backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by GlobleWarmingi.. on Aug 26 at 1:00 AM


Liskula Cohen at a Bar  (Source: Internetdefimationblog.com)
Note to self: Never call a former supermodel a Skank

One of the things that pushes so many internet users to do and write things that they wouldn't say in person is anonymity. While online you can usually hide behind a veil of secrecy and say what you want without fear of those spoken of knowing who you are.

That veil of secrecy online is now much thinner after a precedent setting ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden forcing Google to turn over the identifiable information it had on a blogger who called former model Liskula Cohen a "skank" among other things in a blog called “Skanks in NYC”.

Judge Madden wrote in her decision, "The thrust of the blog is that Cohen is a sexually promiscuous woman."

Cohen and her legal team sought the bloggers identity so Cohen could sue for defamation. The ruling forced Google to turn over the IP address and the email address of the blogger. As it turned out, Cohen knew the author of the blog once the identity was turned over and says that she called the blogger up directly.

After learning the identity of the blogger Cohen says, "I just dialed her up. I said no more lawyers, it's OK. I forgive you."

The decision has far reaching implications though as SFGate points out. After the precedent setting case, if bloggers write something online without identifying themselves it may now be easier for those maligned in any posts to find who the blogger is and take legal action against them.

The legal tactics used by Cohen's attorney are also reportedly similar to those that the Chinese government used to find dissident bloggers in its country. Ironically, Cohen's name is now tied to the Google search query "Skank NYC".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Right and Wrong
By MozeeToby on 8/20/2009 10:45:23 AM , Rating: 4
I see no problem with holding people responsible for Libelous things they write online. If you are damaging some-one's reputation, especially if you are hurting some-one's ability to do their job, you should be held accountable.

However, in this case I just can't believe that there is any real damage to her reputation. Skank is as often as not just a generic insult and doesn't really imply sexual promiscuity, no more than calling someone a bastard is meant to literally imply that they were born out of wedlock.

I highly doubt a talent agency is going to be looking for a a model and turn her down because some tiny, no-name, once updated blog calls her a skank. The judge seem to realize that people don't weigh nameless blogs as much as print publications when forming their impression of people.




RE: Right and Wrong
By mdogs444 on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right and Wrong
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/20/2009 10:56:10 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you say that "In my opinion, President Obama is a complete dumbsh**", you are not guilty of defamation. But if you say "President Obama is a child molester", you are definitely guilty of defamation because what you are saying you know full well is not true.


What about:

[Glenn Beck] "President Obama is a racist who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." [/Glenn Beck]

j/k ;-)


RE: Right and Wrong
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2009 11:18:45 AM , Rating: 4
Not that I technically agree with Glenn Beck in this case - there was a talk show on that discussed this kind of political rhetoric from both right and left wing talking heads (Hannity, Beck, Maddow, Olberman, etc)...

Basically, there is some sort of determination made when talking heads provide factual and/or supporting thoughts/occurrences to back up their claims - that it no longer becomes defamation but rather opinionated speech.

How that is exactly determined, I don't know. I'm not a fan of limiting any kind of speech from anyone - and if your going to say something be it fact or opinion in or to the public, you should have some sort of information to back up your assertions with....and as always, don't say it if you wouldn't sign your name to it.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Totally on 8/21/2009 10:07:23 AM , Rating: 1
What? how do you 'do not technically agree'? so by technically disagreeing you do agree with his statement just not in it's entirety. Just curious, is why I'm asking.


RE: Right and Wrong
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2009 12:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that Obama wants reparations for the black community, and that most of his programs are targeting to benefit blacks more than whites, but I dont think hes a blantant racist - that wouldn't get him very far.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Totally on 8/21/2009 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
nah, I don't believe color has anything to do with it he's just as crooked as the last guy out the door. I don't know any of specific programs you are referring but if you look you'll can tie it to party which provided him with some sort of campaign contribution.


RE: Right and Wrong
By tastyratz on 8/21/2009 11:20:04 PM , Rating: 3
so then what line do we establish when these defaming quotes border satire? When is it ok to say in jest and not ok in jest? and what about tabloids? You need specific listed supporting facts to have an opinion?

IMHO - defamation/liebel is a loosely used provision that should really require quite a bit of weighting before considered viable. Internet name calling is really quite trite.


RE: Right and Wrong
By sxr7171 on 8/21/2009 11:35:05 PM , Rating: 3
You deserve a 5. The internet should be that place where you can say what you want in anonymity. If you want credibility put your name down.


RE: Right and Wrong
By delphinus100 on 8/22/2009 1:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
Now if only people understood that, where chain e-mails are involved...

People pass crap along, without ever asking a simple; "Sez who?"


RE: Right and Wrong
By Sazar on 8/20/2009 12:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
Would that phrase be considered a Beckism?


RE: Right and Wrong
By bhieb on 8/20/2009 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 4
Weren't you just ranting the other day about DT always going political??? You tread a very fine line Mr. Hill :)


RE: Right and Wrong
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/20/2009 2:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
He started it!!!!! ;)


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Right and Wrong
By sgw2n5 on 8/20/2009 2:47:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
President Obama is a dumb shit.


Yet he manages to still be better than anything the republicans have to offer! Amazing isn't it?


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Right and Wrong
By MadMan007 on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right and Wrong
By sgw2n5 on 8/20/2009 4:00:15 PM , Rating: 5
you forgot a few things...

-he prefers expensive mustard
-zomg he's a kenyan
-something or other about killing grandma in his death panel
-he'll force us all to live in his FEMA death camps if we don't turn homosexul and muslim.

Did I miss any other wingnut talking point?


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2009 8:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah because none of those things I said have any basis in reality or fact. I mean its not like Obama wants a several trillion dollar government run health care system (you can tout $1 trillion all you like. the CBO even says they're only counting the first year or so of coverage in that number) or a cap and trade system that even Democrats admit is a cap and tax system which will cost jobs and skyrocket energy prices. As well as anything that relies on energy which is everything.

While the things you said are mostly just from the random mutterings of a few people. Where have I ever said anything about death or FEMA camps? Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't agree with me.

I do think that elderly care will be diminished in a government run health care system where the elderly have to compete with the young for care. There will only be so much money to go around. Other universal health care systems ration care to the elderly (as well as the young), what makes you think a system here would be any different?


RE: Right and Wrong
By MadMan007 on 8/21/2009 8:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Before you get all blamey-gamey as if such complex things as the federal budget have simple stop/start lines I suggest you know some facts. Here is a good place to start: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31199889/

^repost of my other one since it gets downrated thanks to your post getting downrated. I guess a trillion+++++++ dollar war was a good idea though huh? I mean, at least it benefited the m.i.c. of which you're a part.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Belard on 8/22/2009 7:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot, he's also a super hero who can kill robots from outer-space.

- He's also from Australia.

yeah... if a family making about $35K a year has health insurance, they are spending about 30% of their income ON health "insurance" alone - NOT including deductibles, yearly raised rates and of course refusing to pay for some treatments. So in truth, the Health Insurance industry (Who pays for these Grassroots groups like FreedomWorks) is useless and have driving health care through the roof and into the ground.

Shesh, if we Paid taxes for health care, it'd be less.

Those on Medicare get preventive medical care... which means less trips to the hospital. Means less $$$ spent.

- Oh and you forgot He's a NAZI!

(what do we call the media propaganda for the past 12+ year?)


RE: Right and Wrong
By omnicronx on 8/20/2009 4:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.. am I the only one that finds it funny that you never refuted his statement?

P.S Republican Presidents are the kings of vacation. The past 3 republican presidents have spent around 25% of their time on vacation. Compared to Clintons 150 days during two terms or less than 10%.


RE: Right and Wrong
By ChristopherO on 8/20/2009 11:24:02 PM , Rating: 4
Okay, you both are a bunch of wing-nuts.

The President of the United States, wherever he is, is *never* on vacation. Do you seriously think that's a job you can escape? I can't recall the last time I had a vacation that started with a CIA briefing first thing in the morning.

Seriously people. Who cares how many days someone isn't in DC? If Obama wanted to move the capital to Honolulu, more power to him. Why? Hawaii is paradise. DC is natively a giant patch of swampland. If I had my druthers, I'd spend my life on Hilton Head (which I think was a vacation spot for the Clintons during the 90s).


RE: Right and Wrong
By Belard on 8/22/2009 7:34:04 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah... like the last dumb shit can even read!

Look at the video in which W-dumbshit (In Texas, the Phrase "Oops - ya did a W" means doing / saying something stupid) couldn't say the OLD phrase "Fool me once, shame on you. Full me twice, shame on me".

Think a little bit... this country was in shambles when W and his team of greedy neo-cons left... mostly left.

- CIA tourture gate
- Firing of lawyers (Rove.. any one?)
- illegal war against a country based on lies (WMD?)
- outing out a CIA agent (Thats a traitor in my book)
- Going vacation for 30+ days at a time. (just before 9/11)

Yeah, reaaally good job there.


RE: Right and Wrong
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 8/26/2009 12:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
[Glenn Beck] "President Obama is a racist who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." [/Glenn Beck]


That is the truth.

If it wasn't true than why did he tell the white Police Officer that he acted stupidly; even though he acted CORRECTLY!!

Not to mention the person who reported the Professor was called a racist by the media.


RE: Right and Wrong
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 8/26/2009 1:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
[Glenn Beck] "President Obama is a racist who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." [/Glenn Beck]


That is the truth.

If it wasn't true than why did he tell the white Police Officer that he acted stupidly; even though he acted CORRECTLY!!

Not to mention the person who reported the Professor was called a racist by the media.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Ard on 8/20/2009 11:14:31 AM , Rating: 5
Simply saying something that you know to be false does not make one liable for defamation. Making false or reckless statements only opens the door. First and foremost, the defamatory statement needs to be made in a public forum. Secondly, and this is the most important aspect, that statement has to injure the person's reputation and cause actual damage. The second aspect is a very high burden to meet if you're a person in the public arena.

Now, if you went on the news and said that President Obama molested you and 5 other children, you would certainly be opening yourself up for a lawsuit, but Obama would have to prove that you actually injured him in some way unless your statements were found to be slander per se (which in this case they would bebecause you're saying he committed a criminal act).

As far as this case is concerned, I don't think she has a leg to stand on and I don't think calling her a skank could be considered libelous in anyway. There certainly doesn't appear to be any injury to her reputation. Besides, she put herself out there with that pic. You throw yourself in the light, you need to be prepared with what's coming.


RE: Right and Wrong
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2009 11:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, and this is the most important aspect, that statement has to injure the person's reputation and cause actual damage.

While I agree - the problem in today's society is who gets to determine whether someones reputation is damaged. Trying to convince someone that somebody else, who you don't even know, is a skank, in my book would be attemping to damage her reputation. I'm certain that everyone in here who has a sister that has gone to a bar or nightclub has a similar picture to the one in this article and probably has been drunk and made stupid actions. But you wouldnt classify them as a skank.

I don't know this girl, and I will not decide whether she is or is not anything - its none of my business whether she is or not. But the fact is, he was making defamatory statements about her personal life, in a public forum (internet), and should be held accountable for whatever the court decides.

To simply hide behind some internet "privacy" stuff is a complete cop-out - sounds like hes afraid to have his name out there and be chastised by the public like he has been doing to other people.


RE: Right and Wrong
By tmouse on 8/20/2009 2:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I do not know if it was a Ninja edit or not but the blogger was a woman, the article says:

quote:
After learning the identity of the blogger Cohen says, "I just dialed her up. I said no more lawyers, it's OK. I forgive you."


In my experience I hear far more girls (note I'm using this term deliberately since women would imply more maturity than I think someone who uses this term deserves) using the term skank.


RE: Right and Wrong
By artemicion on 8/20/2009 11:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
A well-written article that clearly demonstrates the potential "damages" a woman bears when anonymous internet users make false claims regarding her sexual promiscuity:

http://www.portfolio.com//news-markets/national-ne...

Also a good read the author of this post, who is clearly biased against Plaintiffs in these types of actions. I'd be interested in knowing his/her opinion after he/she reads this article.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Ard on 8/20/2009 2:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
I can't tell if you're responding to me, as the indentation indicates, or the original poster I replied to, as your comment about favoring plaintiffs would indicate. In either case, the things that were said and done to those two women are extreme to say the least. Absolutely abhorrent, but still at the extreme end of the spectrum. I'm not saying that they don't have a completely valid suit, but how anyone could take that filth of a website seriously is beyond me. It's clearly populated with the dregs of humanity. Pains me to say that it's fitting that those dregs are lawyers since I myself am one (a lawyer that is :)), but at least I can take solace in the fact that I'm one of the good ones left.


RE: Right and Wrong
By artemicion on 8/20/2009 4:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was replying to you because you expressed skepticism over whether being called a 'skank' can result in damages. I agree the story I posted is more extreme, but the DT posting did indicate that if you will get her as a result of you google "NYC skank", which I think can potentially be very serious.

Another aspect of the article that I think is relevant, is how the women in this story, and the lawyers in my linked story, were both attractive, successful women targetted by anonymous men on the internet - suggesting that there is some sort of underlying insecurity among some men to lash out against attractive, successful women. And usually in the form of attacking their sexuality. There are some very interesting sociological phenomena at work here, I think. Take this lady: most people, upon learning that she is an attractive model, immediately lash out against her. Certainly the posted picture doesn't help, but one picture doesn't determine your sexual reputation (I know plenty of wholesome women who've taken ONE scandelous looking picture at some point in their lifetime). And you can't tell me that you wouldn't be outraged if a picture of you (or your daughter, or your wife, if you're comfortable with your own sexual promiscuity) was posted on some Skanks of NYC blog. I'd certainly take steps to take it down. If she's telling the truth, I can certainly EMPATHIZE with her, making it seem weird (to me, at least) that people are villifying her.


RE: Right and Wrong
By tmouse on 8/21/2009 7:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
Your linked article was a valid point, unfortunately THIS story has NOTHING what so ever in common on very fundamental grounds. She was not really hurt in any way, since all it took was the identity of the blogger to make things "all better", also you, and several others, jumped to the conclusion that the culprit was a man which was not the case. I'm not sure if it was deliberately left out as a clear statement but in the article but the quote "I dialed HER up" indicates the blogger was a female. In common usage it also makes sense; men will far more often call a women a whore or slut than a skank, which is more often a term women use. Maybe because its common definition implies someone vulgar or disgusting and men (in general)have a much higher threshold of what is vulgar or disgusting.


RE: Right and Wrong
By tmouse on 8/20/2009 3:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would not put this case in the same sentence with the ones in the article you posted. I think this was just a publicity stunt plain and simple. If she really was damaged a mere phone call would hardly make things "all better". The press got played in this one and the courts were used for her benefit. She got free press, appear as a victim and a forgiving martyr, now other people know her name which is what a model wants. She come out the poor girl who fought the Nobel fight to clear her name and forgave the evil person who defamed her.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Iaiken on 8/20/2009 11:17:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If people just minded their own business and used common sense, we wouldn't continually need to create laws to take care of things like this.


WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!

Let's not bring reason or logic into this...


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2009 2:07:42 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty much wraps this up.....like the guys banging that chick.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Lord 666 on 8/20/2009 12:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
That picture is very old since NYC outlawed smoking in bars/lounges a very long time ago.


RE: Right and Wrong
By adiposity on 8/20/2009 12:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
1. Just because smoking in bars is against the law does not mean it doesn't happen. Maybe she was kicked out moments later. Or more likely, since she was putting herself on display, no one cared and just ogled her.

2. The cigarette is not lit.

3. 2003 is not that long ago for someone in their mid 30's...

-Dan


RE: Right and Wrong
By Lord 666 on 8/20/2009 1:15:23 PM , Rating: 3
2003 is a long time ago no matter how old someone is. Some people might even say its six years ago.


RE: Right and Wrong
By rcc on 8/20/2009 1:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
lol, that's one of those relative things. To a 15 year old, 6 years is a long time. To a 60 year old, it really isn't. It's funny how your perspective changes.


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2009 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 3
6 minutes was a long time ago.


RE: Right and Wrong
By 91TTZ on 8/20/2009 1:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
6 years isn't that long ago. If you think it is you're probably still in school (or recently got out)


RE: Right and Wrong
By Lord 666 on 8/20/2009 1:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Neither are true.

Actually, my wife and I are about to celebrate our 6 year wedding anniversary later this year. In the time of 6 years, we've also had two children, moved three times, bought and sold 3 cars.


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2009 2:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Poor bastard..... j/k

Grats man.


RE: Right and Wrong
By artemicion on 8/20/2009 5:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
The six years just seems like a long time to you because you were married.

(just kidding)


RE: Right and Wrong
By tmouse on 8/20/2009 2:41:11 PM , Rating: 3
Actually you are wrong, while a skank is often inferred to be sexually promiscuous it really just means someone who is disgusting or vulgar. The defamatory statement would be she was a skank not the term biggest, so it would it would not be enough to merely show someone is the not biggest skank to win a case, they would have to show she was not a skank at all and as pointed out you really have to show actual damage from the statement, otherwise we risk having a system where mere opinion is actionable. This is a stupid case and a waste of the courts time, I think the real issue was a model with a flagging career doing anything to score some press. I think the fact that once she found out who it was it was "all forgiven" so as long as it was someone she knew it was ok to be called a skank? I think she knew all the while and this is all a scam, she gets free press, looks like a victim, acts all kind and forgiving, no one is hurt except the lost court time we pay for.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Alexstarfire on 8/21/2009 3:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Defamation is when someone does something that lowers your standing. Considering what the outcome of the whole ordeal was I feel that this was just retarded. She set a precedent when it clearly didn't defame her. She forgave who it was after all, and it seems like it was a "friend" at that.

It really depends on how much influence you have though. If I said EXACTLY what that blogger said on my own webpage I KNOW that absolutely NOTHING would happen. Of course you also have to mean what you say. I agree with several others on here that calling someone a skank doesn't mean they are literally a skank. I think you'd be quite hard pressed to find an insult that someone actually means in the proper sense. Who honestly calls someone a bastard and means it? I know your example is quite different from what I'm suggesting, but it's also quite different from what the blogger said as well. The context of what the blogger said is obviously just a general insult to the celebrity in the article, not intentionally specific.

Hope this case doesn't end up screwing over a lot of people real soon.


RE: Right and Wrong
By McGixxer on 8/20/2009 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with the above poster, I don't think cowards should be able to run their mouths and hide behind the Internet while doing so, but this example seems like a waste of time and money.


RE: Right and Wrong
By ClownPuncher on 8/20/2009 11:05:02 AM , Rating: 5
Skank.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Samus on 8/20/2009 11:13:53 AM , Rating: 3
Looking at this photo, of this women bent over on a table in what appears to be a public place....im inclined to agree with just about everything the blogger wrote.

$10 bucks says the blogger took this photo.


RE: Right and Wrong
By mdogs444 on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right and Wrong
By Camikazi on 8/20/2009 11:58:57 AM , Rating: 4
A skinny, fake blonde model? Nah, I don't like them, I need something to hold onto :) I'll take Fluvia Lacerda over Cohen anyday, and twice on Sundays!


RE: Right and Wrong
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2009 2:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
First thing I looked at was indeed her @$$. But I agree with the other guy. A bit too skinny for my tastes. She has no @$$ to smack.


RE: Right and Wrong
By MPE on 8/20/2009 11:59:23 AM , Rating: 1
A club is not a public place- especially where actual NYC models hang out.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Lord 666 on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right and Wrong
By invidious on 8/20/2009 2:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what you mean, it only matters what you write. Readers are going to interpret the word for what it is, intentions are irrelivant. When you publish something you are accountible for it, it doesn't matter if it is something nice or something mean.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Motoman on 8/20/2009 5:16:32 PM , Rating: 1
I have to agree. There certainly would have been a case where it was justified to find the identity of an anonymous writer on the internet to bring libel suit against them - but this precedent sets the bar far too low.

Saying something like "she's the biggest skank in NYC" isn't libel in my book - and by it's clearly an expression of disdain for the woman, as an opinion, at any rate.

So now do we get to sue people for libel when they call us "skanks" on the interweb? What if they called you a "dick?" Or a "dumbass?" Or "ugly?" ...that's what I mean by saying the bar's been set too low.

...and for the record, whether or not she's truly a skank I don't know - but if so, she is one hot skank. Me. Ow.


RE: Right and Wrong
By Screwballl on 8/20/2009 6:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem here is the fact that as more of these cases make their way through the courts, we are getting our freedoms taken away. We can't even voice an opinion without someone getting their ass wrapped around their head in a fit of rage.

Especially in this case where the term skank cannot be used in any factual context, the whole line of these terms are opinionated words. "This vacuum sucks" is factual, "this car sucks" is opinion, "she is a skank" is an opinion, "she slept with 60 guys last month so she is a skank" is a false fact coupled with an opinion and the point of libel comes in with the "she slept with those guys", not the skank part.

No doubt others will use this as a precedent to sue other people for voicing opinions...


RE: Right and Wrong
By Clienthes on 8/20/2009 7:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
This ruling doesn't take away your right to say whatever you want. All it does is make you responsible for what you say by taking away the guarantee of anonymity.

Your freedoms aren't being taken away. Your freedoms are being protected. You now have the ability to protect your good name from internet asshats. No one has the right to anonymity.

Yep, people will start suing, and they'll have to meet the same legal standards as people suing for slander and harassment in other venues to win. They aren't easy standards to meet, so I wouldn't be too worried. Maybe it'll make the net a little more civil. This case was silly and she never would have won if she had sued. But the ruling that the name of the blogger had to be provided is awesome.


RE: Right and Wrong
By puzzled56 on 8/20/2009 6:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
1: Why would it be considered a negative attribute of someone that they individually or consensually enjoy and express their sensuality/sexuality?

2: What does it say about a culture that thinks such expression is a negative attribute?


RE: Right and Wrong
By delphinus100 on 8/22/2009 1:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. We say 'skank' as if it were necessarily a bad thing.

I have to think that if someone called Xaviera Hollander a 'ho' today, her response might be something to the effect of; "Not anymore. And not in a long time. But when I was, I was the best .

Of course there is the simple, undenied, widely known fact that she was indeed a hooker/madam once. No potential libelous untruths in this example.


RE: Right and Wrong
By JPForums on 8/21/2009 8:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see no problem with holding people responsible for Libelous things they write online. If you are damaging some-one's reputation, especially if you are hurting some-one's ability to do their job, you should be held accountable.


On the one hand, I agree with you that it would be nice if people were held responsible for, or at least associated with, the intentionally libelous defamatory comments they write. However, I fear that this precedent is another step towards government censorship. These are just two of the more recent actions that make me fear this precedent:

It wasn't to long ago that Nancy Pelosi introduced legislation that, if passed, would effectively give the controlling party the power to filter what members of congress can post online regarding congressional proceedings. Congressional proceedings are supposed to be fully recorded and available to the public. Why shouldn't it be available on the internet uncensored.

While Obama was a candidate, and consequently had only the authority of an Illinois senator, he received a question from a plumber who need not be named. The question was simple and without malicious intent. However, Obama answered the question quite poorly. In response, his campaign gained access to state records that an Illinois senator shouldn't have had access to in the first place. The information was used for purposes that it shouldn't have been used for it they did have legitimate access. Indeed a non malicious comment from a no name (at the time) character, received a defamatory response that affects the man's livelihood.

While a man is free to say what he likes, another man is also free to disagree. The issue comes when a gal can say something that's true and the dude in the wrong has the power to label her a liar and destroy her integrity in the public's eyes. Of course, there are some politicians whose actions indicate that we shouldn't have freedom of speech in the first place.

Tying this back into the article, maybe the supermodel really was a skank. Maybe not. I don't know her. The author of the blog apparently did. I only know what gets reported. If the comments are true, should the person still get punished and to what extent? If so, how far should freedom of speech really extend?

Personally, I think that if we have freedom of speech, then we should also be free to be anonymous. After all, stirring up a mob and giving them your name and address can hardly be said to be better that throwing you in jail. Consider that a comment from a no name character is exactly that. A signature gives credibility (or lack of) to the comment. It also associates the writer with the comment and the writer must take responsibility for it. If you have a problem with an anonymous comment, treat it as a comment from an ignorant nobody. Alternately, ignore it completely and don't read it at all.

---Disclamer---
Yes, both actions are from Democrats. They currently have a monopoly in power and thus (from a party perspective) are responsible for the most recent government actions (both good and bad). More importantly, these events should be fairly well known.

No, I don't intend to site reference articles. Both events should be pretty well known to those who would actually care to check. Further, the details of the events are unimportant to my point. In today's mass communications era where information (both true and false) can spread to the other side of the planet in microseconds, anonymity is important to maintaining freedom of speech.


Rediculous ruling
By the goat on 8/20/2009 11:15:34 AM , Rating: 5
Based on the single picture in the article, I can see she clearly is a skank.

It seems to me she should have had to prove defamation occurred before the blogger's privacy rights were rescinded. In this case there is no defamation (the blogger's statements were truthful). So there is no reason for the anonymity to be removed.

I say again, Liskula Cohen is a skank .




RE: Rediculous ruling
By maverick85wd on 8/20/2009 11:20:42 AM , Rating: 3
I applaud Ms. Cohen in her sexual promiscuity. More women should run around acting wild, it makes monday-friday easier for everyone. Just wrap it up!


RE: Rediculous ruling
By maverick85wd on 8/20/2009 11:22:06 AM , Rating: 3
sorry, got distracted. Yea, the ruling is outrageous. All that trouble over someone getting called a skank on the internet? The case should have been thrown out in the first place.


RE: Rediculous ruling
By artemicion on 8/21/2009 1:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is why I hate the media. I highly suspect that there are fundamental misconceptions perpetuated by the media in this story.

1) She probably didn't sue Google.

She probably just sued the blogger. She filed a motion to SUBPOENA Google because they have information relevant to the case.

2) She probably didn't win her lawsuit.

She probably won a pre-trial motion to subpoena Google for the information relevant to her case. It's not hard to subpoena a third party. The reason being is the third party doesn't suffer much injury from showing up in court and giving whatever information they have.

3) She probably has a better case than you think.

Even SFGate, with it's openly biased slant, wrote that the blog said as much as calling her "a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank." Pretty sure the parts about being psychotic and whoring aren't true. If it were just "skank", I'd say, "ok, it's obvious that the statements are either opinions/jokes." But WHORING is a pretty precise term. So I'm going to go ahead a give the court a pass for not dismissing this case as entirely frivolous. Lest we forgot, maybe she'll end up losing in the end anyway.

4) We're not going to end up in a society where everybody's information gets subpoena'd from Google for anonymous comments made on the internet.

Paying the filing fee to initiate a suit is expensive. Paying a lawyer to draft the complaint is expensive. Paying a lawyer to draft the motion to subpoena is expensive. Paying the lawyer to draft the opposition to Google's request to quash the subpoena is expensive. Paying the Defendant the money he's going to have to give you when you request sanctions for filing a frivolous suit is expensive (if the suit is frivolous - if it isn't, I don't see a problem). Sooooo, as long as you don't make enemies on the internet with people rich enough to pay all of this JUST to get the satisfaction of getting your e-mail address from Google, I think we're all pretty safe.


RE: Rediculous ruling
By mdogs444 on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rediculous ruling
By rdeegvainl on 8/20/2009 11:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it that you think you should be held to a different standard to talk about people on the internet, than you should be when taking a stroll at the mall?

Because you do not have to announce your identity as you walk and talk in a mall, I would say that it is not being held to a different standard.

quote:
You feel that you have the right to chastise someone in a public setting, while being private yourself?

I do.

But really, why are you chastizing people on the internet(as public a setting as a mall) annonymously if you are so against it?


RE: Rediculous ruling
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2009 3:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
I dont chastise people, and I have no reason for people who not know who I am. In fact, there are several people in here that know my name, where I live, my email address, and my phone number.


RE: Rediculous ruling
By artemicion on 8/20/2009 5:04:07 PM , Rating: 1
Basically, you're claiming to have a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY . . . in a PUBLIC forum?

/boggle


RE: Rediculous ruling
By xRyanCat on 8/20/2009 8:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
Not privacy. But anonymity.


RE: Rediculous ruling
By artemicion on 8/20/2009 9:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh, the right to anonymity. I forgot about that one. That's the fundamental human right that prohibits anybody from identifying you when you do anything while wearing a ski mask, right?


RE: Rediculous ruling
By Camikazi on 8/20/2009 12:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
I do it all the time! It's fun :P


RE: Rediculous ruling
By the goat on 8/20/2009 2:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it that you think you should be held to a different standard to talk about people on the internet, than you should be when taking a stroll at the mall? You feel that you have the right to chastise someone in a public setting, while being private yourself?


There is no different standard.

If I saw this woman in the mall I would have no problem calling her a skank right then and there. And when she subsequently demands that I tell her my name I would turn around and walk away.


How far does my freedom of speech go?
By bighairycamel on 8/20/2009 10:44:43 AM , Rating: 3
Since I'm writing a user comment and not a blog am I allowed to call her a skank? If not, then there is probably no need to say what everyone is thinking anyway. BAM!




By spread on 8/20/2009 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously. What a skank.


RE: How far does my freedom of speech go?
By Spivonious on 8/20/2009 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 3
If I saw that photo of her, I'd assume she was "sexually promiscuous" as well.

So, if I call someone a poopface, and publish this somewhere, I can be sued for defamation? Would any reader actually believe that the person's face was made of poop?


By chagrinnin on 8/20/2009 9:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
You misspelled defecation.


Anonymity
By Pythias on 8/20/2009 10:38:41 AM , Rating: 5
Tor. Use it.




RE: Anonymity
By HrilL on 8/20/2009 11:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
beat me to it. That and and email account linked to no one. Possibly created over the tor network as well. Hiding on the internet is still easy you just need to be a little smarter about it.


Competition
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2009 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 3
Lets see who can make the best caption for the attached image.

Go.




RE: Competition
By chagrinnin on 8/20/2009 10:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Okay,..so, tell me again, how does this get me into the Blue Flamers Club?


I think we can all agree on this...
By ThePooBurner on 8/20/2009 11:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
F-Canada.




By ThePooBurner on 8/20/2009 11:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
Bah, ignore that. Wrong window.


Never call dames "broads".
By MrPeabody on 8/20/2009 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Verdict in Google "Skank" Suit Could Have Broad Implications


(ahem) No pun intended, I'm sure.




Knowing
By Floorbit on 8/25/2009 4:29:32 AM , Rating: 2
something is 'not true',is bull crap. If you've got a perspective that is your own,it will remain so. Would be your free speech to say so. But I've been wrong before,...

The ideals simply play into the hands of media conglomerates who convincingly hold all of their machinery in loaded arms taking most of our time for mundane imprint. Then congradualating themselves with reward and flattery .

While there is grudgingly a real world of perception that are exactly portrayed by themselves.

I mean woe is me. Having something in text as this is complelety silent. There is not a light,or a sound heard. The justice department errs in many ways to its own rational of interaction concerning communication.
While we look at something that whelps on itself as some kind of 'superiority ,or credibility detail. Details all in the interaction. The justice department should take some of that stuff down that insults our intellegence.

Then impedes,and solicits at the same time freedom of speech via its delivery system.

It'll be old before its new.




RE: Knowing
By Floorbit on 8/25/2009 4:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't leave the back door open. As I believe that the 'reasonable expectation of security',trumps, 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.

If you look,the propaganda 'privacy game',is over. When the government realizes that the 'reasonable expectation of security',is a wiser constitutional priveledge.

I really dont think that you win like this. It is just that you cannot impress the maximum amount of audience by fiat.

Your audience is your readers,your posters.


Lame
By Maximilian on 8/20/2009 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 3
Lame




By Nightraptor on 8/20/2009 2:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
Twice this article described this decision as precedent setting. This is inaccurate. In New York things are quite backwards from most states and the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court and as a result has no precedent setting ability. Only the appeals court (called the Appeals Division) and the court of last resort (called the Appeals Court) has the power to set precedent. Furthermore as this is a state law issue it doesn't apply outside New York anyhow.




Could be easily abused
By nafhan on 8/20/2009 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
The problem I have with this is it could be used as an easy way to get information about someone.
Notice in this case the accuser didn't even end up pursuing them legally, but was still able to get information in order to contact the accused.
Don't like what someone is saying online? Accuse them of defimation, find out who they are, and (possibly) do something very bad to them.




Missing the point...
By croc on 8/20/2009 7:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
What do I care if this 'supermodel' is or isn't a skank? The point, in my opinion, is the erosion of freedoms implied here in that Google complied with a court order to relinquish personal details of a user.




huh?
By Gul Westfale on 8/20/2009 9:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
liskula cohen is a supermodel?? i'd never heard of her before today, and doubt that will ever hear of her again.




By on 8/22/2009 11:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




Free speech takes another hit...
By Smokey48 on 8/24/2009 8:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
The judge who made this ruling is a legal skank.




There is a huge difference...
By Beenthere on 8/20/09, Rating: -1
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki