MR

http://www.switched.com/2009/08/19/judg ... ks-blogger

Judge Orders Google to Identify 'Skanks' Blogger
by Terrence O'Brien (RSS feed) — Aug 19th 2009 at 5:22PM

Remember back in January when model Liskula Cohen was the target of a blog called 'Skanks in NYC?' The Google Blogger-hosted site featured embarrassing, personal photos of Cohen, and the anonymous author said of her: "I would have to say that first place award for 'Skankiest in NYC' would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen." The site was quickly taken down when Cohen decided to try and take legal action, but Google refused to hand over the blogger's identity, unless ordered to do so by a court.

Well, Miss Cohen has succeeded. According to the Telegraph, the Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ordered Google on Monday to hand over the blogger's e-mail and IP addresses. Google gave the information to Cohen's lawyers, who plan to sue the blogger for defamation.

In court, Anne Salisbury, the lawyer representing the blogger, accused Cohen of simply trying to attract publicity, not repair her reputation, since the blog was not widely known until she attempted legal action.

Cohen told 'Good Morning America' on Wednesday that the blogger was a former acquaintance. She said, "Thank God it was her... she's an irrelevant person in my life. She's just somebody that, whenever I would go out to a restaurant, to a party in New York City ... she was just that girl that was always there." Cohen went on to tell Diane Sawyer that she called the blogger and said, "I just want you to know that if I've ever done anything to you to actually deserve this then I'm really very sorry. I'm sincerely apologetic." The model told the New York Post that the blogger was a bit tongue-tied during the call, responding with "Um, um, um," after being confronted. While Cohen still plans to sue, she may reconsider if the blogger offers an apology.

This is a case that many, especially privacy experts, will be watching closely, now that Google has been ordered to divulge the identity of a customer. If simply calling Cohen a "skank" online is ruled to be defamation, it may open the door for more litigation against the hordes on Facebook, Twitter, and the like who loudly hurl insults at celebrities and one another. In fact, if simply calling someone a name on the Internet is grounds for legal action, some of the commenters on this site are guilty of defamation. But don't worry, we won't be taking legal action against you, no matter how many times you call us stupid, ignorant, or things that we can't repeat. [From: Telegraph, NY Post, ABC News, and CNN]
*****************

A case of legal precedence now. This opens the door for a lot of lawsuits, I would think. Fascinating. And nobody call me a skank... I'm a bitch... not a skank.
[/url]

I bet the unauthorized use of the photos are what did the blogger in, not the skank comment.

I think it was the combination of the pictures and the name and content of the blog that did it.

Perhaps one of the biggest possibiliites will be suing the owners of the website where questionable comments are allowed. In other words, don't be surprised if a person/lawyer not only sues the blogger, but the host too.

I'm sure you'll see prominant disclaimers declaring something like "these views & comments are not necessarily those of the site owner, etc", however, that may not stop the filing or threatening of lawsuits.


later~

Tom Sholtz sued a website but it wasn't about name calling like here, more about people trying to attribute Brad Delp's decision to end his life to some alleged long term abuses by Sholtz.
You can call people names on the internet and you can even speculate but statements made falsely and maliciously and otherwise with reckless disregard to the truth can get you into hot water.

Calling band members assholes and speculating that they lipped concerts is one thing.
Saying something radical like a band member beat his wife or gave drugs to his own kids would probably be construed as defamation.

Gunbot wrote:Tom Sholtz sued a website but it wasn't about name calling like here, more about people trying to attribute Brad Delp's decision to end his life to some alleged long term abuses by Sholtz.
You can call people names on the internet and you can even speculate but statements made falsely and maliciously and otherwise with reckless disregard to the truth can get you into hot water.

Calling band members assholes and speculating that they lipped concerts is one thing.
Saying something radical like a band member beat his wife or gave drugs to his own kids would probably be construed as defamation.

Well maybe that's why this place is so quiet these days

portland wrote:

Gunbot wrote:Tom Sholtz sued a website but it wasn't about name calling like here, more about people trying to attribute Brad Delp's decision to end his life to some alleged long term abuses by Sholtz.
You can call people names on the internet and you can even speculate but statements made falsely and maliciously and otherwise with reckless disregard to the truth can get you into hot water.

Calling band members assholes and speculating that they lipped concerts is one thing.
Saying something radical like a band member beat his wife or gave drugs to his own kids would probably be construed as defamation.

Well maybe that's why this place is so quiet these days

No, if someone were to say something as derogatory as what I mentioned, Andrew would be all over it. A lot of celebrities wish it were that easy just to ban anything said about them that cast them in a negative light but it's not that simple.

These cases are very misunderstood. Damages have to be proven. You can't just sue someone for not liking what they say about you. You have to prove their words actually caused harm to your business.

The lawyer for this Cohen would have had to present that to the judge to prove there's a viable case. I'm not so sure this is legal precedent as it doesn't seem that far fetched...

Whether or not they succeed in a defamation suit will depend upon the alleged damage caused (and proof thereof). I'm just blown away that a judge ordered Google to cough up the information in the first place. Obviously there must have been something of substanance there for the judge to do that at all. Did this model lose a job over the blog? A relationship? Did a firm drop her? I would think that for someone to bother going through the legal system to do this, they'd have hard evidence to back up a claim of defamation. Lawyers are not cheap.

Kinda related to this thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/21/outi ... index.html



later~

Hope this makes people think twice about doing some things.

Arkansas wrote:Kinda related to this thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/21/outi ... index.html



later~

Just be who you are and this problem won't occur. I've met people from here and they are pretty much the same person I imagined them to be behind the keyboard. It's when you become the 7ft blackbelt Brad Pitt lookalike or the Hourglass figured Jennifer Aniston double while online, that when trouble starts.

An anonymous site with pics and 'skank' comments.....


Hmmmmmmmmm where's the ALCU screaming 1st amendment rights here

Gunbot wrote:

Arkansas wrote:Kinda related to this thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/21/outi ... index.html



later~

Just be who you are and this problem won't occur. I've met people from here and they are pretty much the same person I imagined them to be behind the keyboard. It's when you become the 7ft blackbelt Brad Pitt lookalike or the Hourglass figured Jennifer Aniston double while online, that when trouble starts.

How'd you know that I look like Brad? By the way, your wife beats your kid with her crack pipe!