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.'"

Comments

Was it worth breaking privacy?

[alain94040]

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

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[kannibal_klown]

Maybe this anonymous poster isn't so anonymous. Maybe she suspects that it's someone she knows (ex boyfriend, ex friend, stalker, etc). If said person was harassing her in other ways as well, perhaps this could be the straw that broke the camel's back and can allow something to be done about it (such as a TRO).

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[Seumas]

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.

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[El Jynx]

I wonder if this is indeed the right way to go about it. I figure that if you're famous enough, there's going to be loads of fora - public and semi-private, mind you - stuffed with defamatory comments. I figure you should just ignore it, set up your own blog, and only react if people really seem to be getting wrong ideas - but then, do so with honesty and integrity on your own blog. Insert a good troll filter so people can comment and avoid the trolls. There's always gonna be shortsighted individuals who'll gripe anything or anyone, whether that person / thing is known to them personally or not. Let 'em rot in their own juices - they'll either shower eventually or rot away, and in the latter case they're hardly worth anyone's time. Also, this avoids Streisand effects and means that anyone seriously interested in what you have to say about something will refer to your blog and not some random forum; the news sites already do so. Just keep on truckin', apologise if you're wrong, react calmly and clearly when you're right, and let the lawyers stay at home.

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that you are my ex-girlfriend stalker that has been harassing me for months and I feel that your post is an intentional attack at me and my public image so as such I am now going to sue to get your IP, email and identity.

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[camperdave]

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.

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[nbauman]

Maybe this guy.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07312008/news/regionalnews/bar_goons_smash_and_slash_past_122359.htm

  The Manhattan doorman charged with hurling glasses at a woman's face at the Hudson Hotel served a month in jail for horribly disfiguring a top model by smashing a bottle across her cheek at a posh club last year.

Samir Dervisevic, 25, got into a drinking-tossing dust-up with model Liskula Cohen at Ultra on West 26th Street on Jan. 14, 2007, that ended when he cracked a bottle of vodka across her face, she tearfully recalled yesterday.

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[whoop]

This model was on Good Morning America today, she knew the woman a little bit. Here is more of the story.

"Thank God it was her... she's an irrelevant person in my life," Cohen said. "She's just somebody that, whenever I would go out to a restaurant, to a party in New York City ... she was just that girl that was always there."

Re:Was it worth breaking privacy?

[jcnnghm]

There is a good reason that celebrities are treated differently under defamation law, and that is to protect the public's freedom of speech and right to know. The public figure stuff was the Supreme Court's way of balancing the constitution and defamation. The biggest difference between how a public figure and a regular individual are handled with regard to defamation is in the necessary burden of proof. For a public figure, you must prove actual malice, which is basically that the person said something untrue about you, that they knew it was untrue, and purposely said it to harm you. It is similar to the difference between proving negligence,and proving recklessness. Kind of funny seeing people getting worked up over the law upholding freedom of speech.

AC Apology to a One Robert Malda

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:AC Apology to a One Robert Malda

[Trails]

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.

Slippery slope

[sohmc]

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.

Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho.

[realmolo]

So sue me.

Re:Liskula Cohen is a psychotic, skanky ho.

[Em Emalb]

I don't always call people I don't know bad names on the internet, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis.---The most anonymous man in the world

Should have went to LAW school.

[ae1294]

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....

New development!

[Eevee]

The judge today issued a warrant for "I. C. Wiener" of 405 West 43rd Street to appear in court.

Decency Trumps Anonymity

[RobotRunAmok]

And Civilization lurches slightly forward.

Lookit, you want to call Bush a Nazi Warmonger or Obama an Incompetent Puppet, or speak any kind of Truth to Power, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you on the ramparts in defense of your Freedom to Speak, you're a Patriot. You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.

The Internet has changed many things, but it has not changed everything.

Re:Decency Trumps Anonymity

[Volante3192]

"I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is being replaced with "I do not agree with what you say and I'll sue you to death for my right to suppress it"

Not quite "Supreme"

[Ollabelle]

Keep in mind that, in New York, the "New York Supreme Court" is their trial court, and its rulings can be overturned on appeal.

Free Speech

[AlHunt]

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.

Legislating "Celebrity"

[RobotRunAmok]

In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure.

Is she a celebrity? I've never heard of her. My wife does voice-over work and is a news anchor on a bunch of local radio stations. You've never heard of her, but is she "essentially a public figure" and fair game? I know dozens of people who act in and produce independent films, they're all over IMDB, you've never heard of these performers, but they're professional actors and movie producers. Are they "fair game?"

How many people have to recognize your name before you are a "public figure" and thereby forfeit your right to know the identify of your accusers?

Re:Legislating "Celebrity"

[bhsx]

The problem is that you are saying there is a line that gets crossed by the "public figure" making them fair game. Where is the lane? It's a fair question. Who isn't a public figure? If you smiled for a picture you're "modeling" and if that picture ends-up on Facebook are you fair game?
EVERYONE is a public figure.
Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago, is a public figure.
Late retired Chicago Fire Department Commissioner Rober J. Quinn was a public figure.
My father was Quinn's right hand man... Is HE a public figure?
My father also helped organize the Chicago Firefighter strike of '78 ... we had hundreds of firemen in our house on any given night; does THAT make him a public figure?
What about the other firemen that were at my house? They're public servents, doesn't that make them public figures?
I was in a few plays and musicals in college, does that make ME a public figure? (or gay? no, definitely not gay!)
What about anyone who posts in a public forum? Are THEY public figures?
Are you catching my drift?

Re:Legislating "Celebrity"

[Just Some Guy]

My father also helped organize the Chicago Firefighter strike of '78 ... we had hundreds of firemen in our house on any given night

Isn't that against code?

what if she is a skank

[pbhj]

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 ...

It's people like you that make this a bad ruling

[hamburgler007]

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.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Hatta]

What a cunning stunt it is indeed!

Ex-model

[Animats]

She's in the miserable position of being a 36-year old second-tier ex-model. That's tough.

Modeling is a low-paying job, except at the top. The top 100 models make real money. The next 500 models do about as well as a successful office worker. Below that, nobody is making real money. The pay is high during work, but there are long dry spells. It's like acting in that respect. In LA, you meet broke actress/model/waitress types so often that it's a cliche.

The work isn't really that much fun, either. Most models aren't doing fashion shows; they're doing catalogs and ads. "OK, next is dress DL-3342, blue, and hurry it up, we have fifty more to shoot before lunch."

History

[johndiii]

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.