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.'"
Maybe this anonymous poster isn't so anonymous. Maybe she suspects that it's someone she knows (ex boyfriend, ex friend, stalker, etc). If said person was harassing her in other ways as well, perhaps this could be the straw that broke the camel's back and can allow something to be done about it (such as a TRO).
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.
I understand the desire to protect individuals from slander and libel on the net. It's unfortunate that a potential audience of six billion people can see some horrendous things asserted about you no matter who you are, by anybody with a grudge or any nutjob who just doesn't like you because you turned them down or... any other reason imaginable.
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure. There is a big difference if I call your sister a slutty skank (by name, no less) on the internet versus calling Kate Moss a slutty skank.
Clearly this is an unfair action/ruling, but at the same time, I understand that it's a complex situation because when you're the one being ripped apart for no reason on the internet (especially if you're a nobody) where it will be indexed by search engines and archived forever by services and viewable by every potential friend, date, employer, and so on for eternity... it must completely suck.
The problem is two ideals here that seemingly can not exist and be re-enforced together. Presumably, one must win-out in the long run.
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....
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.
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
I wonder if this is indeed the right way to go about it. I figure that if you're famous enough, there's going to be loads of fora - public and semi-private, mind you - stuffed with defamatory comments. I figure you should just ignore it, set up your own blog, and only react if people really seem to be getting wrong ideas - but then, do so with honesty and integrity on your own blog. Insert a good troll filter so people can comment and avoid the trolls. There's always gonna be shortsighted individuals who'll gripe anything or anyone, whether that person / thing is known to them personally or not. Let 'em rot in their own juices - they'll either shower eventually or rot away, and in the latter case they're hardly worth anyone's time. Also, this avoids Streisand effects and means that anyone seriously interested in what you have to say about something will refer to your blog and not some random forum; the news sites already do so. Just keep on truckin', apologise if you're wrong, react calmly and clearly when you're right, and let the lawyers stay at home.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Public figures do have a higher burden, but that doesn't mean that they cannot sue for defamation, its just harder to win. If it was an anonymous site with pictures of dozens of models, celebrities and the like similarly labeled, then she she would have a much more difficult time since the site could call itself satirical. Since the blog only seemed to exist to insult her, then I think it is more reasonable for the court to allow finding out who the anonymous author was.
The two ideals really are opposite, but I think the court is a decent method of finding a middle ground. Sometimes anonimity is more important, sometimes privacy is.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I suspect that you are my ex-girlfriend stalker that has been harassing me for months and I feel that your post is an intentional attack at me and my public image so as such I am now going to sue to get your IP, email and identity.
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?
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.
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
I disagree.
I strongly believe the producing an internet-specific version of libel/slander would re-invigorate the paradigm, enable a net-new market, and actualize synergies of cross-medium defamation that would allow a best-of-breed convergence of mission-critical turnkey insult infomediaries while recontextualizing frictionless compelling channels.
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure. There is a big difference if I call your sister a slutty skank (by name, no less) on the internet versus calling Kate Moss a slutty skank.
What possible difference does it make whether the subject is a public figure or not? All are supposed to be equal under the law. Heaven help us if we actually start having separate laws for celebrities.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Maybe the Streisand effect was the desired outcome in this case. For many celebs, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Any publicity is good.
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."
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.
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?
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