Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules To Reveal Anonymous Blogger's Identity Over Insults
Several readers have written to tell us of a ruling in the New York Supreme Court which will allow model Liskula Cohen to find out the identity of an anonymous blogger who posted some of her photos with captions including the words "psychotic," "skank," and "ho." The site was part of Blogger.com, and Google has already complied with a request for the author's IP address and email. "[Cohen's attorney] said that once his legal team tracks the e-mail address to a name, the next step will be to sue Cohen's detractor for defamation. He said he suspected the creator of the blog is an acquaintance of Cohen. The blog has not been operational for months. The unidentified creator of the blog was represented in court by an attorney, Anne Salisbury, who said her client voluntarily took the blog down when Cohen initiated legal action against it. ... the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line. 'The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions.'"
For once, it's worth reading TFA until the end, when you find out: that the blog had "minuscule" traffic, it was taken down as soon as the lawsuit was filed, and it only had 5 posts all written in one day. Basically the blog was dead.
Sure, as a public figure, it's never fun to be insulted on the Internet (ask Mike Arrington if you don't believe me). But this didn't seem to warrant a full-fledged lawsuit.
--
Calling all indie iPhone developers: fair and open app crowdsourcing
This humble Anonymous Coward who has invested thousands of hours into the defamation and character assassination of a one Robert Malda of Slashdot would like to beg forgiveness from the very respectable Mr. Malda before he forces a judge to make himself turn over my IP address in order to sue me for slander and libel.
I strongly suspect this is a last-ditch, desperate publicity ploy by a second-rate has-been model.
No matter what, bring on the Streisand effect!
I agree that there needs to be a balance against the anoymous people who fear reprisal to people who just want to cause damage.
But in this case, I don't think it is the case. Putting "SKANK" on a picture of a model is no different than putting "SOCIALIST" on Obama's picture. I believe both should be covered by the 1st amendment. Google should have gone to bat for the blogger.
I didn't see the guys blog so I can't say, but unless the blog contained more than just pictures with editorial descriptions, this ruling should be reversed.
We don't live in Shouldland.
So sue me.
If this guy is tracked down I hope the judge tells him to use a proxy next time.
Wow it must be nice to be able to force people to do whatever you want. If I could file a lawsuit to force slashdot to reveal the IP and email of every user that has ever insulted me and then sue them for 5000 each I'd be a very rich and happy man...
Should have went to law school....or had a wealthy mommy and daddy... or become an actor....
Nazi
The judge today issued a warrant for "I. C. Wiener" of 405 West 43rd Street to appear in court.
And Civilization lurches slightly forward.
Lookit, you want to call Bush a Nazi Warmonger or Obama an Incompetent Puppet, or speak any kind of Truth to Power, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you on the ramparts in defense of your Freedom to Speak, you're a Patriot. You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.
The Internet has changed many things, but it has not changed everything.
Keep in mind that, in New York, the "New York Supreme Court" is their trial court, and its rulings can be overturned on appeal.
Ibid.
I knew the site had been taken down, but I clicked on the link for the blog anyway. Blogger informed me that the blog wasn't available for viewing, but the blog title, skanksnyc was up for grabs.
her client voluntarily took the blog down when Cohen initiated legal action against it.
I must have missed a meeting or something. Who redefined "voluntarily"?
People here keep harping that the internet is no different than other media in Point of view of first admendment and right to privacy. The question IS NOT "is it fair that the anonymity was revealed" but the question IS would this with other normal older media be a ground for a libel/slander lawsuit or not ? Would a photo poster with the person with " is a psychotic skank" a ground for slander ? Forget the part where it is a blog. Think about what the LAW would be for the older media. And in such a case, I think there is a good ground to say posting poster with " is a psychotic skank" can be seen as slandering. Once you have that step, then be it a paper poster, blog, or graved on a stone.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Before I read this story, I had never even heard of this psychotic skank! That ho should fire her PR guy and hire her lawyer in his place!
Trick-ass bitch.
-Peter
In my view, we should now preface everything we say with "I think" or "In my opinion". I think. In my opinion, we would then be immune from such lawsuits, which I think are idiotic. At least that's my opinion. Hereby released into the public domain, in my view.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure.
Is she a celebrity? I've never heard of her. My wife does voice-over work and is a news anchor on a bunch of local radio stations. You've never heard of her, but is she "essentially a public figure" and fair game? I know dozens of people who act in and produce independent films, they're all over IMDB, you've never heard of these performers, but they're professional actors and movie producers. Are they "fair game?"
How many people have to recognize your name before you are a "public figure" and thereby forfeit your right to know the identify of your accusers?
and use the power of your office to intimidate others.
There are all sorts of way to have power over people but none are as rewarding as having that power because they choose to work for and with you.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Internet anonymity exists only until people in authority decide to unmask it. While slash dot has hosted many a discussion about forwarding and posting services, none appear in the long run to be absolutely immune to eventual revelation.
The lesson here is simple: Whether you are a "whistle blower" of government or business abuse, a "wannabe" revealer of crime sources, or (apparently in this case) someone who desires to slander, libel, or otherwise defame someone without justification, you will remain anonymous only until someone in authority decides otherwise.
For those in this forum who use other examples of people who appear to have successfully used web anonymity, be cautious before drawing premature conclusions. After all, in any given case, who is to say that someone who thinks they have been anonymous for the last five years is not merely in the middle of a 6 to 10 year investigation that includes secret monitoring by federal authorities?
In the end, the old advice still stands, "do not post anything that you would not want attributed to you on the evening news at the worst possible time and with the most unkind possible bias."
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
This is going to be awesome if it goes to court and the court rules that she is, in fact, "a skank".
I can see the T-shirts now ...
My initial thought isn't that the subject of the blog is the one with the issues.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Basically what you are saying is that if I say something insulting and demeaning about someone, and you agree, it is gravy. But if you disagree with me and find it indecent it is a completely different story.
What a psychotic skank. I bet she's a cold fish in the sack. If you can't take the heat, get out of the limelight, you frigid bitch.
used http://baywords.com/
you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
Uh, so the jist of this is, someone called someone else some names "out loud" (legal-beagle bullshit between verbal and print aside for a moment), and for some fucking reason this manages to bypass the 1st Amendment?
Uh, anyone else wanna get in line with me to bitch-slap the shit out of this legal ruling all the way back to 1964?
Give me a fucking break. I'd like to find the moron twitness they're going to bring in to give me the "legal" definition to prove she's NOT a "Skank" or "Ho". What, are they going to consult the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia as a reference for those, or does Webster stand as a more definitive source? If she's fucked more than 3 guys this year, does that qualify as "Ho" status, or does she need a pimp? Then again, don't all models have a "pimp" of some kind anyway?
Nevermind the fact that she's a model, and therefore should legally fall under "public figure" with regards to libel/slander/defamation. However, if she would prefer NOT to be a public figure, keep pushing, and I'm sure you'll manage to burn all your bridges for model work in the future.
Fuck, seems my sig manages to ring true every day...
Sob! they're calling me names on teh interwebs! I'm-a sue them for it! I'm-a get me all lawyered-up and sue them for defamation WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
Come ON, people! First they create the 'crime' of cyber-bullying, now you can't have a negative opinion of someone without it becoming something you can sue someone in civil court over?
When I was growing up, you were considered a loser if you went crying to an authority figure because some other kids were calling you names. We're talking about adults here, people! More to my point, we're talking about someone who is, in many respects, a public figure: she (ostensibly at least) puts herself before the judgement of the public on a routine basis because it's her job to do so; while I'm sure it's the aspiration of every model to be universally accepted and desired, the reality is that there are people who are NOT going to like someone; so what do you do? Do you (A)Accept that's life and move on, or (B)Sue everyone in sight who has something bad to say about you?
Oh, and for the record: I looked her up on Google Images, and I don't think she's attractive at all! Oh no I'm-a gonna get sued now aren't I, whatever will I do? XD
Grow up, honey, it's a tough world out there.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I believe both should be covered by the 1st amendment. Google should have gone to bat for the blogger.
The body of law that has evolved around the 1st amendment clearly provides different laws to different people depending on their role in society. The most commonly referred to categories are politicians, public figures, and private citizens.
The courts have found that the "public interest" related to finding things out about our politicians is so compelling, that one can say or publish almost any falsehood about them without fear of prosecution. The theory here is that the harm to such individuals (Can you say Swiftboat?" Sure, I knew you could,) is outweighed by the benefit of public revelations of government crimes. (arms-for-hostages, lies about opponents having Black-ops prisons, torture of prisoners, etc.)
People who are "merely" public figures (Paris Hilton, for example) actually do have more rights than politicians and are sometimes successful in suing those that have wronged them via slander or libel.
People who are generally accepted to be private citizens have even more rights as they are not perceived to have the resources or media exposure to correct falsehoods published about them. In addition, the law continues to evolve and for the last forty or so years, private US citizens do have some degree of a "right to privacy," although nowhere near the degrees of our brothers in Europe.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
I was under the impression that it's perfectly legal to state unkind opinions of others. Calling a woman a skank and a ho are matters of opinion, not fact. If you've seen Penn & Teller's Bullshit! you know that they call people "assholes" instead of "liars" for this reason. You can't sue someone for calling you an asshole. I don't see why you should be able to sue someone for calling you a skanky ho either.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
[pedantry] Slander is spoken, a blog post would therefore be libel. [/pedantry]
There is one significant difference between the World Wide Web and traditional media: globalisation. What you describe is a fine comparison if both the victim and libeller reside in say the USA but what would happen here if the blogger was not in the USA, perhaps in a country where there is no first amendment or right to privacy (like say the UK*). Google can provide the IP address, the US Court can authorise the revelation of their name and address but how simple is it for the model to sue somebody for libel if that person resides outside the model's country?
I'm by no means condoning their behaviour - just wondering what happens if say a UK newspaper libels a citizen of the USA? Presumably in that case the US Citizen attempts to bring a libel in the UK because the libel would not have been published in the USA. So what happens when the blogger is from the USA and (as is *not* the case here) the blog is also outside the USA? In that aspect the World Wide Web is quite different from other media, wouldn't you say?
* IANAL but as far as I can tell there is no legislative rule in the UK which guarantees citizen's right to privacy in the way that the first amendment does in the USA. Heck we don't even have a constitution
I am reminded of this
Granted that case is more about emotional distress than "defamation of character", but since I hadn't even heard of her and I had heard of Falwell... well how defamed can this chick really be? If someone in her industry really believed little bits of bullshit on a blog and didn't hire her, then maybe. Can you be subject of libel or slander if it doesn't cause you any damage?
Obviously IANAL
No sig for you!!
'The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions.'
This is a dangerous road to go down. "Yes you have anonymity, unless you say something we don't like. Then we get to sue/jail/etc. you". Not many people will get upset over something like this, where what's being said is truly distasteful. But in order for people to truly have "free speach", we need to be given true anonymity unconditionally.
She's in the miserable position of being a 36-year old second-tier ex-model. That's tough.
Modeling is a low-paying job, except at the top. The top 100 models make real money. The next 500 models do about as well as a successful office worker. Below that, nobody is making real money. The pay is high during work, but there are long dry spells. It's like acting in that respect. In LA, you meet broke actress/model/waitress types so often that it's a cliche.
The work isn't really that much fun, either. Most models aren't doing fashion shows; they're doing catalogs and ads. "OK, next is dress DL-3342, blue, and hurry it up, we have fifty more to shoot before lunch."
It's interesting, by using the legal system to try to destroy this blogger for juvenile insults, the model actually proved she's a psychotic skank ho.
Isn't that funny? The psychotic skank ho only had grounds to sue until she actually sued.
Poor psychotic skank ho. I feel sorry for her psychotic skank ho ass.
It's been a long time.
Cohen had her face face slashed in a bar a couple of years ago (also here). My guess would be that this lawsuit was an effort to find out if the same guy was after her again.
There's a little more to this than anonymous insults on the Internet, and in this case it is probably justifiable to reveal the blogger's identity. Ideally, the police would look into it and determine whether or not the blogger is a threat (without making his identity public), but they likely do not have time to investigate anonymous Internet insults.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
I am Anonymous!
Now, every man now can easily be his own television station. A guy with a wireless internet connection in New Zealand can broadcast to Uzbekistan, Iceland, and Santa Barbara.
The quality of that man's Internet TV station, right now, is better than very much TV reception was from the 50s through the 70s. The potential audience is vastly greater than it was then.
The ability of people to hurt other people through defamatory statements hasn't changed over the years. People certainly haven't become less vulnerable to the damage that can be caused by defamation.
The law is not likely to protect people who cause harm through defamatory statements, just because the defamer has taken great pains to make his or her defamatory statements anonymously. There has been no hint of movement in this direction.
The problem here is that an awful lot of people defame an awful lot of other people all of the time. I don't know how many times I defamed Woody Hayes while he was alive . . . (and he deserved it)! These little defamatory things usually never hurt anybody, never get related to too many people, and never cause enough damage to support a lawsuit.
But now every man is a television station! Every man can reach the world!
It's like putting termonuclear defamation power in the hands of every nobody who lives in Toronto! Until recent times, the average man never had such power to defame. Only the rich had that power--and they watched their mouths because they didn't want to get sued and lose their money!
If the law changes in a manner that gives the internet blogger anonymity, then the anonymous blogger's defamation power is increased even more! That change will not happen. Elected officials (who are among the most defamed) are not going to provide it, that's for sure. They'd be among the first targets.
So, anyway, now you have the power to communicate that once reposed only with the VERY rich! And now you've got the accompanying responsibility! Enjoy it and deal with it!
Onward, bravely into the future!
Does it strike anyone else as ironic that a government which supports development of technologies to circumvent the technical controls of information put in place by other governments would at the same time breach the privacy of a blogger? If the United States can so easily unmask a blogger then how do they expect to prevent countries like China and Iran from doing the same thing? If the technologies to enable anonymous speech become commonplace then they will be like many other tools, useful for doing both good and evil. The problem is that some people here in the United States want to believe that only the "good guys" can and should benefit from such technologies and that the "bad guys" must always get their due. Unfortunately, the real world is rarely so accommodating. Personally, I would prefer that privacy enhancing technologies such as onion-routing, strong cryptography, and public wireless be widely available, even if it means that the "bad guys" can use these technologies too. If that is the price of living in a free society then so be it.
Whatever right you may think you have to anonymity -- a dubious concept, just because you're used to it doesn't make it law -- it comes to an end when you defame someone. If you want to be anonymous, then behave yourself. Otherwise, man up and take responsibility for your actions.
Anonymity is valuable in repressive regimes and when people need certain kinds of assistance -- like gay teenagers or people seeing advice about venereal diseases. But most of the time, it's pernicious.
I piss off bigots.
You left something out. You forgot to mention anything about "leveraging our key assets"
Only a psychotic skank would sue someone for this shit. What damage was done? Did the AP pick up the story and run on the presses that she was allegedly a psychotic skanky ho bitch? ... well they did NOW ......
Support my political activism on Patreon.
...it isn't true. ;)
If I were the blogger, I'd prove my statements. If only for the fun of it.
If it isn't you could get evil: :P
Just get a good looking guy to sleep with her (assuming that she's a married woman), then let the guy act as if he assumed her to be a hooker, and pay her. This should result in her totally flipping out... Let it happen in plain sight. It should be enough to prove that you only stated known facts.
But OK, I could not do that. But I would not be so stupid to state false terms without total anonymity in the first place. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Whatever happened to "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? Besides, if an anonymous poster says something bad about someone, where's the credibility? If her husband or boyfriend, or relative called her a psychotic, skanky ho, then there would be some credibility and folks might just believe it.
Yes, that is pretty much the way American law is, and also the way American law should be (IMHO); and the important arbiter of the disagreement is truth. If she is, in fact, a skanky ho, then that will be demonstrated in court, and the skanky ho will lose. If she is not, in fact, a skanky ho, and that can be demonstrated, then the slanderer has in fact diminished her reputation, and is liable for that indecency. Furthermore, the law only begins to apply at sufficiently egregious degrees of speech, which will also have to be demonstrated to the judge. That is how it is, and how it should be (IMHO). Do you think it should be different? If so, do you think there should be no line at all (all slander is permissible) or do you think the line should be drawn somewhere else?
You're right that, if you broke the law, you don't have a right to anonymity.
The other side of the issue is whether or not writing down that someone a "ho" is a crime.
I'm not sure I like the idea of violating privacy on the mere accusation of a crime.
Karma's a bitch, trolls.
People think that just because they can post things anonymously on the internet, it gives them the right to be an asshole and a toughguy at the same time. It must be upsetting to find that there are repercussions in all areas of life.
I don't support the blogger's identity being revealed and think it is just an unstable model looking for publicity or revenge, but none of this would have happened if the blogger had shown some decency and restraint.
Does that make revealing the blogger's name legal? Probably not. Is it right to go around slandering people on the web anonymously? Probably not. Looks like everyone is getting fucked equally!
Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"
To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.
Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.
My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.
And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).
This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Just check out any random Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Seriously. No, really.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
No, I believe the important distinction between calling Bush a Nazi Warmonger, and calling Liskula Cohen a skank is that the former is political speech, and the latter is just speech. Contrary to popular opinion, freedom of speech is not important because you have a god-given right to say whatever the fuck you want, but because suppressing criticism is a powerful tool for brutal tyrants to stay in power.
Bush may or may not be a Nazi Warmonger, but if he were, it'd be crucially important that people be allowed to say so. Why is it important that you be able to call Liskula Cohen a skant?
No, but nice try on the straw man argument. GP made a clear and cogent distinction between a criticism of the public policy behavior of a public figure and a criticism of the private behavior of a private individual. Regardless, truth is an absolute defense to slander/libel charges, so in the event that Ms. Cohen is demonstrably a psychotic skank ho, then the blogger will win any lawsuit anyway.
you seem to be forgetting the most important issue here, and that is the true fact that Liskula Cohen is a psychotic skank ho.
Now come find me and do something!
Am I the only one that see's a huge flaw in this? Perez Hilton and the gossip bloggers say stupid shit about celebrities on a daily basis and nobody sues them. This is a relatively unknown "model" and is suing some dipshit for blogging and calling her names? When did this cease to be the home of free press and free speech and become the whiney letigious asshole club. Oh yeah about the time the internet became popular... my bad
IMHO, there can't be any defamation. She's already proven herself to be a psychotic skank ho by filing this lawsuit.
See here for a relevant story by the folks at On the Media. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/08/14/01
Transcript and audio are both available.
They point out some of the defects of the Communications Decency Act with some similar case histories.
What happens and what is your recourse when you are libeled anonymously online?
What do you do when the owner of a website refuses to divulge who created the posting, refuses to remove it, has no liability for it and the search engines refuse to eliminate it from their results.
This lawsuit just proves that Liskula is a litigious skank.
It's not a question of "accusation." In a civil case, the plaintiff has the right to know who it is that is causing him harm -- and you can't claim "privacy" as a way of shielding yourself from responsibility. If you publish something about someone else, you are responsible for what you say, and you should be required to stand behind it. If you want to keep your privacy, restrict your remarks to subjects that you can't defame, such as yourself.
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
I piss off bigots.
If my opinion of the woman is that she is, in fact, a skanky ho, don't I have the right to express that opinion? If 'skanky ho' wasn't something inherently your opinion, I could see your argument. If I say RobotRunAmok is a Furry, and you're not, then yes, you have a case for defamation. If I say you're as weird as a Furry, well, now that's just opinion.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just curious. Too often when I see a first reply to a topic by Alain9404 it is either a link to fairsoftware in the "body" or he adds a sig (like now). How many buddies does Alain have here that support this behavoir? Since he seems to be the only one that keeps getting away with it.
See also Google "[fairsoftware.net]" (between quotes).
the amazing thing that is helping to back her claims is "She lost work because of this blog" that no one ever read or cared about.
And if the woman who posted it would apologize it would be ok.
So a has been model claims shes not getting work because someone in 1 tiny corner of the internets said something mean about her.
I hope they do go to trial, I want to see the Springer show as shes forced to call in all of her sexual partners for the last 5 years, so they can detail if she was skanky or ho-like.
I want to see what HUGE opportunities she lost because someone found a not so nice reference to her posted by 1 person.
I want to see this woman ripped to shreds for being the thin skinned whiny bitch she is...
And it would be cool if the judge who ordered the identity released based on her silly claims of loss of work, has to answer for not verifying the facts in the case.
Maybe when trying to make a comeback into being a celebrity, you should be a bit more rational.
But hey you proved our court systems are filled with idiots who still don't understand the magic box on their desk with all of the answers....
Shes a skank shes a skank shes a skank. Slutty whore who loves sucking dick ass to mouth style. Skanky slutty slut. FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
My wife does voice-over work and is a news anchor on a bunch of local radio stations. You've never heard of her, but is she "essentially a public figure" and fair game?
Yes, your wife is a public figure and fair game.
The minimum requirement is not multimillion-dollar award-winning international stardom.
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
In the court order, the judge specifically states that impugnment of her chastity is the reason for granting the order.
However, if she's a public-figure then it need be proven that it was done with actual malice, and not simply negligently.
I find it more interesting that if you say that impugning the chastity of a woman is always wrong, what kind of insults can you hurl at her? All general insults for women are rooted in impugning the woman's chastity. Namely, "bitch" "ho" "skank" "slut"... the general insults of "jerk" "asshole" and "fucker" rarely are applied to women.
To me, it takes more than simply using a word that is rooted in impugning the woman's chastity in order to actually impugn her chastity. One has to specifically specify that one believes that she is unchaste. Simply calling someone a "slut" often is not intended to be a statement of fact that she is unchaste... it's simply the insults that our language affords for women.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I agree that sexual accusations are usually the first place that men go when insulting women, but not in absolutely every case, and not all insults aimed at women are sexually based. "Bitch" isn't sexual -- it implies viciousness. "Hag," "slattern," and "sloven" are three more. "Slut" actually used to mean "slovenly person" -- "dust mice" in England used to be known as "slut's wool" -- but has since taken on a sexual connotation.
People might have called Margaret Thatcher a bitch, but to call her a slut or a whore would just be ridiculous.
What about women's insults for other women? My guess is that they are usually based on looks or taste.
I piss off bigots.
I saw a post that this is kind of similar to Perez Hilton is so true, really is. I mean who the hell gets this upset and sues someone for some silly images with ms.paint words on top.
Get real lady, like you're the only person who's ever been insulted online, on a forum or some commenting section. If she somehow lost work over a blog, then she was never really getting work in the first place, right? Who was employing her? Paris Hilton? Give me a break.
Plus, who the hell really gets that upset over some things that someone said online? Liskulallalaal who? looooool.
If the poster can prove with evidence in a court of law that the women is in fact a "psychotic," "skank," and "ho." then he will be cleared of the charges and she will be legally branded with the marks on her reputation. And by..
"psychotic", Suffering from psychosis, literally means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality".
"skank", Another word for "slut", A slang term for cheating, one that is an individual who is sexually promiscuous.
"ho", Another word for "whore", shortend, Literal as prostitution, defined as the act of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for money or goods.
She has a right to face her accuser, but she also has to defend her self from the accuser. Taking someone to court is a double edge sword, most Americans do not know this.
Basically what you are saying is that if I say something insulting and demeaning about someone, and you agree, it is gravy. But if you disagree with me and find it indecent it is a completely different story.
yep why should we be allowed to defame anyone on the net or anywhere else the same rules for defamation that apply in general society should apply on the net and thats basically what the judge said. yah for a judge that got it right.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
Liskula Cohen could have saved thousands of dollars by "outsourcing" all this to India. India Police (Cyber Crime) may not be exactly a private investigator, and they may have done that kind of thing for "extra credits", but I'm speaking of known situations here. In one case bloggers based outside India bad-mouthed the products/services offered by a private party, also based outside India. The private party had an Indian affiliate who complained to India Police (that is all we know, anything else remains hidden). India Police then (eagerly, surprise surprise!) requested Google for IP records. Google's Legal Investigation Support team (Google LIS) supplied the blogger IP records (under Section 91 of India Criminal Procedure Code), hardly any questions asked (surprise?, surprise?). The bloggers were not even based in India. India Police handed the IPs to the private party (mission accomplished). The bloggers were then harassed through a SLAPP-style suit tailored to force favorable settlements.
So all that Liskulla needed was to go through an India outfit, get those India cybercops a little excited (remember that police malfeasance is already a big issue in India).
Note: I am not actually suggesting that anybody take that route. I'm just alerting you all to the dangers of this, in public interest.
Summary: India Police has rights over your IP records, and they are eager to ask for it. And Google obliges them. And you think you have free speech.
I am of course, an Anonymous Coward.
Why would a VPN provider in eastern Europe care to do something a court in the US asks them to, though? Or the proxy provider in asia? Or the Tor nodes across south america?
I love your optimism.
According to National Public Radio, the Bush-ERA CIA operated prisons that held more than 15,000 "secret" prisoners in more than a dozen nations including Poland and other European countries, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Countries, and countries from other areas of the globe as well.
Operating under the legal theory of "special or extra rendition," these individuals had (have?) no lawyers or contact with their families and were often tortured.
And that is only what has come to light thus far!
From Internet monitoring to cell phone records, the US' National Security Agency (NSA) monitors pretty much anything they want to world-wide.
Nothing in what I've noted thus far even touches on US public and secret cooperations with security services in Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Poland, etc.
There is also the rarely examined "independent" companies that host law enforcement data and share with other organizations outside the scope of laws that prohibit such organizations from sharing such information or European laws that protect the privacy of the individual.
I stand by my previous posting:
In the end, the old advice still stands, "do not post anything that you would not want attributed to you on the evening news at the worst possible time and with the most unkind possible bias."
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
slander is permissible and you should kill yourself
At 37, this may be "last years model", and the fact that she "hasn't worked since" could have been a little bit mitigated by that. OTOH, the perp was a doorman, presumably large and tough. If he really had to retaliate for a drink splashed in his face, he did not need to smash a bottle in her face. Out here in The People's Republic of California, that would be prosecuted as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, causing grievous bodily harm, or some such. I'd have this guy locked up for a while if I was in charge. YMMV. Thirty days and probation is appropriate for a crime like, STEALING her bottle, and smashing it on the floor.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.