Model Drops Lawsuit After Outing Anonymous Blogger

JumperCable writes "The NY Daily News is reporting that model Liskula Cohen, who was suing the 'Skanks of NYC' blogger for defamation, is dropping the lawsuit now that she has outed the anonymous blogger, who is a Fashion Institute of Technology student named Rosemary Port. This brings up the question of potential abuse of the legal system to 'out' anonymous authors even if there is no intention actually to pursue a case against an anonymous individual. Also, according to the article, the outed blogger intends to sue Google for $15 million because it 'breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity.' Do Web hosting services even have a fiduciary duty to protect their clients, or is this all legal bluff and bluster?" Should such anonymity-busting court rulings include a provision for penalties if the plaintiff does not follow through with legal action after outing their target?

Comments

My fiduciary duty is to point out that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Liskula Cohen is a skank and a ho. For that matter, so is Rosemary Port.

Anonymous political speech is protect

[MichaelCrawford]

Ms. Port refers to the anonymous publication of The Federalist Papers. She actually does have a point there. A few years back there was a lawsuit over anonymously published political tracts. Federal campaign finance law required that the funding source for those pamphlets be publicly stated, and it wasn't. If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the publisher to speak anonymously.

HOWEVER...

If she really does go through with the lawsuit, contract law will be the deciding factor here, specifically whether Google's Terms of Service promised any kind of anonymity. I expect it doesn't.

Let this be a lesson to all the bloggers out there, to post using TOR.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[AndersOSU]

Yes, but in those cases your anonymity was only protected to the extent that someone didn't track you down.

If you're a revolutionary looking to pamphlet, for example, I imagine you'd go to pretty long lengths to ensure your printer won't turn you over to the authorities. Additionally, if your printer did turn you over, the argument, "he promised he wouldn't" doesn't wouldn't carry much weight.

To extend the analogy, someone decided to use google as their printer, without bothering to verify that google wouldn't tell anyone her identity. In other words, you don't have a right to make anonymous public speech. You do have a right to take steps to protect your anonymity yourself - if those steps are insufficient that's your own problem.

The right to anonymity, so far as it exists, is an extension of your right to privacy. You don't have any expectation of privacy when hanging signs on telephone poles or making posts on blogs because those are PUBLIC acts.

Laughing yet?

[hesaigo999ca]

I would so be laughing right now, if this was a cool scam on their part...2 friends get together and plan how to launch or boost the models presence as well as make money...she write a nasty column, the model fake sues to out the anonymous friend blogger, then she sues google for 2 million and wins, then the model because of this gets tons of free publicity, she lands a 2million contract and everybody wins, cause they get to watch the drama unfold!

Re:Most Internet anonymity is used to protect scum

[PhilHibbs]

You have a right to anonymity. You forfeit it the instant you use it to commit a crime or defame someone.

But, and this is the crux of this case, do you forfeit it the instant someone accuses you of defamation? Back to the case in hand, the model should be dragged back into court for contempt. This is clearly abuse of the court system to get revenge without caring about justice.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[Cassius Corodes]

I think generally the powerful have more to gain from anonymity then the poor. If it was ever possible to air everyone's dirty laundry I think I would welcome it.

Re:Most Internet anonymity is used to protect scum

[MatthewCCNA]

It's an interesting point, I remember in the first episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Penn Jillette said "...you'll notice more obscenity than we usually use...It's also a legal matter. If one calls people 'liars' and 'quacks' one can be sued and lose a lot of one's money...If we said it was all scams, we could also lose a lot of money. Bullshit's pretty safe."

Fudiciary duty or not, this needs to be fixed

[davidwr]

John Doe subpoenas should result in the name being released to either a special master or to a "firewalled" lawyer whose only job it is is to contact the named defendant and serve him with papers. The named defendant should be given an opportunity to either quash the original subpoena after the fact or petition the court that the lawsuit will be in to be allowed to use a pseudonym.

If there is no forthcoming lawsuit, the would-be plaintiff never gets "usable" access to the defendant's information.

If this can't happen for whatever reason, the court issuing the subpoena to the ISP should issue a gag order on the plaintiff, which can be lifted after a lawsuit is actually filed. The lawsuit should be filed with the defendant's name sealed until it's determined that it's in the public interest to name the person.