics more than anywhere else pundits, politicians and people of all persuasions routinely say things that lack truth to an impossible degree, while maligning many things in very personal terms. Maybe the political realm should be more responsible in the example it sets, so people on the internet won't behave so badly, going about just saying any old thing about about any 'old' body. Who knows, there might be a link.
lehenryjr
· 3 months ago
This is complete crap.
Now, Free speech doesn't mean I can threaten you [or family] with bodily harm... seriously; name calling?! OMG every Hollywood actor could file a lawsuit right now with the crap that's on websites. Parents can file lawsuits against other kids for NAME CALLING on Facebook.
I can see it now Kid A calls kid B a name and now they're in court suing each other for slander. This is just stupid.
And the Judge that ruled it's legal is a stinky blow'n wind bag, carrying around a century of feces in his head to make that kind of decision [or he was paid off again]; that means he's an idiot.
So it's anonymous, big deal; they're just words. It's not like it's something people don't already know or corporate secrets that can bring a company to it's knees. So what! She wears a wig, her boobs are fake, she throws phones at her personal assistants and her butt sags to the back of her knees- who cares.
We all know this... old news.
Laws, rules & regulations- there's so much and with crap like this, we lose more of our freedoms everyday. Very sad.
Chris Murray
· 3 months ago
Your reputation is very difficult to defend when you have no way to do so.
This of course in an extreme case, a few random insults are not going to ruin anyone's life, but obsessive and prolonged abuse could have a very real impact on your friends, family and career. I'm with the judge on this one.
Personally I say hire a private detective to find out who they are (it wouldn't take long) and then send the boys round to 'resolve' the situation. This kind of low brow aggravation needs dealing with in an appropriate manner. ;0)
Shelley
· 3 months ago
Absolutely, the judge was correct! Comments like that should be kept to yourself. "Let he without sin cast the first stone", right? I bet this guy wouldn't want all of his personal crap published on the internet. It says a lot about a persons tact and character when they write horrible things about somebody like that. It's and awful thing to do. I feel that the judge was right on target. Even if these kinds of things are benig said about someone who is not a public figure, it should still be considered defamation of character. Sometimes we get to look at things from a moral point of view. Don't you think? Freedom of speech, sure, we deserve that right. But I'm pretty sure this kind of "speech" is not was our founding father's had in mind when that was added to the constitution.
Etienne
· 3 months ago
The internet and blogs are communications tools, technologies not shields for anonymously causing unjustified damage to others. There is, after all, no space for unsocial behavior in social networks. Well done Judge!
Customer Satisfaction
· 3 months ago
Just from my own personal paranoid perspective. If Google submits to giving up the blogger's name it will be the death knoll for Google Docs and the rest of the "cloud computing" concept that they have been pushing.
I know I would not put anything on their servers that would be turned over to the first person waving a subpoena.
Buck
· 3 months ago
I have always found it odd the use of anonymous postings on the Internet. I would assume that anyone who has something of value to say would stand behind it with their name and reputation. Cowards hide behind fake names and identities while they spew hatred and poison. While I think this person is lowering herself by going after this juvenile, I do believe she has every right to do so and were it not for the false security of being anonymous the blogger would not find himself in such a position because he would not have dared put his name to such foul postings about someone otherwise.
Edward Virtually
· 3 months ago
Perhaps you should spend some time looking into the issue of whistle blowers and the abuse they have historically suffered for their courage before you impugn the honor of those who do so but try to avoid that fate. Or those who fear retribution for talking about domestic violence or child abuse. Your simple minded endorsement of this ruling, which sets a very bad precedent and will be abused to enable the punishment of the mentioned groups, is pathetic and the reflection of either a limited intellect or of limited experience with the real world.
m4yn
· 3 months ago
I love how America is still so stuck in the Victorian era that saying a woman has sex with people constitutes per se defamation or libel. I mean, god forbid women should be having sex with anyone! That would indicate women might like sex!
Don't Americans have better things to do with their time than care about who's shtupping whom? I guess not - maybe that explains all the layoffs.
Clif
· 3 months ago
I guess the problem that I have is, doesn't this effectively overturn legal precedent concerning whistleblowing and journalism shield laws? I mean, if I'm blogging about something that's REALLY important that's been fact checked, as a responsible citizen, would not my free speech rights be, in effect, rendered null and void. If I say the truth, and can't count on anonymity to protect me, then why tell the truth. Even Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine wrote anonymous pamphlets. I would think anonymity protects free speech.
cliftonius
· 3 months ago
I guess the problem that I have is, doesn't this effectively overturn legal precedent concerning whistleblowing and journalism shield laws? I mean, if I'm blogging about something that's REALLY important that's been fact checked, as a responsible citizen, would not my free speech rights be, in effect, rendered null and void. If I say the truth, and can't count on anonymity to protect me, then why tell the truth. Even Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine wrote anonymous pamphlets. I would think anonymity protects free speech.
Guest
· 3 months ago
I guess the problem that I have is, doesn't this effectively overturn legal precedent concerning whistleblowing and journalism shield laws? I mean, if I'm blogging about something that's REALLY important that's been fact checked, as a responsible citizen, would not my free speech rights be, in effect, rendered null and void. If I say the truth, and can't count on anonymity to protect me, then why tell the truth. Even Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine wrote anonymous pamphlets. I would think anonymity protects free speech.
Chrystal K.
· 3 months ago
I wonder if this person actually knows the model. That would be pretty awkward for them.
Bev Johnson
· 3 months ago
This certainly is not freedom of speech. What we have here is an Abuser and a Victim
Abuse! Is Abuse, Is Abuse! No matter what form it takes, Physical, Emotional or Verbal.. this blogger is certainly guilty of at least two of these acts, and most certainly should be named. At least this would give the Victim the chance to face her Abuser and ask "Why?"
T.
· 3 months ago
"Wahhh, someone called me a skank and an old hag!"
Who cares!
Josh King
· 3 months ago
This actually isn't that big of a deal. If a court finds there's a decent chance she can pursue a defamation claim, they're going to require the site to reveal the blogger's identity.
There's also no precedent here - this is the trial court level. Even a judge down the hall in Manhattan could decide differently.
Shamrock
· 3 months ago
Simply put freedom of speech is there. Yet the supreme court has decided to override the Constitution. Yes supreme is lower than the Constitution on purpose. Everysingle magazine in this counrty has bashed people in such a manner, it is however in a way that is more eloquent, also stated as more of a question so it isn't an instigating remark. Anonymous is all powerfull. because frankly no-one knows who said what. Therefore they dont know who to watch or what do do about them. Mind you this blogger's statements were vulgar and it degraded her character. But that is only if people in large numbers take the obvious rantings and ravings of and obssessed and angry person seriously then yes it did damage her. Point blanke there will always be assholes in the world, grow thick skin or walk around with hurt feelings all the time.
BishopTuTu
· 3 months ago
Do you know what free speech really is? This law will still allow you to say what you want BUT if what you're saying is damaging to another person's character and affects their ability to earn money then that's NOT protected.
You're saying she shouldn't have taken it seriously but would you say the same thing if it were your family or if it were you would you still feel the same way?
If she thinks she's been called names now, wait 'til this starts spreading around the net.
BishopTuTu
· 3 months ago
I don't get the argument that the anonymous blogger shouldn't be sued. If someone is defaming your character online it should have the same standard that would occur if they physically went around telling people. To ME making a vicious blog about someone is the equivalent of standing on the corner with a sign showing it to the world. You are not protected from your comments but you have the right to comment.
The internet has allowed many people to hide and say things that have NO grain of truth. I've seen people be accused of being abusers, rapists, baby killers and you guys are saying these same people should not have consequences for statements that hold NO truth and destroy a person's character? If we want the internet to be and remain safe we HAVE to have a standard about what is and is not acceptable.
I don't know if this particular woman will win her case but people need to be aware.
Some of you need to read the constitution because you clearly don't understand FREE SPEECH. lol
njdriver
· 3 months ago
If you want to spew garbage on the internet, which is a public forum, then you should be exposed in the public forum. If you don't want to be known, then shutup and spew your garbage in private.
Mike Stenger
· 3 months ago
This looks like defamation to me, not a breach on freedom of speech or anonymity. The dude kept saying a bunch of stuff he shouldn't have, done deal.
Mike Stenger
· 3 months ago
This looks like defamation to me, not a breach on freedom of speech or anonymity. The dude kept saying a bunch of stuff he shouldn't have, done deal.
Dido'h
· 3 months ago
This is a good decision-- defamation and libel is already very established law so there cannot be too much confusion in the implementation of the law i.e. what is too trivial and what merits damages. To reveal the identity of a blogger so he can be held accountable for what he said is a natural evolution of the law of defamation.
ecotech
· 3 months ago
I think, every person should have a sense of moral standard in his head before he speaks or write about anybody. We can think which are hurtful and which are not. We can somehow know a person's character by the words that comes out from his mouth.
ecotech
· 3 months ago
I think, every person should have a sense of moral standard in his head before he speaks or write about anybody. We can think which are hurtful and which are not. We can somehow know a person's character by the words that comes out from his mouth.
ecotech
· 3 months ago
I think, every person should have a sense of moral standard in his head before he speaks or write about anybody. We can think those which are hurtful and which are not. We can somehow know a person's character by the words that comes out from his mouth.
steve_mobs
· 3 months ago
This court case may threaten the internetz. It will threaten anonymous trolls everywhere.
Frank
· 3 months ago
If everyone would just read and learn what fee speech is, we would all be so much better off. Cant scream fire in a movie theater unless their is one, Making malicious and fraudulent statements is not free speech. Just defamatory. Got some proof to back it up. Then that is free speech. Too bad the poster was so stupid as not too say, "these are my opinions" then that could be free speech.
Read a Book - Learn not to be Stupid
Gurt_McSquirt
· 3 months ago
I'm happy about it. I'm sick of people acting like they're so tough on the internet and will lash out at anyone without any concern because they're safe behind their computers in their houses. When you look at those kids in real life, they're chumps. This will at least get people to think twice about what they say about someone publicly.
StevenGroves
· 3 months ago
We always encourage people to not post anything on the web they wold not otherwise say in a polite conversation. That might still leave a wide berth, but if you would not say it in front of Gramma, why say it on the web where it lives forever.
George
· 3 months ago
Now, only flattery is safe, but always untrue.
People like Liskula Cohen seem to appreciate living in some Potemkine life style, with flowers, birds and servants delivering compliments...
The only real question is: are the insults against Liskula Cohen grounded and related to the Truth? But no one dares to ask such question... why? Affraid of some lawsuit? Now any relationship is polluted by the legal issue, the latter helps continuing the Potemkine village and people.
A philosopher once said: "I might not agree with what you say but I'd die to defend your right to say it". Alas, philosophers do not anymore define speech and expression...
I bet that in less than 20 years, people will pay to get insulted.
Meanwhile, Free Speech: R.I.P.
Augure
· 3 months ago
Voltaire said your quote about free speech.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
mike
· 3 months ago
Who ever said the Internet was a private place?
Roger
· 3 months ago
People need to understand what our "freedom of speech" right is before trying to hide behind it. The rights we enjoy in this country came at a heavy price in human life. People died to ensure we have these rights. There are rules and responsibilities that come with the these rights. Justly so, there are laws to protect us from the people who break the rules and feel they have no responsibility towards anyone but themselves.
Google as well as any other site should give the information.
I would also like to point out that my kids stopped using the word skank around the age of 16.
Roger
· 3 months ago
People need to understand what our "freedom of speech" right is before trying to hide behind it. The rights we enjoy in this country came at a heavy price in human life. People died to ensure we have these rights. There are rules and responsibilities that come with the these rights. Justly so, there are laws to protect us from the people who break the rules and feel they have no responsibility towards anyone but themselves.
Google as well as any other site should give the information.
I would also like to point out that my kids stopped using the word skank around the age of 16.
Steve-o
· 3 months ago
It's like due process. You have the right to have anyone who accuses you of something brought before you. I think it keeps people's big ass mouths in check when they have to say this stuff to your face. It's easy to spew passive aggressive garbage when you think you're anonymous. Good for the courts and good for the model. If it's true then it's true but no one should be slandered. This isn't a free speech issue at all and I hope folks here don't mistake it as such. I like people having to be accountable for what comes out of their mouths!
snoozer999666
· 3 months ago
You should be able to say anything you want on your blog.
You should also be able to expect a little retribution if what you say is libelous or defames someone.
New times, new mores, We should always expect lies and libel to be punishable, somehow. It would just suck if the law said, Sit down, shut your pie-hole, and suck it up.
casey
· 3 months ago
Free speech does not allow slander or libel. When you call someone a promiscuous whore t, you better be able to prove it.
It is the ignorance of bloggers as to what free speech is that will get them in trouble.
Sucks
· 3 months ago
The real problem is that lawyers are now involved. I truthfully cannot stand people who post blogs like this but there is a freedom of speech issue. However, now that this guy needs to get a lawyer and go to court, this is going to cost him thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. There needs to be a much better way to settle disputes then having to pay lawyers to figure out what is freedom of speech online. (And don't call anyone a whore online) it's just mean.
Sucks
· 3 months ago
The real problem is that lawyers are now involved. I truthfully cannot stand people who post blogs like this but there is a freedom of speech issue. However, now that this guy needs to get a lawyer and go to court, this is going to cost him thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. There needs to be a much better way to settle disputes then having to pay lawyers to figure out what is freedom of speech online. (And don't call anyone a whore online) it's just mean.
@NameSugar
· 3 months ago
This is a correct decision, the blogger messed up when he made accusations about her. "Skank" and "old hag" are opinions and would not have warranted legal action but the "She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring..." statement alone is making allegations that could affect her career and well being. The blogger has the "free speech" right to make the allegations but, if he cannot prove them it is libelous and she has the right to defend herself against them.
Edward Virtually
· 3 months ago
Celebrities are not entitled to the same level of protection as demonstrated by the fact you don't go to jail for calling politicians crooks, etc. Your claim her career would be effected by unproven insults by some anonymous fool is laughable. The issue here is precedent. Future uses of this ruling won't be by models seeking to unmask people for calling them whores. It will be used by corporations and criminals to unmask those who expose their misdeeds by falsely labeling them slanderous. The falseness of which won't restore the anonymity of the person being exposed. Thus this ruling is bad news for expecting people to blow the whistle on such activities, and that is a lot more significant than all this blathering about people posting insults.
Jeremy Armer
· 3 months ago
You're correct the issue is precedent. Libel law is well established, why would a blog not apply? It's a published mass medium. I'm all for protection of freedom of speech, but that's not being stifled here. There is no guaranteed right to anonymity. The right to privacy ends when you make statements in a public forum.
Also, if you make allegations against "corporations and criminals" on your anonymous blog you should also expect to back them up. Again, opinions whether reasonable or not won't get you in trouble but when someone is accused of wrongdoing they do have the right to defend themselves.
Tom
· 3 months ago
Considering you love mocking people and calling them names in all of your posts, all behind a virtual identity, I can see why you don't agree with the judge. Just another Internet coward.
Edward Virtually
· 3 months ago
Um, there is no mocking nor calling anyone names in my posts on this thread. And note that using the same pseudonym for 20 years is not the same thing as being anonymous.
Jeremy Armer
· 3 months ago
This is a correct decision, the blogger messed up when he made accusations about her. "Skank" and "old hag" are opinions and would not have warranted legal action but the "She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring..." statement alone is making allegations that could affect her career and well being. The blogger has the "free speech" right to make the allegations but, if he cannot prove them it is libelous and she has the right to defend herself against them.
Maldives Scuba Diving Holidays
· 3 months ago
She's a skank for suing!!! lol -- She seriously needs to sack it up and stop taking stuff so personally...
Cory356
· 3 months ago
I think that the courts decision to subpeona Google should only be justified if the model could prove damages caused by the post. What if Carrie Prejean had requested the names of the bloggers who wrote negatively about her. Would Google have released the thousands of email addresses responsible then? I find this topic interesting because the legalities of online social media are not defined. My question is .. who or what branch of government should define them? Will the government start defining what is legally acceptible for twitter, facebook, myspace status updates? Is what I put online opening me up to legal ramifications?
Colin_Rich
· 3 months ago
Oh yeah, there's no privacy on the Internet anyway. You talk trash, you can get sued. Period.
Guest
· 3 months ago
Free speach is starting to get very expensive. Sad.
Glen Woodfin
· 3 months ago
Free speech is getting very expensive.
kate
· 3 months ago
Judge Madden's decision was the right one.
slum_goddess
· 3 months ago
holy hell, this is ridiculous. i'm over 40 and still go out partying, raving and dancing at clubs &c (and i'm not the oldest of my friends, all of whom range in age from early 20s to mid-60s and we all party together). then again, i'm in England where the social scene's much better/more open-minded than i found in NYC (of all places). getting back to the bitch-model, she's a model for thin-skinned sensitivity, the dumb twat.
hmmm... i wonder if the decision would've been different if the judge had a penis? LOL, just sayin'.
lc
· 3 months ago
Quotea from “Skanks in NYC” “I would have to say that the first place award for “Skankiest in NYC” would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen. How old is this skank? 40 something? She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.”Official Blog: Skanks in NYC—Anonymous blogger
“Yeah she may have been hot 10 years ago, but is it really attractive to watch this old hag straddle dudes in a nightclub or lounge? Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one.”Official Blog: Skanks in NYC—Anonymous blogger
I dont like where this is going. Without anonymity on the internet we will be seeing more and more stupid lawsuits. Soon enough the government will be sifting through blogs to find who wrote that Britney Spear is a train wreck or Lindsay Lohan is a drug addict. Celebs will find every excuse to exploit this loophole and sap money from bloggers who voice their opinion. I mean for christ's sake who actually took this 10 year olds blog seriously? "Trashy skank"? Seriously? She needs to check herself at the door if she can't handle a few stupid blogs. And don't get me wrong the blogger is a friggen moron.
In reality anonymity doesn't exist anyway only because the government can already go through and find out who you are. A fine example is the recent situation with the man in new york speaking with terrorist organizations where they went through his email records and discovered he was speaking with members of al qaeda.
Unless its endangering the safety of someone, i say leave the internet be.
John
· 2 months ago
The Constitution says each person is allowed to face their accuser. This is it in reality.
All Comments
Simply put, if someone truly believes in what they are saying, they say it under their real name, and accept the consequences. Now, this blogger will find that hiding behind the cloak of anonymity will not protect them.
Anonymity on the internet, except where necessary for personal protection, is a plague. And while I don't really like the idea of courts forcing Google (or anyone else) to give up people's identities, I very much doubt this critic would have been quite so forthcoming if they were using their real identity to begin with.
If you want to be anonymous, fine - just don't expect your comment to be given equal weight (or to even be posted). As social and 'old' media continues to blend I believe that you'll see less and less anonymous commentary in blogs, news portals, etc, as more and more of them implement verification protocols and require a user to be logged-in to post. Of course there will still be all-anonymous communities, and that's fine. But increasingly, rarely the twain shall meet.
Second, anonymous commentary has a long and storied history in this country, beginning with but not limited to The Federalist, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, but originally published collectively and attributed to "Publius." Did that render Jay's, Hamilton's and Madison's arguments concerning ratification of the Constitution moot? Do you really want to make that argument?
If not for an anonymous source referred to as "Deep Throat," the US might never have discovered the truth concerning the crimes of the Nixon administration.
Probably not. Just like the person you're responding to didn't make the argument that there is no value in anonymity. Notice how they specified bloggers? Deepthroat.blogspot.com is in trouble. Deep Throat not so much.
Free speech means free from government retribution. It means I can say that I hate the president if I want to. It does NOT mean I can threaten the life of another person and except to be kept anonymous by my ISP or other service provider. Or are we supposed to keep safe the privilege of threatening people's lives and otherwise breaking the law?
profile does in fact contain
my real name and a link to my Web site. There's nothing wrong with a
handle, and I practice what I preach
by adding my real name to my profile. I realize that may be too hard for
you to understand, cupcake, but there it is.
you have to say, you use your real name. It's just that simple.
Signed,
Michael Crook
perhaps they shouldn't post it.
No sympathy I'm afriad. (S)He brought it on them self.
I make a mistake and spell words incorrectly, and suddenly you feel the need and right, to criticise this?
Seemingly unnecessary.
Just laugh at yourself and move on, rather than becoming indignant.
But a fair point to just laugh at myself.
ok. I have to stop commenting on this thread or it's going to turn into a chat room war a la Prodigy circa 1992.
in places like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (America's "friend"), many dictatorships in Africa & South America, not to mention China, speaking one's mind - or being one's self (like gay, for example) can actually get you imprisoned, and or thrown off a roof and even hung, drawn and quartered, by the government.
The blogger's comment was out of order and the model taking it seriously is even more frivolous but a judge requesting Google to reveal the identity of the blogger is way out of line.
I know totalitarian goverments have forced Google, Yahoo et al to comply with their repressive laws in their countries but this judgement might set a precedent against civil liberties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/business/worl...
The fact that the defamation occurring on the internet, with real potential for the defamation to occur globally, supports that the sentence set for internet defamation probably should be the highest of all defamation types.
For Google or any other media to not reveal this person's identity is obstruction of justice. This person is not a member of the press, nor a confidential source used by a legitimate press reporter, so they do not have any rights to anonymity or confidentiality.
The internet is not even a professional service provider like a doctor or lawyer with whom one can rely on some level of legal confidentiality. But even that is gone when the client breaks certain criminal laws or invokes information relating to their professional relationship as a defense in court.
This is not a 1st amendment issue. As the judge decided: It is an issue of defamation.
If you believe strongly in your words, whether right or wrong, have the strength of character to put you name to them. Hiding behind anonymity to insult someone is cowardly.
Leonard Smith
For what it's worth, the blogger was spot-on correct in his OPINIONS. Interpreted as anything else is judicial malpractice on Madden's part.
Sandy
"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech" which this clearly is. Good for the judge because while freedom of expression/speech is important, it is also not absolute nor should it be abused. We have the right to bare arms....but there is still a limit to it.
I also think that the blogger shouldn't be anonymous. If you're going to spout stuff like that have the guts to show your face.
If you're talking about 'free speech' American-style, once again I find myself pointing out to someone that it does not mean you can say anything you want without fear of consequences or having to take responsibility. It means - according to U.S. constitution - that people can speak against their government without fear of government agents coming in the middle of the night and taking them away.
Plus, if people want to take credit for their good opinion, why not stand up and take credit when they say talk bad and slander someone.
While anonymity shouldn't excuse people from being rude to others online and it shows your true character should you abuse that privelege, neither should rudeness be a reason for a CORPORATION such as Google to reveal someone's personal information to other individuals, especially if no crime has taken place.
Saying someone is ugly is not libel but saying they use drugs if they don't certainly is.
Frankly I'm surprised that Perez Hilton's site has never been shut down because it's full of libel.
And their is a difference between opinion and slander of libel. Defamation of character See below:
Defamation of character can include slander (spoken derogatory statements), libel (written derogatory statements) or both. To constitute actionable defamation, the statements must be false and expose a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt. You also can sue if the defamation harms you in your occupation.
Generally, to make a successful defamation of character claim, you must show that there was a false statement of fact, this statement was conveyed to a third party and the statement is understood to be about you and tending to harm your reputation. In the case of a public figure, actual malice must also be proved.
anyway, Sandy Hajek - what law exactly (in the States, Canada, UK or EU) is calling someone a 'skank' against? please point it out to all of us. we'd sure love to know. when you say "let's not get technical", you really mean let's not be ACCURATE. previously, you said the alleged slanderer committed a crime. no, they didn't. now you're saying that what they said is against the law. no, it isn't.
is what the blogger said libel (that's published slander, by the way)? i have no idea, and neither do you. for all we know, that blogger's opinion maybe accurate. maybe that model is a skank or acted like one. and really, is calling someone a skank really all that bad? is it worse than saying that Obama is Hitler as some people are now doing? anyway, factual or not, it's that blogger's opinion, and they have the right to say it. of course, they may have to face some consequences for it. free speech isn't really free as i pointed out in a different response.
and just because the model says it's defamation and sues, doesn't mean that it is defamation and that she'll win. she just know has the right to know the identity of the person who called her a skank. probably so she can sue them. as if people hearing about this nonsense already don't think that she's at least an idiot, if perhaps not a skank.
anyway, as i also pointed out, this legal decision has a wider implication than some alleged skanky model with hurt feelings. what if someone is blogging from Iran (or some other such skanky place), and says his govt is arresting, jailing, torturing and killing people who try to speak against it - by the way, THAT sort of free speech IS protected in the States meaning the govt can't come for you just because they don't like what you say about them - will Google turn over his or her name? so that the agents of that govt can come in the middle of the night and disappear him? maybe.
actually, didn't Google already tell the Chinese govt the name of a dissenting blogger who ended up in prison? um, yes they did. was there even a court order, or did China's tolitarian govt just ask nicely. not sure. either way, they got the name. now, the Chinese government generally doesn't kill citizens who say bad things about it, no they just leave them to rot in nasty prisons.
On the other hand, Iran hangs such people in public, from a crane (so they strangle and don't die quickly from a broken neck), usually after flogging them a few hundred times. sometimes, for variety, they stone them. oh, if they are female and virgins, they are forced to marry a guard and then they are raped before they are executed because in Iran, it's against the law to execute virgins. it's actually considered to be a crime.
If the blogger in question were to go around the neighborhood, verbally trashing her, could he/she still be sued for defamation? I think this is all a bit silly. Sites like thedirty.com are worthless pieces of crap, but who takes it seriously? Unless there are defaming pictures, who cares what people write about you. And if there's pictures, then you probably deserve it. Ok, kids. Just remember that school yard adage: Sticks and stones may break my bones...
FOR SHAME closeted blogger. Show yourself and own your opinion.
Or STFU. Because if you don't care enough to stand behind your own opinion, why should I?
Use some courage for god sake!
what if it something to do with nation/society security and safety?
have you been heard about jakarta bombing in 17th juli?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Jakarta_bombings
an anonymous blogger has post something to blogpost:
http://mediaislam-bushro.blogspot.com/
as we fight terrorism in all kinds
google should reveal the identity of the blogger without trial
don't you think?
Anonymity is abused too often online, and in the US, or any country with good human rights including free speech, shouldn't be a legal protection to wrongdoing.
For criminal acts, one fully expects ISP and web companies to respond to a subpoena in an investigation for an anonymous subject. Why should the standard be any different for tortious acts?
This is a thoughtful, sober look at a volatile topic. Great, great job with this article. I believe defamation laws exist for a reason, and a judge shouldn’t reject a claim out of fear that others with weaker cases might follow. In other words, anticipation of a potentially unjust outcome shouldn't preclude an individual from taking a just action.
Again, excellent work,
JoeC
When it comes to more serious issues, Jimmy Midyette, Esq. advises a look at 42 USC 1983, and states, “for those who need a reminder of the importance of anonymous public comments against powerful institutions should re-read Common Sense, by Thomas Paine.”
This is a debate.
Not only that, it's just plain rude
Absolutely nothing new to say... Just to quote myself
"People quite often tend to say to each other on the Net things that they would never possibly tell each other in face-to-face communication. And you may like it or not but in my opinion that is what makes the Internet so attractive: something different from the ordinary, something different from offline, the ability to say to someone those things straight regardless of social standing - and you, boarding school girl, get offended by that? Common! Get use to it! This mode of behavior had been around for about 20 years already."
http://sexyseo.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-name-is-...
Too often these days we hide behind the notion that free speech gives us the right to say whatever we want without having to face the consequences. This is just isn't the case. Freedom of speech gives people like this blogger, a teenager spouting off on myspace about people she goes to school with, or limbaugh and other vile little trolls the right to say what they want, but in the end everyone must be held accountable for their actions either through a lawsuit, a good ass kicking, or your own enablers taking action against you.
The verdict basically says you have the right to run your mouth, but you don't have the right to do it anonymously, there is nothing challenging the freedom of speech.
What no one is talking about is why google never canceled the douchebag's account. I have seen this happen for far less blatant TOS violations.
Comments from anywhere that negatively affect someone's ability to do their job -- esp if false and inflammatory -- have to place under the First Amendment.
I'd get a lawyer, too, and expect to win. A name in the public eye gets googled and a blog like that comes up: you know any negative stuff is going to make fashionista employers nervous. Same diff with lies printed in those tabloids.
"...that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." http://bit.ly/QOkTw
"Anonymity" in this particular case appears to be driven by cowardliness to deal with consequences much more than a statement on our common online privacy rights...!
Myanmar? North Korea? China? Iran? ...
You see it coming?
The issue you is NOT whether the blogger should stop being cowardly. I honestly don't think the law cares if someone is acting heroically or cowardly, if you break the law, you break the law.
The issue you is NOT whether the blogger should stop being cowardly. I honestly don't think the law cares if someone is acting heroically or cowardly, if you break the law, you break the law.
He defamed her with a libelous statement and if she brings a lawsuit she should be able to bring a lawsuit against the defamer. However, I believe there should be some step that requires a motion to dismiss type of showing similar to a medical panel in malpractice suits before the court allows the case to go forward and require additional steps such as forcing a publishing company or host company to give up the goods on the author or blogger. I say this because I don't know how much of actual damages she can prove, since it seems she is still working with little hindrance (hence the comment from the blogger).
I would use the "motion to dismiss" model prior to disclosing names to discourage frivolous lawsuits being brought to simply unmask authors and bloggers, but allowing cases with merit to go forward.
But that's not new, I just hope all these people will have to face the consequences of their ignorance and growing non-perceptiveness.
Anyway one more reason, and there have been a lot lately, to not use Blogger and switch to Tumblr, Wordpress or whatever.
Its all in interpretation. As far as I am concerned, something about this judge does not seem to be ticking right.
The argument of free speech will no doubt arise in the civil lawsuit and it may very well be a winning argument. The burden of proving she was harmed by this speech is on Liskula Cohen.
This blogger may not have to pay damages because of his offensive, yet protected, speech, but he cannot hide and at the same time spout off his opinions. That is not a protection the constitution gives him.
The argument of free speech will no doubt arise in the civil lawsuit and it may very well be a winning argument. The burden of proving she was harmed by this speech is on Liskula Cohen.
This blogger may not have to pay damages because of his offensive, yet protected, speech, but he cannot hide and at the same time spout off his opinions. That is not a protection the constitution gives him.
On the other hand, if one is trying to establish a reputation, and intends to use that to influence other people on a particular topic, then even if they are writing under an alias, simply because there is weight, they need to be held accountable for their statements. Blogging is no different than setting up a podium outside in a public place and giving speeches all day, if you do this you have to live with the consequences of your actions (even if you wear a mask).
That's what happens when you're famous unfortunately.
Freedom of speech is a broad term. We should be able to say or write anything we desire, if we're willing to stand by it. We don't have freedom from responsibility for what we say.
I hope they throw the book at them!
Freedom of speech is absolute, that's true, however stand in the public square and say it, don't hide behind a mask of obscurity.
You do have the right to face your accuser (except, apparently in Photo-Enforced Red Light camera cases) so if someone chooses to defame someone in public, their identity should also be in public.
In the case I witnessed, a company sued over 30 anonymous bloggers. The court ended up forcing the ISP to disclose the identities of the bloggers ONLY WHEN the plaintiff demonstrated first that the statements were actionable, meaning the statements met the elements of a legitimate claim. You can't just sue someone just to find out who they are, you need to have a legit claim. So bloggers beware...it's not that hard to file a John Doe lawsuit, prove that your statement is positioned as factual, and get your name.
In the case I witnessed, a company sued over 30 anonymous bloggers. The court ended up forcing the ISP to disclose the identities of the bloggers ONLY WHEN the plaintiff demonstrated first that the statements were actionable, meaning the statements met the elements of a legitimate claim. You can't just sue someone just to find out who they are, you need to have a legit claim. So bloggers beware...it's not that hard to file a John Doe lawsuit, prove that your statement is positioned as factual, and get your name.
The internet was made for people to call other people stuff like this. I've been called much worse than a skany whore, and you don't see me filing a lawsuit. This whiny model needs to grow a thicker skin.
EFF on Anonymity: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Quixtar vs Signature: http://tcattorney.typepad.com/digital_millenniu...
Google Content Rules: http://www.blogger.com/content.g
Also, the original blog has been deleted (within the terms of service) and the blogspot address is available.
http://twitter.com/upal_
On the other hand, if one is trying to establish a reputation, and intends to use that to influence other people on a particular topic, then even if they are writing under an alias, simply because there is weight, they need to be held accountable for their statements. Blogging is no different than setting up a podium outside in a public place and giving speeches all day, if you do this you have to live with the consequences of your actions (even if you wear a mask).
Observing government regimes, making opinion/belief based comment on the actual actions they take and condemning that is a far cry from lying about someone. It's not the same free speech issue. Since when was the Internet a pass for being responsible for what you say? It's not. Google agreeing to allow China to block specific websites that the government doesn't approve of is a far worse stab at free speech then them removing a cloak of anonymity from a blogger.
I don't think the blogger has any cause of action - the case was between the model and Google. I think Google would have to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (since this ruling came from the state's supreme court) and it's questionable whether they would. Google's terms of service forbid hate speech, inflammatory language, etc so they might choose to ditch the blogger. It's not like someone wanted information about someone doing nothing.
The blogger may have cause to sue Google for revealing his information but I'm guessing he doesn't since his actions violates Google's terms of service. Google could get in trouble for being inconsistent (i.e. discriminatory) with the application of punishment for violating their terms of service, and that's probably not a can of worms they want to open so basically they are not shutting down the blogger even though they probably technically could. A silent out of court type of nod. It will very interesting to see how it all sorts out. Lots of issues and yes, potential precedent with unintended consequences.
I think it is fantastic that this model took up her issues in court. What you think is true and this man obviously has some trouble with thinking properly. It should be a lesson to him to think about what and how he is thinking and maybe will improve himself and his life in the process.
Here's a link to the video
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8361712
Here's a link to the video
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8361712
I'm swinging out on another branch here - but this could be really beneficial for more popular celebrities (not to knock the model) in terms of how far people are willing to go. Maybe if there's a lockdown on articles/blogs (read: paris hilton) then maybe there won't be such a demand for info, either...
Maybe celebrities can be a little bit safer, and journalists a little more respectful. Dignified, even.
And - I'm really sick of going on message boards and having mean 14 year old girls tell me off just because they can. I've seen way too many "fights" and examples of bullying online, things that have just gone way too far. I think this will help. A ton.
oh yeah,no static IP as well.
Is she a skank whore or isn't she?
On a related note, I am curious to see how this pan's out for television perhaps and in politics more specifically. It seems a little wrong headed that expense would be spent in revealing the identities of people on the internet for calling someone 'aged' and indiscriminate, while the political venue allows any number of distortions and unsupportable assertions everyday. Of greater concern is that routinely links are put forward between video game violence and the people that play them on one hand and gangster rap and the people that listen to it on the other. Being neither psychologist nor behaviorist I don't know one way or the other. Just the same, I am entertained by the fact that in politics more than anywhere else pundits, politicians and people of all persuasions routinely say things that lack truth to an impossible degree, while maligning many things in very personal terms. Maybe the political realm should be more responsible in the example it sets, so people on the internet won't behave so badly, going about just saying any old thing about about any 'old' body. Who knows, there might be a link.
Now, Free speech doesn't mean I can threaten you [or family] with bodily harm... seriously; name calling?! OMG every Hollywood actor could file a lawsuit right now with the crap that's on websites. Parents can file lawsuits against other kids for NAME CALLING on Facebook.
I can see it now Kid A calls kid B a name and now they're in court suing each other for slander. This is just stupid.
And the Judge that ruled it's legal is a stinky blow'n wind bag, carrying around a century of feces in his head to make that kind of decision [or he was paid off again]; that means he's an idiot.
So it's anonymous, big deal; they're just words. It's not like it's something people don't already know or corporate secrets that can bring a company to it's knees. So what! She wears a wig, her boobs are fake, she throws phones at her personal assistants and her butt sags to the back of her knees- who cares.
We all know this... old news.
Laws, rules & regulations- there's so much and with crap like this, we lose more of our freedoms everyday. Very sad.
This of course in an extreme case, a few random insults are not going to ruin anyone's life, but obsessive and prolonged abuse could have a very real impact on your friends, family and career. I'm with the judge on this one.
Personally I say hire a private detective to find out who they are (it wouldn't take long) and then send the boys round to 'resolve' the situation. This kind of low brow aggravation needs dealing with in an appropriate manner. ;0)
I know I would not put anything on their servers that would be turned over to the first person waving a subpoena.
Don't Americans have better things to do with their time than care about who's shtupping whom? I guess not - maybe that explains all the layoffs.
Abuse! Is Abuse, Is Abuse! No matter what form it takes, Physical, Emotional or Verbal.. this blogger is certainly guilty of at least two of these acts, and most certainly should be named. At least this would give the Victim the chance to face her Abuser and ask "Why?"
Who cares!
There's also no precedent here - this is the trial court level. Even a judge down the hall in Manhattan could decide differently.
You're saying she shouldn't have taken it seriously but would you say the same thing if it were your family or if it were you would you still feel the same way?
The internet has allowed many people to hide and say things that have NO grain of truth. I've seen people be accused of being abusers, rapists, baby killers and you guys are saying these same people should not have consequences for statements that hold NO truth and destroy a person's character? If we want the internet to be and remain safe we HAVE to have a standard about what is and is not acceptable.
I don't know if this particular woman will win her case but people need to be aware.
Some of you need to read the constitution because you clearly don't understand FREE SPEECH. lol
Read a Book - Learn not to be Stupid
People like Liskula Cohen seem to appreciate living in some Potemkine life style, with flowers, birds and servants delivering compliments...
The only real question is: are the insults against Liskula Cohen grounded and related to the Truth? But no one dares to ask such question... why? Affraid of some lawsuit? Now any relationship is polluted by the legal issue, the latter helps continuing the Potemkine village and people.
A philosopher once said: "I might not agree with what you say but I'd die to defend your right to say it". Alas, philosophers do not anymore define speech and expression...
I bet that in less than 20 years, people will pay to get insulted.
Meanwhile, Free Speech: R.I.P.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Google as well as any other site should give the information.
I would also like to point out that my kids stopped using the word skank around the age of 16.
Google as well as any other site should give the information.
I would also like to point out that my kids stopped using the word skank around the age of 16.
You should also be able to expect a little retribution if what you say is libelous or defames someone.
New times, new mores, We should always expect lies and libel to be punishable, somehow. It would just suck if the law said, Sit down, shut your pie-hole, and suck it up.
It is the ignorance of bloggers as to what free speech is that will get them in trouble.
Also, if you make allegations against "corporations and criminals" on your anonymous blog you should also expect to back them up. Again, opinions whether reasonable or not won't get you in trouble but when someone is accused of wrongdoing they do have the right to defend themselves.
hmmm... i wonder if the decision would've been different if the judge had a penis? LOL, just sayin'.
“Yeah she may have been hot 10 years ago, but is it really attractive to watch this old hag straddle dudes in a nightclub or lounge? Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one.”Official Blog: Skanks in NYC—Anonymous blogger
In reality anonymity doesn't exist anyway only because the government can already go through and find out who you are. A fine example is the recent situation with the man in new york speaking with terrorist organizations where they went through his email records and discovered he was speaking with members of al qaeda.
Unless its endangering the safety of someone, i say leave the internet be.