Print 111 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 9:50 AM

Liskula Cohen

Rosemary Port
Skank-Gate grows into a $15 million firestorm

Last week, DailyTech reported that Liskula Cohen sued Google to release the name of a blogger who called her a skank on the "Skanks in NYC" blog site. Cohen won the case, which forced Google to hand over pertinent information revealing the identity of the blogger, Rosemary Port.

Surprisingly enough, Port and Cohen knew each other -- Cohen had a change of heart about suing for defamation and stated, "I just dialed her up. I said no more lawyers, it's OK. I forgive you."

While Cohen may have put the matter behind her and is seemingly now trying to move on with her life, Rosemary Port isn't as content. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Port now plans to sue Google for $15 million for releasing her identity.

"When I was being defended by attorneys for Google, I thought my right to privacy was being protected," Port revealed today. "But that right fell through the cracks. Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me."

Port's attorney, Salvatore Strazzullo, stated, "Our Founding Fathers wrote 'The Federalist Papers' under pseudonyms. Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously."

Many speculated that the initial ruling would spark a firestorm of controversy in relation to privacy rights and users' ability to make comments anonymously online without fear of having their cover blown. Strazzullo feels that he and his client won't back down from fighting for privacy rights and added "I'm ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."

Comments     Threshold

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

By BrandtTheMan on 8/24/2009 1:09:55 PM , Rating: 5
Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

RE: ...
By squezy on 8/24/2009 1:23:30 PM , Rating: 1
Freedom of speech is relative to what you say. If you say you are going to kill some one, it is no longer just a "speech", it becomes a threat.

Bottom line is that you are free to say what ever you want. There is no way anyone can stop you from speaking (except cutting your tongue?). You just need to be ready to endorse what you say.

RE: ...
By 91TTZ on 8/24/2009 1:47:08 PM , Rating: 5
Freedom of speech is relative to what you say. If you say you are going to kill some one, it is no longer just a "speech", it becomes a threat.

This blogger never made any threats. She only called her names.

RE: ...
By dark matter on 8/24/2009 1:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
And all this because she missed out the word "possibly" or "my opinion".

If she would have added "in my opinion" at the end, she would have been protected. "In my opinion she is no better than a whore" is completely different then saying "she is a whore".

Having an opinion isn't illegal. But stating something as factual about someone that isn't true can be.

RE: ...
By Boze on 8/24/2009 8:30:13 PM , Rating: 4
Well she didn't call her a whore, she called her a skank.

A whore is a synonym for a prostitute. A skank is just a trashy woman. Looking at the (very like cherry picked) pictures up top, if you showed 100 people those two pictures, then posed the question, "Please apply the label 'skank' to the woman in the photo that best represents that word.", you'd likely have about 100 people labeling this blonde woman and not Rosemary Port.

How do you verify the authenticity of saying someone is a skank? Or even a whore? If I say, "dark matter is an asshole," is there an asshole test that can quantify assholeness or the lack thereof?

This is more ultrasensitive crybaby bullcrap and frankly I'm getting sick of it. America was founded on inflammatory speech - pissing people off. How sad that it took less than 300 years for us to go completely in the opposite direction.

RE: ...
By Boze on 8/24/2009 8:30:46 PM , Rating: 5
P.S., I think Rosemary Port is more attractive than the blonde.

RE: ...
By MrWho on 8/25/2009 2:45:41 AM , Rating: 3

RE: ...
By Spoelie on 8/25/2009 3:05:49 AM , Rating: 3
Heaven forbid if you had left out "I think.." - lawyers would be knockin' at your door.

RE: ...
By rburnham on 8/25/2009 10:23:24 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. Port is quite attractive. The blonde is, in fact, skanky. Port wrote the truth.

RE: ...
By William Gaatjes on 8/25/2009 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot help it :

My hormones driven body favour her too.

RE: ...
By dark matter on 8/25/2009 11:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand where you are coming from.

Heck, the number of people I could sue from school. In fact, they could probably sue me back. The only people making money would be the lawyers.

I realise she didn't say "whore", but unfortunately it is the omission of "opinion" or stating something as a fact that allows you to sue.

For instance, say you were a childrens doctor, and a bloody good one too. And I started a blog saying you were a kiddy fiddler. Quite rightly I could sue you. If you said "he is not to be trusted with kids", I could sue you.


a) What your claiming to be facts are really your opinion
b) It is damaging to my career, standing in the community.

RE: ...
By Boze on 8/25/2009 1:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I've had a lot of experience dealing with models (my older brother was a model photographer at one time) and I can say with no uncertainty that quite a few of them are what the American people-at-large would consider "whores".

So being a whore isn't damaging to her reputation. If saying someone is a whore, slut, skank, cum dumpster, etc., and it damaged a career, then by that theory, Lindsey Lohan should be paying movie studios instead of being paid by them.

As far as her standing in the community, I didn't know she had any. This Lohen or Cohen... whatever... she couldn't have been *that* famous in the "community". I don't know who she is. Most of my classmates here at Mississippi State University didn't know who she is (and believe me, I have asked... I love talking about current events and politics - anything that pisses people off, fires people up, and makes 'em passionate; biggest problem in our society I think, people aren't willing to step on some toes and find out how people really feel about an issue). How "famous" could she be if most people have never heard of her? Locally famous? Big. Hairy. Deal. If I went into a night club in New York City and saw Cohen, would I actually know its Cohen? Probably not. Furthermore, would I know she's a skank? No, because I wouldn't be able to associate 'skank' and 'Cohen' because frankly she's a nobody in the grand power scheme. Lastly, would I even care if she's a skank? No. I don't care if Rosemary Port is a skank. I don't care if her vulva have never been touched in her life and she's more pure than Mary. It simply is not my business nor does it even matter.

Furthermore, some blog that I've never read in my life - that I'm willing to bet only a small percentage of New York City residents have read (Do even 5% of NYC residents read this blog? I would be shocked shitless if the answer is yes, I would be shocked if the answer were 1% of residents, or even 0.1%) - purports that this Cohen person is a slut. Newsflash Americans, that's an opinion. Blog, short for WEBLOG, WEB LOG. LOG is a recording of events. The Captain's Log crap is a recording of Jean-Luc Picard's thoughts on situations and events from the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation (its a plot device, there are no "captain's logs" in the actual Navy, but let's run with it). Its his personal opinions.

Captain's Log: Stardate XXXXX - Cmdr. Riker is a tool sometimes and I would totally boink Counselor Troy. <-- those are opinions, and should be treated as such.

And lastly, for those people asking why she can sue Google, its because Google had (and has) a fiduciary duty to protect her privacy, and caved in like Microsoft's ad campaign against Apple lawyers. What's worse is that it shouldn't be this way. It is this way because at the end of the day, it comes down to the almighty dollar. Google just hands over the documents and information, doesn't have to go to court to prevent releasing these records, and therefore saves a buck. Microsoft doesn't have to defend its ad campaign because Apple lowered the price of hardware, so Microsoft saves a buck.

Its so, so sad when we choose to avoid the correct and moral path because it leads to less hardship. Then again, that's why the correct and moral path is the hardest to walk - its the hardest to endure.

RE: ...
By yomamafor1 on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By kaoken on 8/24/2009 3:42:15 PM , Rating: 3
I hardly consider calling someone a skank is prejudice or racial. What next, I can't call someone an idiot?

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 8/24/2009 4:00:26 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot ;)

RE: ...
By theapparition on 8/25/2009 8:20:47 AM , Rating: 3
I like skanks myself. Easy targets.

RE: ...
By yomamafor1 on 8/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Boze on 8/25/2009 4:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, they absolutely should be.

That's what it means to live in America. I could write out a huge post, but some Hollywood scriptwriter beat me out bigtime with this scene from The American President starring Michael Douglas.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

Maybe it sounds terrible because this is popular culture, but that should be put alongside quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Lincoln, Kennedy, and others. It is without a doubt the quickest clearest example of what it means to live in America.

Nearly absolute freedom... with nearly unlimited consequences.

RE: ...
By 91TTZ on 8/24/2009 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 5
Finally someone with a common sense. The "freedom of speech" has been taken too literally by most, and people often hide behind the First Amendment for their racial slurs, bigotry comments, and condescending remarks.

You seem like you don't understand the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment does, in fact, give you the right to make racial slurs, bigotry comments, and condescending remarks. Surely these are not nice, but they are protected by law. This is the reason why groups like the KKK are still allowed to hold rallies and speak their mind.

RE: ...
By BailoutBenny on 8/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Rike on 8/25/2009 1:55:13 AM , Rating: 4
In the purest legal interpretation, Gitlow v. New York, among other things, explicitly federalizes the first amendment rights of speech and press. States are not allowed to have laws that restrict the freedoms of speech or press under current interpretations of the Constitution.

RE: ...
By BailoutBenny on 8/27/2009 6:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Except that is a legal interpretation and not a technical one. Legal interpretations are subject to the whims of politics. The Constitution explictly states only that Congress may not make this decision. It is up to each individual state to adopt or reject this legal interpretation. The Supreme Courts decisions are non binding if a state so chooses since they are sovereign entities with the people being the ultimate sovereigns.

RE: ...
By SublimeSimplicity on 8/24/2009 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 5
"Aren't people absurd! They never use the freedoms they do have, but demand those they don't have; they have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech." -Søren Kierkegaard

RE: ...
By kattanna on 8/24/2009 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 1
Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

why do people equate freedom of speech to mean freedom to speak without consequences?

this woman was in no way prevented from speaking her mind. but what she did speak was liable speech, which is not protected.

RE: ...
By dark matter on 8/24/2009 2:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
you mean libelous speech. Yes she did. If she would have put "in my opinion she is NYC biggest skank" then there would be no case.

RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/24/2009 3:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Proving yet again the adage, "It's not what you say, but how you say it."

RE: ...
By vhx on 8/24/2009 4:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Except personal blogs ARE opinionated. It's one of the top reasons people even use blogs, to write their opinions.

RE: ...
By akosixiv on 8/25/2009 3:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
still the same. You write something as libelous as that, without writing it correctly then you are inviting trouble.

People need to learn to be careful, for they can be held liable for whatever they write.

RE: ...
By dark matter on 8/25/2009 11:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
You still need to be explicit that it is your opinion and not fact.

RE: ...
By MozeeToby on 8/24/2009 1:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom of speech is freedom to say what you want, it is not necessarily freedom from the consequences. In this case, annoying model #1 is claiming that annoying model #2 unfairly damaged her reputation and with it her social standing and ability to do her job profitably. When what you say is both untrue and damages someone else, you are no longer protected from the consequences of that speech.

RE: ...
By Nfarce on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/24/2009 3:15:02 PM , Rating: 1
Really? Then why does it seem like every town hall that has the staged demonstrations, there's always one person that shouts Obama is a Nazi?

Maybe you fools should learn some history. It was the Nazis that gained power by standing in the Reichstag and shouting out whenever their opponents spoke, not allowing any other voice to be heard.

Meanwhile, there continue to be town halls, letting those against the health care initiatives show their voice, and none of them have presented anything intelligent to the debate. They're all worked up by Fox News who's on the dollar of the insurance companies or exhibiting the typical paranoia that the losing side of an election displays when the winners try to present reforms.

RE: ...
By Belard on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Breathless on 8/24/2009 3:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
If you read anything described in the bill, you would realize how stupid you sound, and how these "fox followers" at the Town Hall meetings are smarter than you think. They just don't want to government taking over health, among other things. You apparently don't mind the government doing this. Do they all have 120+ IQ's? Not likely, but then again, even people with "below average intelligence" are smarter than the proponents of this bill.

When the left shouts and hollars - they are exercising their right to protest and free speech

When the right finally gets the balls to shout and hollar - they get labeled as crazy and "unintelligent".

RE: ...
By bodar on 8/24/2009 3:52:50 PM , Rating: 3
We think these people are ignorant tools because all they do is turn these town halls into circuses by screaming about Nazis and starting fights. There's no debate or discussing the facts and it's not helping anything.

RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 8/24/2009 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 5
When the left shouts and hollars - they are exercising their right to protest and free speech

When the right finally gets the balls to shout and hollar - they get labeled as crazy and "unintelligent".

Actually, both groups get labeled crazy and unintelligent when they protest. Remember the protests in California about the banning of gay marriage? I think the only difference is the Republicans used the term "loons" instead of "crazy". But, who cares? If one group thinks the other is unintelligent, grow some balls and deal with it with your Johnson and Johnson's No-Tear shampoo.

If everyone is going to run around insulted and butt-hurt when someone else disagrees with them, we have already lost.

In reality, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are Nazis, they don't come close, and it is counterproductive to act like a child.

RE: ...
By bodar on 8/24/2009 11:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
This would be such great entertainment if it weren't real life:
08.14.2009 - Dana Gould on Real Time

RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/24/2009 4:23:39 PM , Rating: 3
When the left shouts and hollars - they are exercising their right to protest and free speech When the right finally gets the balls to shout and hollar - they get labeled as crazy and "unintelligent".

Present an event where a mainly Democratic crowd shouted obscenities at someone speaking and threatened to get violent.

Every town-hall meeting concerning the health care bill is the same, ignorant Fox-watcher takes mic to say something political and off-topic that makes them look crazy while not saying anything about the bill.

And yes, I've read nearly a tenth of the Bill now, a feat I doubt you have. I've not found any of the hysterical talking points that the Bill O'Reilly fans keep repeating.

So, how about this. You demand from your pundits the details of their rants and then look it up for yourself.

I highly doubt you'll find what they're saying, but if you do I'd love to hear about it.

Meanwhile, a recent spam email against the reforms pointed to a particular page in the bill saying it contained the "death panel" language and it really described the creation of a toll free hot-line to ask questions. Those who didn't bother to doubt check will just repeat it like dolts.

RE: ...
By Nfarce on 8/24/2009 5:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Present an event where a mainly Democratic crowd shouted obscenities at someone speaking and threatened to get violent.


Yeah, you probably didn't see that on MSNBC's Keith Olberman or Comedy Central's Late Show With Jon Stewart.

RE: ...
By tdawg on 8/24/2009 5:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like a strange article to link to in order to express your argument. And the entire content of the article seems like perfect fodder for MSNBC or The Daily Show.

No excuse for whatever the SEIU members were doing (why weren't they at work?), but it looks like this guy is just trying to bilk the system.

RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/25/2009 5:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read either of the articles or watch the video?

The guy's trying to make a scene purposefully, and had two guys there helping him. Why's the video only start right when the guy falls? Where's what lead up to the incident? Maybe because the guy was baiting and they don't want you to see that.

This is more disgusting than the shouting inside the town halls. Why can't the anti's stay civil?

RE: ...
By Eris23007 on 8/24/2009 7:35:21 PM , Rating: 4
First, a stipulation: I am a member of no political party and have complex views on the health care issue. I believe HR3200 is not the right answer as presently written because I believe it creates more problems than it solves. I rarely watch television news anymore due to the slanted reporting on both sides, though if I must watch one of the networks it will probably be CNN.

This info is only peripherally related to your post, but I'm attempting to establish an iota of objectivity.

Now then, you requested someone to

Present an event where a mainly Democratic crowd shouted obscenities at someone speaking and threatened to get violent.

Nobody suggests the town hall protests are directly organized by the GOP; instead they are organized, if at all, by conservatives or independent right-leaning groups aligned with the Republicans. Therefore to show an equivalent action, one must only show violence threatened or committed by leftists aligned with the Democrats, with the goal of preventing public political speech.

I can easily present two such examples both much larger and much more organized than the present "town hall" debacles:

1) The '99 WTO conference in Seattle:

40,000 leftist protesters assembled from all over the world and committed violence far more serious than anything performed or threatened in these "town hall" meetings.

In fact, I would argue that the '99 WTO protests set the stage for future violent protesting of the IMF, World Bank, and the next one, which was much more recent:

2) The 2008 Republican National Convention

Again an example of violent leftist protesters disrupting political speech, or attempting to do so.

Again, I choose to maintain political independence as I do not believe either political party represents my interests. I also understand those on the Democratic side being extremely frustrated with these protests.

However, you can't have it both ways. Either protests are a legitimate part of the democratic process, as the left has considered them since the 60's with the civil rights and anti-war movements, the latter of which regularly involved violence (kudos to the civil rights protesters for mostly avoiding it, btw), OR protests are an illegitimate way of inhibiting political free speech. Pick one.

If the other side adopts your tactics - gives you a taste of your own medicine - and you don't like it, isn't that hypocrisy? Suck it up and try something else. I have an idea, how about engaging constructively with the other side instead of dismissing them and ignoring their concerns? Maybe we as a society will actually get somewhere that way.

*sigh* I miss the nineties, when we had a split government (legislative to one party, executive to the other) and they actually had to compromise once in a while!

RE: ...
By Nfarce on 8/24/2009 9:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. You accomplished what I wish I could have stated better but failed to do. Hat tip...

RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 8/25/2009 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
The WTO fiasco was made far worse by the mishandling of the protest by police. Some ~160 people were awarded large cash settlements due to police violating their 4th amendment rights, and beating the tar out of people not even there to protest.

There were a small group of anarchists (not leftists) that decided to smash up some storefront windows, the actual protesters tried to stop them. I was working downtown at the time, although the protests were largely disruptive, they remained peaceful until the black bloc anarchists started destroying properties.

RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/25/2009 5:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
What a load of bull. No one can be completely objective, and you've shown this.

You take a fringe element and try to paint it as mainstream? The people who protest WTO are so far left they're probably not even in the Democratic party. I never said leftists or liberals, I said DEMOCRATS. So, try again.

Then you bring up convention protests that could have just as easily been right-wingers, since Ron Paul had just as many supporters flood the city for his rally, or again far left anarchists that are not even remotely members of the Democratic party. One such group even mentioned in the article you present.

Neither case includes "a mainly Democratic crowd" as I requested.

So, your illusions of objectivity are just that.

RE: ...
By Eris23007 on 8/26/2009 6:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your request for "a mainly Democratic crowd" creates a standard to which you do not hold yourself. The wing-nut element of the leftists and liberals who participated in the events I cited are clearly aligned with the Democratic party but may or may not be members, just as the wing-nut element of the conservative town-hall protesters are clearly aligned with the Republican party but may or may not be members. Just as you say the convention protests "could just as easily have been right-wingers," so could the town halls just as easily be leftists who are agitating for even greater governmental intervention in the health care market than the current proposals incorporate.

The point is, the wing-nut contingent of both sides are the ones driving the most objectionable violent aspects of each side's protests, and have a moral equivalency in that both use violence and intimidation in an attempt to win political arguments.

Nobody suggests the town hall protests are directly organized by the GOP; instead they are organized, if at all, by conservatives or independent right-leaning groups aligned with the Republicans. Therefore to show an equivalent action, one must only show violence threatened or committed by leftists aligned with the Democrats, with the goal of preventing public political speech.

Rebut my point using facts and logic or fail.

Rebut my underlying point, expressed toward the end of the message after citing two specific instances of leftist protest activity, that there is ample documentation of 40+ years' worth of leftists and/or liberals engaging in protesting activity that has turned violent or fail.

There are clearly histories of conservative protests turning violent. I am not "painting" anyone mainstream, or fringe for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that ALL SIDES have used emotional protests which have incorporated violence or the threat thereof in attempting to win their political arguments. The violent and intimidating elements of said protests are driven by the wing-nuts on each side.

Your original point lacked logical clarity. Rebut me on the facts or accept that your distaste for the current protesting activity is driven by political disagreement, not taking issue with the action of protesting someone with whom you disagree.

Or, accept that your position is hypocritical, be an adult, and change your position.

I'll leave it to the audience to determine whether I have maintained an objective approach to this debate. I concur that "no one can be completely objective," or at least no human, but any human can take an objective approach to a debate by utilizing logic and addressing facts instead of leveraging emotional appeals and spewing forth opinionated invective.

RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/27/2009 12:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing logical about what you presented.

Saying anarchists are a part of the Democratic party is like saying the neonazis are a part of the Republican party. Neither is true.

The anti-healthcare crowd are aligned with the Republican party. It's the Republicans that are calling on people to do it and supporting the cause. No one in the Democract party is supporting the anarchist in their cause against the WTO nor calling on people to protest the opponent party's convention.

You're just dumping in a bunch of people you know cause problems into a group you're attacking. Not far from the other Republicans calling Obama a Nazis, just think you're being more sly about it.

Hence why YOUR objectivity is non-existent, no matter how much you hide from the fact.

RE: ...
By Eris23007 on 8/28/2009 9:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Saying anarchists are a part of the Democratic party is like saying the neonazis are a part of the Republican party. Neither is true.

Nice attempt to change the subject and place words into my mouth. I said neither thing, and the proof is on this page.

Nor did I say, as you implied elsewhere, and nor do I believe, that Obama is in any way morally equivalent to a Nazi, an idea that is ridiculous and laughable on its face, and those who call him such deserve to be ostracized.

Major point number two:

No one in the Democract party is supporting the anarchist in their cause against the WTO nor calling on people to protest the opponent party's convention.

Another clear statement; another falsehood.

Tom Hayden, former California Assemblyman & State Senator, Democrat, and member of the "Chicago Seven"
- GAVE A SPEECH to the WTO protests in 99
- Commented afterwards in the Washington Post:

The Seattle protesters' confrontation was forceful, effective and innovative. They shut down the WTO meeting, albeit temporarily, by chaining themselves together in the streets for as long as 12 hours last Tuesday.

There is a broad history of protests organized by leftists and liberals over the past 30 years, and those same people later becoming members, in many cases elected members, of the Democratic party. Tom Hayden was an easy one to find, and I really don't want to spend any more time on this. Please, just give up now, I have the far easier point to defend.

You're not going to win this one - either disruptive protests are an acceptable form of political speech or they aren't. You can't hold one side to a different set of rules than the other. Period.

Logic FTW!

RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 8/24/2009 3:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on which brand of bullshit smells best to you. Currently I think there is enough being spread around that anyone can get their fill of whichever offends their palate the least. Whatever you choose, America is pretty overweight from BS intake.

RE: ...
By stilltrying on 8/24/2009 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 3
Why dont the left take one half of the country and run their buisness anyway they want, the right run theirs anyway the want it and the libertarians take their third and run theirs anyway they want. Oh thats right, the left and right want to take their turns in plundering everyone so this will never happen. Politics is so 2 dimensional.

RE: ...
By theapparition on 8/25/2009 8:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's a great idea.

The left can take California and whatever else they want. As long as it includes California, I'm OK with any other concessions.

RE: ...
By Nfarce on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Nfarce on 8/24/2009 5:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I might add, it wasn't Republicans that had a White House 1930s Germany-like "tattle tale" website to report anyone speaking against this reform bill - which I believe this week is called insurance reform, not last week's health care reform. It has since been rescinded after much outcry.

Oh and one final point: if you think all these people against government takeover of health care are crazy Republican Faux News watchers, you are ignorant. It's well over half the nation against it.

RE: ...
By MatthiasF on 8/25/2009 5:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
She's right, they are LITERALLY carrying swastikas and pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache into the town halls. How's she wrong?

She never said they were wearing them or that they're Nazis.

RE: ...
By TedStriker on 8/24/2009 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing happened to Freedom of Speech, she can post relatively anything she wants on her blog. what happened is the loss of her ability to do so anonymously.

RE: ...
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 2:17:15 PM , Rating: 5
Forget freedom of speech! How on earth do you sue someone for complying with a judges ruling?

RE: ...
By akugami on 8/24/2009 2:25:33 PM , Rating: 4
I think this is more a concern of the violation of personal privacy than freedom of speech.

However, I think it is BS she is suing for someone complying with a court order. You can argue the original court order should not have been issued and it violated your personal privacy rights. Google would have been in contempt of court for not doing as the courts ordered. So if she wants to sue someone, sue the US court system.

RE: ...
By walk2k on 8/24/2009 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 4
What is the internet FOR if not slandering others anonymously, and sharing porn?

RE: ...
By Clienthes on 8/24/2009 5:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
She wasn't being prosecuted, she was being sued. There's a difference.

You can say nearly anything you want without being prosecuted for a crime (within some pretty common sense limits).

That doesn't mean you aren't liable in civil court for damages your speech might cause to others.

RE: ...
By drmo on 8/24/2009 5:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
According to wikipedia, in most states, claiming someone is unchaste or carries an STD is per se defamation.

She called the woman a whore, so she automatically defamed her, regardless of whether there was any actual damage.

On the other hand, according to the US Supreme Court, anonymity is an important right, so it seems like the judge who ordered the release of information was wrong. I think it is interesting that Google apparently only released the woman's email address, and the other woman figured out who it was.

RE: ...
By Boze on 8/24/2009 8:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Okay so what happens if someone actually has an STI?? You can't possibly claim defamation if something is a fact...

Also, who cares who screwin' who?? Alan Jackson might have have sang that he wonder's who's cheatin' who, who's bein' true, and who don't even care anymore, but frankly, I don't care whose car is parked next door.

RE: ...
By drmo on 8/25/2009 4:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it from the wikipedia site, it does not matter if someone has a disease, simply stating that they do is enough to claim defamation.

RE: ...
By tmouse on 8/26/2009 7:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
You do not understand it. If it is the truth it cannot be defamation, plain and simple. Now if her doctor leaked the information that would be a whole different story (as far as having a law suit goes), but it would still not be defamation. In some cases the other side actually has to prove the person who said the statement actually knew it to be false so even a false statement is not necessarily defamation.

RE: ...
By tmouse on 8/25/2009 8:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
She did not call her a whore she called her a skank. The term skank is often associated with loose morals but it only means someone who is disgusting or vulgar. That in and of itself is a fine distinction but relevant to the case. In any case truth always trumps defamation so if she had tried to sue based upon the common tradition of being referred to as unchaste (so in theory she would not have to prove damage) all the other side would have to do is prove this to be false. Then she would have to prove some form of damage to continue with the case and quite frankly (in my opinion) I'm willing to bet this publicity stunt actually benefitted her.
As far as freedom of speech; the other woman had that and used it. Now the question is was there a reasonable expectation of anonymity? This point is still in the air but all sites I have seen do have a clause in the TOS reserving their rights to comply with information requests at their discretion. Many will require court orders but few explicitly state that, giving themselves legal maneuvering room. There is not any law I am familiar with that explicitly prohibits any individual from disclosing the identity of another private citizen in terms of protection from libel(obviously this is excluding the identities of government agents, whistle blowers ect.). People have to remember the vast majority of the constitution is to protect us from the government not necessarily from each other.

RE: ...
By drmo on 8/25/2009 4:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Other sites state that she called her a skank, whore, among other things.

RE: ...
By drmo on 8/25/2009 4:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
for the whore comments:

And skank can mean sexually promiscuous, which would also be defamation, though that could be argued against.

RE: ...
By tmouse on 8/26/2009 8:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it appears Tom's hardware left off a few letters (ing). Is anyone suprised about that? Even the Judge cited words like skank and whorING NOT she was called a whore (its subtle but it is not the same, someone can "whore" themselves out in ways that have nothing sexual in nature). Now it is clear she implied sexual promiscuity in other parts of the blog, mentioning Cohen's willingness to engage in oral sex ect., however all it would take is a single witness to testify that it was true and that would not be defamation. The California courts have already ruled that "skankyness" cannot be clearly defined and is not actionable (although this does not prevent New York courts from taking a different view). The Supreme court has upheld truth as an absolute defense against defamation since this would clearly abridge free speech. Cohen had no case from the start since I highly doubt a clubbing model can truly show herself to be chaste to the 51% weight of evidence required by civil law. The fact that after she found out the identity of the blogger she totally dropped the case supports that. Either your defamed or not, who the person is and whether you know them or not should have nothing to do with it. The courts just wanted to set some precedent and she just wanted some much needed publicity. If nothing was done about the blog she would have not even qualified as a trivial pursuit question.

RE: ...
By Motoman on 8/24/2009 7:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Focus on the key issue here - this skank is even hotter than the last skank.

By Menoob on 8/24/2009 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 5
I know this is shallow but that Rosemary chick if very hot.

RE: Hot
By Ratinator on 8/24/2009 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 5
The Zoolander facial expression has me thinking otherwise.

RE: Hot
By Lord 666 on 8/24/2009 1:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
Way too Blue Steel and definitely a $100 headshot type of job.

RE: Hot
By acase on 8/24/2009 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about Blue Steel. I think it looks a bit more like Le Tigre.

RE: Hot
By amanojaku on 8/24/2009 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 5
I'd do them both. And they're both skanks.

RE: Hot
By Lord 666 on 8/24/2009 1:40:12 PM , Rating: 1
I've heard Rosemary has saggy breasts

By Ratinator on 8/24/2009 1:25:12 PM , Rating: 5
How can you sue Google when they were required by a court order to hand over the information? That is the equivalent of saying ok, we are going to tie you up to a post so you can't move and leave you there. In the mean time, if someone happens to come by and kick you in the nuts while you are tied up, there is nothing we can do to protect you.

Google has their hands tied right now.

RE: How
By nafhan on 8/24/2009 1:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree about Google. I think she would be better off suing the issuing body for the subpoena.

RE: How
By AlexWade on 8/24/2009 2:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
I was just thinking that.

"For going to court and protecting my identity as much as you can and then turning over my name when so order by that court, I'm going to sue you."

Translation: "I want to make a ton of money doing no work whatsoever. I cannot sue the person who forced Google to hand over my name, that would turn people against me. But I can sue Google, they are faceless amoral corporation. So I will sue and I hope to be rich and lazy. $15 million sounds right. $5 million will go to taxes and my lawyer. That leaves me with $10 million. I can be lazy for the rest of my life now!"

RE: How
By Lord 666 on 8/24/2009 2:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
In the US, there are no taxes on settlements or judgements.

The attorney will take at least 1/3 and then some.

She will lose
By sigmatau on 8/24/2009 1:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Right.... suing someone for doing what a court forced them to do.....right.

And what makes the internet such a cloak of darkness that makes people think they are 100% anonymous?

RE: She will lose
By JediJeb on 8/24/2009 2:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't this be the same thing as when people tried to sue the Telcos for complying with the wire tapping ordered by the government? I think that was shot down so I imagine that precident should hold here as well.

RE: She will lose
By TOAOCyrus on 8/24/2009 11:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite the same thing, the Telcos where not ordered by a court to wiretap, on the contrary, they agreed to wiretap without a warrent. Warrentless wiretapping is not one of the powers of the executive branch so so they could not have made the Telcos comply without a court order.

RE: She will lose
By DOSGuy on 8/24/2009 11:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes a branch of government oversteps its bounds. When that happens, businesses and private citizens have a duty to refuse to cooperate.

In the telco case, the executive branch decided that it could circumvent the judicial branch and do wiretapping without a warrant in the name of national security. Since that's unconstitutional, the telcos should have refused. Most of them didn't, which is why it's possible to sue them... except that the executive branch pushed the legislative branch to protect the telcos from lawsuits. Quite the system, huh?

Anyway, this situation is different because this sort of thing falls within the judicial branch's jurisdiction. If Google felt that the court's decision was wrong, they could have appealed to a higher court. Presumably the lawsuit in this case will be on the basis that Google should have appealed and exhausted every possible avenue for appeal before giving up the plaintiff's right to privacy. I tend to agree with the plaintiff, so I guess I won't be called for jury duty.

By HVAC on 8/24/2009 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
What if they already have an agreement to split the settlement?

RE: Clever
By bodar on 8/24/2009 3:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I call shenanigans here. IMO, this sounds like a scam... allegedly. Whew, covered.

RE: Clever
By Lucky Bob on 8/25/2009 10:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Now that is interesting. There is another possibility. What if Cohen knows that Post has proof positive that Cohen is a skank? It's better to keep that proof out of the public eye instead.

Wrong defendent
By DOSGuy on 8/24/2009 6:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone should be sued here, it's Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden. She agreed that Google should help Cohen identify the author of a blog because "The thrust of the blog is that Cohen is a sexually promiscuous woman."

That's not actionable! You can sue someone for defamation if they publish false information, not opinions. If the blogger had said, "Cohen killed one of her boyfriends" or "Cohen doesn't pay her taxes", those are statements of fact that, if untrue, represent defamation. Calling her sexually promiscuous is an opinion. How many men do you have sleep with before you're promiscuous? One person might 5, another might say 50, another might say 500. Similarly, you can't sue for defamation if someone writes "Cohen is a bad person", because that's an opinion, and it would be impossible for any court to determine if Cohen is a good person or a bad person since opinions on the subject will differ. I could say that I'm a vegan, and Cohen is a bad person in my opinion because she eats cheese.

Besides which, based on that photograph, Cohen is a skank.

RE: Wrong defendent
By Beno on 8/24/2009 9:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
cannot agree more

RE: Wrong defendent
By gstrickler on 8/26/2009 11:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
No! No! No! You're all missing the point.

Steve Dallas' "Who should I sue?":

The Obama Way
By rdeegvainl on 8/24/2009 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 3
I think I know how to settle this. I'll invite them both over to my place for alcoholic beverages, to "WORK" it out.

RE: The Obama Way
By gstrickler on 8/25/2009 12:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's the Clinton Way.

More pointless publicity for stupid people.
By invidious on 8/24/2009 1:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
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”.
This is from the previous DT article.

You can't sue a company for complying with a court order. Even if she would have wanted google to appeal the case she has no legal ground to force them to. Nor do they have any legal responsibility to get her permission before to comply with the court order.

By drmo on 8/24/2009 5:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think she is suing Google to get more publicity for herself. She'll probably write a book about it.

DT users need to get headshots done as well
By Lord 666 on 8/24/2009 1:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
Listen, if someone wants to sue me and an ISP giving out my user information, at least I want a good picture shared. Not a 3am DUI mugshot, but a professional headshot.

Rosemary looks like a bitch anyway and this smells like a setup to get money.

By Xerstead on 8/24/2009 2:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
If not the money, a load of free publicity.
I'd hadn't heard of either of these two before this name calling.

What a skank
By walk2k on 8/24/2009 3:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
It's not libel if it's true.

By Ristogod on 8/24/2009 1:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why does everyone get on the "Freedom of Speech" kick whenever someone can or cannot say something? All the amendments in the constitution apply to restricting government's powers. So the government cannot tell someone what they can or cannot say. However private organizations, companies or individuals can place restrictions on what people say in applicable contexts.

In this case, if she was posting on Google. Then Google can obviously regulate her. The big question is whether they initially stated anonymity and then retracted that anonymity by giving up her identity. There maybe some legal consequences possibly along those lines.

Forgiveness is grand
By mpc7488 on 8/24/2009 3:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
I love how this girl was completely let off the hook and (graciously) forgiven, and now will turn around and go after Google for $15 million. I understand why she's upset that her identity was revealed, but there are many other ways to pursue the issue than suing Google for responding to a subpoena.

her url blog?
By Beno on 8/24/2009 9:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
could somebody post the url for the blog?
every search result is talking about this news.

By TOAOCyrus on 8/24/2009 11:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
How the hell do you sue a company for complying with a court order?

So let me get this straight....
By zixin on 8/25/2009 11:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
Google was forced to reveal Port's identity because they lost the case in court and now Port is sueing Google for following a court order. Maybe I should sue the cop who just gave me a speeding ticket for violating my privacy by pointing this laser gun at me.

By on 8/30/2009 9:50:12 AM , Rating: 2


(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

By deegee on 8/24/2009 4:17:11 PM , Rating: 1
All women are skanks...

in my opinion. ;-)

Poor girl...
By kroker on 8/24/2009 7:21:39 PM , Rating: 1
Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me

Poor girl, how unfair that the press attacks her delicate little ass, just because she attacked the delicate little ass of another whiny bitch... Yeah, getting a taste of your own medicine is truly unfair indeed!

Well, at least one part is for sure: They're BOTH skanks!

I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By Beenthere on 8/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By invidious on 8/24/2009 1:59:58 PM , Rating: 3
Is your statement sarcasm or stupidity? It can be hard to tell the difference when both are used in such abundance in the internet.

RE: I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 2:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
Look at that picture, is it really beyond the realm of possibility that she is a skank? I'm pretty sure defamation requires that you know what you are saying is incorrect ;)

So here, I am going say it.. If I had never seen or heard of her before and I saw that picture, 'SKANK'(or variations there of) would definitely run through my mind.. sue me..

RE: I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By Beenthere on 8/24/2009 5:06:37 PM , Rating: 1
Libel and slander are not free speech and thankfully the courts prosecute for these crimes.

RE: I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By Boze on 8/24/2009 8:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
A person is judged by their actions, regardless of what the law wants to try to say about it or anyone else for that matter.

What you say doesn't mean a damn thing; all that matters is what you do or don't do. And from what she's doing in the picture, she's a skank.

RE: I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By Beenthere on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: I hope Cohen sues for $50 M
By DOSGuy on 8/24/2009 11:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have an inalienable right to call someone a skank. If anyone doesn't like it, they can take it up with the founding fathers.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki