Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

John — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:54:18 -0000

The Constitution says each person is allowed to face their accuser. This is it in reality.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

NaokiB4U — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:02:12 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

mictest — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:12:11 -0000

Mashable rocks! http://socialmediastations....

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

mictest — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:09:30 -0000

http://socialmediastations....

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

lc — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:37:08 -0000

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

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

slum_goddess — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0000

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'.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

kate — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:20:45 -0000

Judge Madden's decision was the right one.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Glen Woodfin — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:12:47 -0000

Free speech is getting very expensive.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Guest — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:11:26 -0000

Free speach is starting to get very expensive. Sad.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Colin_Rich — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:14:25 -0000

Oh yeah, there's no privacy on the Internet anyway. You talk trash, you can get sued. Period.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Cory356 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:25:39 -0000

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?

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Edward Virtually — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:23:32 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

TrinityTA — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:18:31 -0000

Thank you, Nacho, that was EXACTLY the case I was thinking of.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Tom — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:08:46 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Maldives Scuba Diving Holidays — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:02:36 -0000

She's a skank for suing!!! lol -- She seriously needs to sack it up and stop taking stuff so personally...

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

NameSugar — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:43:29 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Edward Virtually — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:13:51 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

NameSugar — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:34:26 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

@NameSugar — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:32:39 -0000

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Sucks — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:40:49 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Sucks — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:40:28 -0000

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

casey — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:43:15 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

KLM63 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:22:59 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

snoozer999666 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:56:45 -0000

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.

Re: Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

Tom — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:55:37 -0000

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?