Court orders Google to reveal anonymous blogger's identity

[t0p]

Have you seen this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6801213.ece) heap o' crud? Model Liskula Cohen didn't like the fact that a blogger doesn't like her. So she took Google to court, to force them to reveal the identity of this offensive blogger. And she won! Strewth!

If my blog (http://ihatehate.wordpress.com) offends anyone, feel free to sue Wordpress or whoever in an attempt to discover my true identity. I promise you, it won't be as easy as Cohen's case. I hide behind my cloak of anonymity like a craven coward. But I'm brave really.

If you're a blogger and are worried about what the law might do to you, check out the EFF's legal guide for bloggers (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/). Or you could take a leaf from my book and look at their guide to how to blog anonymously (http://www.eff.org/wp/blog-safely). If you hide your identity well, you'll be able to diss anyone you like without any fear of reprisals. Of course, if your blog is offensive enough, it'll get taken down eventually. But with Wordpress and Blogger accounts free and easy to set up, you won't be silenced for long.

Incidentally, does anyone agree that Liskula Cohen should toughen up a bit? She's a model, in the heroically bitchy fashion industry, yet she gets all sensitive and litigal about a few online insults. What a prat!

[Sand & Mercury]

**** move, Google. She should've been laughed out of the court room.

EDIT: I'm stupid. :lol:

[schauerlich]

How is this Google's fault? They were given a court order.

[geoken]

**** move, Google. She should've been laughed out of the court room.

I'm pretty sure it was a Judge/jury and not Google who passed judgment.

[JillSwift]

My goodness I hope there is an appeal.

I think the blogger's defense is spot on, "blogs 'serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting', and should not be treated as factual assertions. " To have rejectge3d this is to hold everyone who types a message on a publicly readable server to the standards of a journalist, and provides the wealthy with the opportunity to silence opinions they find inconvenient.

Judge Joan Madden aught to be ashamed.

[SolarOnline]

Yep. If anyone get's annoyed by me just ask and I'll send you a cup of coffee in the post.....

That's a little bit of overkill there!

[bodyharvester]

My goodness I hope there is an appeal.

I think the blogger's defense is spot on, "blogs 'serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting', and should not be treated as factual assertions. " To have rejectge3d this is to hold everyone who types a message on a publicly readable server to the standards of a journalist, and provides the wealthy with the opportunity to silence opinions they find inconvenient.

Judge Joan Madden aught to be ashamed.

+1, could not have said it better myself

[Tristam Green]

I think the blogger's defense is spot on, "blogs 'serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting', and should not be treated as factual assertions. " To have rejectge3d this is to hold everyone who types a message on a publicly readable server to the standards of a journalist, and provides the wealthy with the opportunity to silence opinions they find inconvenient.

Yes, but even commentators outside the Internet show their faces, and then it's not really altogether hard to get their names. Why should the Internet be different? I don't know what was said about the model, but if it was sufficiently nasty, slander is still slander, and the courts are charged with upholding the laws pertinent to it.

You want to be potentially slanderous about someone without anyone knowing who you are and why you said what you did? Go scrawl something on the bathroom stall walls - it's really the only medium that's untraceable.


For posterity, the thread title is grossly misleading, because this isn't Google's fault one bit.

[t0p]

How is this Google's fault? They were given a court order.

Blah. I realize that "technically" Google is blameless in this. But Google are always hiding behind this "it's not my fault, it's the law" crap. Like in China, they help the authorities identify anonymous "cyber criminals" (ie bloggers who are critical of their government) then bleat that they had to help, that they have to obey the law.

I think their protests are dishonest. Google likes narking on people. You tell me, why does Google want to collect the personal info of their users? There are 2 reasons: to make money; and to drop them in the poo.

I used to like Google. I believed in their "Don't Be Evil" hype, God help me! :( But no more! Come on, everyone, repeat after me: Google smell!

Seriously though, there are plenty of online services that do their best to avoid having to nark on their users. A lot of pro-freedom organizations take care to delete their logs every couple of days so if a court demands info there'll be nothing to hand over. Check out Scroogle (http://scroogle.org/): they do exactly the same as Google's search facility, but they don't feel the need to keep tabs on everyone. (Note: if you want to use Scroogle to search the web, use this link - https://ssl.scroogle org (https://ssl.scroogle.org). This will make the session secure from eavesdroppers as well as from Google's nosey servers.)

[bodyharvester]

chants: "Google Smell!"

[geoken]

Why should the Internet be different? I don't know what was said about the model, but if it was sufficiently nasty, slander is still slander, and the courts are charged with upholding the laws pertinent to it.



Correct, the order to reveal the bloggers identity was based on the judge deciding that the model had a solid case for defamation of character.

You either agree with laws protecting people from public defamation or not. The unmasking of this blogger is simply a consequence of the aforementioned laws.

[Grenage]

The fact that it went all the way to court shows how Google should be commended, not abused. They clearly didn't back down, and they can't ignore a court judgment.

P.S: The blog comment made me laugh.

[JillSwift]

Yes, but even commentators outside the Internet show their faces, and then it's not really altogether hard to get their names. Why should the Internet be different? I don't know what was said about the model, but if it was sufficiently nasty, slander is still slander, and the courts are charged with upholding the laws pertinent to it. "I think so-n-so is a skank." is not slander (actually libel, this being a semi-permanent written form). It's an opinion. "So-n-so is a skank, I know." on the other hand, is libelous. The blog post in question is clearly stated in the form of an opinion. So, where's the crime?

The problem is being allowed to get information form a service provider before proving a crime or tort.


You want to be potentially slanderous about someone without anyone knowing who you are and why you said what you did? Go scrawl something on the bathroom stall walls - it's really the only medium that's untraceable.When newspapers start handing out home addresses of their letters-to-the-editor contributors I'll mourn the passing of our right to anonymous opinions. Anonymity is sometimes required to safely have your say.

There have been times when graffiti was the only form of anonymous speech. They were not good times.

[Grenage]

It's also a classic case of someone being severely hubristic. What exactly is gained by the aforementioned skank by finding out the author's name?

If we all had conniptions every time someone had a poor opinion of us, nothing would ever get done. I think a 40-something needs to grow up.

[Tristam Green]

"I think so-n-so is a skank." is not slander (actually libel, this being a semi-permanent written form). It's an opinion. "So-n-so is a skank, I know." on the other hand, is libelous. The blog post in question is clearly stated in the form of an opinion. So, where's the crime?

Oh no, I got the difference between libel and slander wrong. I'm a horrible person :(


When newspapers start handing out home addresses of their letters-to-the-editor contributors I'll mourn the passing of our right to anonymous opinions. Anonymity is sometimes required to safely have your say.

There have been times when graffiti was the only form of anonymous speech. They were not good times.

I just took a look through my local newspaper this morning at the editorial section. Only one letter, a single-paragraph tiny one, was anonymous. The rest list the writers' names and their respective locations, and in most cases, their addresses. Crazy how that op-ed writing works - I'm more likely to applaud someone's opinion when they leave contact information with their letters.

[Grenage]

But how does the likelihood of you believing affect the right to anonymous opinion? Assuming of course, American civilians have the right to anonymous free speech (rather than just free speech). I'm not an American, so I'm not versed in your laws.

[xebian]

It's also a classic case of someone being severely hubristic. What exactly is gained by the aforementioned skank by finding out the author's name?

If we all had conniptions every time someone had a poor opinion of us, nothing would ever get done. I think a 40-something needs to grow up.

So she can anonymously blog back about that person too. Why on earth would that person hide his/her identity anyway? A COWARD IMO.

[Bachstelze]

Google betrays anonymous blogger's trust

One must be really out of his mind to trust Google for anything...

[JillSwift]

Oh no, I got the difference between libel and slander wrong. I'm a horrible person :(And so ends the conversation.

That was mentioned in passing, kid. It wasn't a value judgment of you or your arguments.

[geoken]

It's also a classic case of someone being severely hubristic. What exactly is gained by the aforementioned skank by finding out the author's name?

If we all had conniptions every time someone had a poor opinion of us, nothing would ever get done. I think a 40-something needs to grow up.

I definitely wouldn't classify wanting to address someone who's publicly defaming you as hubris. I am personally sickened by people like Perez Hilton(and this blogger who appears to be shaping himself in the mold of Perez Hilton) and applaud the model for going after this person out of principal.

[Tristam Green]

And so ends the conversation.

That was mentioned in passing, kid. It wasn't a value judgment of you or your arguments.

I understand, and I was merely going with the aggressive nature of the entire discussion - not necessarily aggression by you, but if you want to end conversation based on what i just said, that's your own decision and I won't try to reverse it.

The crime is there because a judge decided it was there. An appeal will more than likely be made, and I'm all for protecting someone's anonymity online in most cases; however, I don't arbitrarily go around name-calling on the Internet without acknowledging that somewhere, somehow, there will be consequences.

[bryncoles]

Oh no, I got the difference between libel and slander wrong. I'm a horrible person :(

that's libel! you should take ubuntu forums to court, to force them to reveal the identity of yourself so you can sue yourself for defamation. you might win quite a settlement!

[Tristam Green]

that's libel! you should take ubuntu forums to court, to force them to reveal the identity of yourself so you can sue yourself for defamation. you might win quite a settlement!

I've already filed a motion in my local jurisdiction, but the jury's out on whether or not it will carry as there appears to be a conflict of interest. Something about plaintiff/defendant relationship.

[michaelzap]

"Google smells" is as persuasive an argument as you have? Please. I agree with the other poster who said that the fact that Google forced this into court shows that they generally defend their users' privacy and rights and should be commended.

If you run a (very big) business in the US you have to abide by US law. Duh. I don't agree with a whole lot of US law, but if I ran a business there I'd also be forced to abide by it.

Two things interested me when I first saw this story (not this forum post):

1. The blogger seems to have been hiding behind anonymity and "free speech" claims to vindictively destroy this person's career and life. Whether or not what s/he did rises to the legal level of libel will depend on the specifics of what was posted and how a court interprets it. We don't know what was posted (it's been taken down, I believe by the blogger), so saying that it's "just opinion" is making an assumption.

Personally this strikes me as abuse of a freedom that I value, and this person's hypocritical appeal to "free speech" (when what s/he really wants is the right to not be held accountable for her/his words) makes me squirm because anyone making these arguments will now have to fight against being associated with this blogger.

2. The fact that the particular speech is offensive to me doesn't matter in terms of whether I should defend it, since that's the whole point of free speech. But is it what the person said that strikes me as violating the whole principle of free speech, or is it the fact that they're abusing this concept to destroy someone anonymously? This seems to me to be exactly the kind of case that will actually end up weakening legal free speech protections for people who really need it (unlike say the KKK marching in Skokie, which was clearly political speech regardless of how offensive it was).

Could drug company A start an anonymous blog saying that all of drug company B's products are made from monkey brains and defend it as "free speech"? What about if I had an anonymous blog and falsely told everyone that my neighbor was a pedophile and put his name, address, and photo on it? Free speech is not a simple, absolute principle that can never be abused.

I think the blogger should "toughen up" and defend her/his words publicly. It's not as if the model just decided to sue her/him on a whim. This person waged a vindictive campaign against her with the expectation that there would be no consequences, and if there really is a free speech interest behind all of this we all have to reply on this creep (and Google) to defend it for us.

[bryncoles]

I've already filed a motion in my local jurisdiction, but the jury's out on whether or not it will carry as there appears to be a conflict of interest. Something about plaintiff/defendant relationship.

Then I would push for an out of court settlement, and fast, before you get wind of this!

[geoken]

I completely agree with michaelzap. Reading about this story from a few more sources it seems that the blogger also made references to the model's use of drugs, while the model herself claims to have "zero tolerance drug policy,".

This is a big deal because she claims prospective clients have questioned her about the claims made by the blog. When baseless statements directly affect your employment or ability to make money the case for defamation is incredibly strong.

[geoken]

The judge said; "The thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden wrote in her decision. That included references to Cohen as "whoring" and "ready to engage in oral sexual activity."

[Starlight]

I think that people who insult others online shouldn't feel safe and anonymous. There's a really big difference between criticism and insults. Criticism should be protected, because without it, anyone could get away with anything. But insults shouldn't be protected in any way.

[geekygirl]

Forum Trolls - take note!!


:p

[howlingmadhowie]

I completely agree with michaelzap. Reading about this story from a few more sources it seems that the blogger also made references to the model's use of drugs, while the model herself claims to have "zero tolerance drug policy,".

This is a big deal because she claims prospective clients have questioned her about the claims made by the blog. When baseless statements directly affect your employment or ability to make money the case for defamation is incredibly strong.

yes, but the problem in my opinion isn't the claims in the blog but the fact that anybody would take it seriously. a legal decision saying "you're right to take this seriously" doesn't help. if the judge had just said something like "this bloke is an idiot. dismissed.", the situation would have been diffused as well.

[RiceMonster]

Blah. I realize that "technically" Google is blameless in this. But Google are always hiding behind this "it's not my fault, it's the law" crap.

So what I get out of this is, you expect them to disobey their court order? Google is not above the law. I'm not saying I agree with the outcome of the trail, but come on.

[RabbitWho]

It says in the terms and conditions of every Google thing I've used that Google cannot protect your privacy when you've committed a crime. This is a good thing, it means Google can give police every bit of information they have on sex-trafficing etc.

One problem is there are things on the Internet that are illegal and should not be illegal, for example watching television and listening to the radio. The companies are just a little bit behind the technology. "Arrested Development" is never on TV, ads pay for it to be on TV, if i could go to the offical website and watch it with ads then I would, but that's not an option. So it gets watched illegally. Not nessisarily by me but certainly by other individuals.

Slander and libel are illegal and should be (except in the case of politicians). Anyone who makes comments about someone anonymously is a coward as well as a criminal.
My name is Rebecca Bourke and that's how I feel!

[geoken]

yes, but the problem in my opinion isn't the claims in the blog but the fact that anybody would take it seriously. a legal decision saying "you're right to take this seriously" doesn't help. if the judge had just said something like "this bloke is an idiot. dismissed.", the situation would have been diffused as well.

No it wouldn't. The blogger would be redeemed and would go on to say whatever *she* wished, and the models future potential clients would be skeptical about hiring her because some person is going around posting ambiguous pictures and claiming they depict her using drugs.

[RabbitWho]

No it wouldn't. The blogger would be redeemed and would go on to say whatever *she* wished, and the models future potential clients would be skeptical about hiring her because some person is going around posting ambiguous pictures and claiming they depict her using drugs.

Yes! A person can take a newspaper to court for doing it, so why not a blogger, in fact more people have access to a blog than a newspaper.
It's an important law, it protects us on so many levels, think of teenagers using the Internet to abuse each other. If you say.. oh rabbit who is a ******** who snorts coke and runs around doing perverted things with car tyres then that's nasty, but fine, if you use my name, and you can't prove it, then it's illegal!

There is an important point there that with libel and slander if you can prove something is true you are allowed to say it. So if the blogger had had actual photos of her using drugs then s/he would be allowed to go on, but as she didn't she was just lying and damaging the persons reputation, which could potentially ruin her career and through that her whole life.

[michaelzap]

There is an important point there that with libel and slander if you can prove something is true you are allowed to say it.
Truth is an absolute defense (in the US anyway). But it's not the only one. If you can show that you believed in good faith what you said was true, or if it's an opinion, or if the person you're commenting on is a public figure then it's practically impossible to lose a defamation suit in the US. You might still have to mount a defense (which can be costly), but you'd almost certainly win.

In fact, the person suing for defamation has to prove that what you said was false (not the other way around):

"Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault."

For most reasonable uses of free speech there are very solid legal defenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Other_defenses

Unless, of course, you burn a flag (which in the US freaks people out so much that they will lynch you on the spot).

[howlingmadhowie]

No it wouldn't. The blogger would be redeemed and would go on to say whatever *she* wished, and the models future potential clients would be skeptical about hiring her because some person is going around posting ambiguous pictures and claiming they depict her using drugs.

the trouble is the precidence. if the court says "bloggers are to be held to the same standards as journalists" what is to stop the court from deciding that everything said on the net can potentially be libelous? the net has an infinite memory. everything you have ever written online could well be stored, just waiting for a lawyer to find it and give it the right spin.

if instead the court says "bloggers shouldn't be taken seriously", this would create a positive change in the atmosphere around blogging. if a blogger wants to write stupid things about me, i'd let them. i would probably post a comment saying that it isn't true and then leave it at that. the precidence here is absolutely horrific and could be expanded to silence anybody anywhere because some other person finds it offensive.

people take themselves way too seriously nowadays. it's becoming ridiculous. codifying this in law is 100% wrong.

[michaelzap]

the trouble is the precidence. if the court says "bloggers are to be held to the same standards as journalists" what is to stop the court from deciding that everything said on the net can potentially be libelous?

This is not a new decision or precedent. All forms of published speech have always been covered by libel law, which protects the speaker at least as much as a person alleging defamation. It doesn't matter if I stand on a street corner with a sandwich board or put it on MySpace.

So (under US law, which is not universal of course) everything said on the net can already be potentially considered libel, and it can also be considered protected speech.

[howlingmadhowie]

This is not a new decision or precedent. All forms of published speech have always been covered by libel law, which protects the speaker at least as much as a person alleging defamation. It doesn't matter if I stand on a street corner with a sandwich board or put it on MySpace.

So (under US law, which is not universal of course) everything said on the net can already be potentially considered libel, and it can also be considered protected speech.

it is a precedent. blogs and the internet and stuff are new forms of media. i imagine the law in the US specifically excludes private letters from libel (IANAL). should a blog post be considered to be published speech at all in the traditional sense? the laws were written at a time when published speech meant hiring a printing press and printing and distributing a thousand copies. that required real dedication. today, 'publishing' content requires little more than filling in a textarea and clicking submit. the criminal energy required to 'publish' something libelous nowadays is negligible.

now we know. every blog post ever written by every girl who's just broken up with her first boyfriend is considered published speech and potentially libelous. give these people a break! the law really doesn't need to get involved here.

[JDShu]

It does *sound* ridiculous, at least from the article.


[Justice Joan Madden rejected the blogger’s claim that the blogs “serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting”, and should not be treated as factual assertions.

I can't see how a sane person could reject this claim. I certainly have never considered anything written in blogs fact, especially when relating to celebrities. I'm guessing all the confusing legal stuff plays into part here.

[michaelzap]

it is a precedent. blogs and the internet and stuff are new forms of media. i imagine the law in the US specifically excludes private letters from libel (IANAL).

I think you're misinformed. For one thing, the concepts behind these laws long predate the printing press and apply to spoken (slander) as well as printed or other published material (libel). The difficulty of publishing the material is a red herring here, since the issue is whether the speech is "public", not published.

Also most of the active US jurisprudence (law plus judicial interpretations) dates to the 1960s and 70s, which was pre-internet but not exactly stone tablet days.

Private letters are not public speech (there's no "third party"), and so would usually be considered protected free speech. The same is true for private email (although if it's reposted to the internet with your knowledge, that complicates matters). This is not the same as posting something on your blog, not because it's a new media but because it's a public forum.

I can understand why the judge rejected the claim that blogs "should not be treated as factual assertions". One defense is showing that the statements that you made, while false, are so ridiculous that no one could possibly take them seriously (Britney Spears is from Mars and eats kittens for breakfast). Blogs may not be particularly reliable sources of information, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that they can't be taken seriously at all and therefore are beyond all scrutiny (now that would be a precedent!).

US law is certainly imperfect and I'm not trying to hold it up as what's right and correct according to my opinion, but it's not as terrible as some people seem to think either. It generally protects people's right to say disagreeable things without fear of being sued or arrested. The truth is that these issues can sometimes be a lot more complicated than a knee-jerk "free speech" response takes into account.

It's really hard to win a defamation suit in the US. Yes, there are times where people are sued frivolously for defamation and this can be costly and annoying, but you don't have to worry very much about losing such a suit unless you've purposefully defamed someone falsely and caused them real injury. Which could very well be what happened in this case...

[geoken]

it is a precedent. blogs and the internet and stuff are new forms of media. i imagine the law in the US specifically excludes private letters from libel (IANAL). should a blog post be considered to be published speech at all in the traditional sense? the laws were written at a time when published speech meant hiring a printing press and printing and distributing a thousand copies. that required real dedication. today, 'publishing' content requires little more than filling in a textarea and clicking submit. the criminal energy required to 'publish' something libelous nowadays is negligible.

now we know. every blog post ever written by every girl who's just broken up with her first boyfriend is considered published speech and potentially libelous. give these people a break! the law really doesn't need to get involved here.

What does it matter how easy it is to spread libelous information? Should people who commit fraud using the internet (ie. ebay fraud) receive a lesser penalty because it was a lot easier to do than going door to door and personally defrauding someone?

How would you feel if that ex-girlfriend had a picture of you picking up a young cousin/brother/nephew form school and another picture of you play fighting with them, then concocted a story about her being witness to you luring children to your home and molesting them. If this story begin having real ramifications on your life would you forgive her because spreading these lies required little to no effort?

Also, I think a blog is a lot closer to a newspaper/magazine than it is to a private letter. Why should a blog be held on a lesser level than a newspaper. In most situations, a blog has the potential to reach even more people than a newspaper could hope to, so why should things posted on a blog (which are potentially more harmful) be treated as less harmful?

[sydbat]

(Britney Spears is from Mars and eats kittens for breakfast)I KNEW IT!! Thanks for confirming that!!:P

Oh yeah, about all that other stuff you said:
I think you're misinformed. For one thing, the concepts behind these laws long predate the printing press and apply to spoken (slander) as well as printed or other published material (libel). The difficulty of publishing the material is a red herring here, since the issue is whether the speech is "public", not published.

Also most of the active US jurisprudence (law plus judicial interpretations) dates to the 1960s and 70s, which was pre-internet but not exactly stone tablet days.

Private letters are not public speech (there's no "third party"), and so would usually be considered protected free speech. The same is true for private email (although if it's reposted to the internet with your knowledge, that complicates matters). This is not the same as posting something on your blog, not because it's a new media but because it's a public forum.

I can understand why the judge rejected the claim that blogs "should not be treated as factual assertions". One defense is showing that the statements that you made, while false, are so ridiculous that no one could possibly take them seriously (Britney Spears is from Mars and eats kittens for breakfast). Blogs may not be particularly reliable sources of information, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that they can't be taken seriously at all and therefore are beyond all scrutiny (now that would be a precedent!).

US law is certainly imperfect and I'm not trying to hold it up as what's right and correct according to my opinion, but it's not as terrible as some people seem to think either. It generally protects people's right to say disagreeable things without fear of being sued or arrested. The truth is that these issues can sometimes be a lot more complicated than a knee-jerk "free speech" response takes into account.

It's really hard to win a defamation suit in the US. Yes, there are times where people are sued frivolously for defamation and this can be costly and annoying, but you don't have to worry very much about losing such a suit unless you've purposefully defamed someone falsely and caused them real injury. Which could very well be what happened in this case...I agree. Very well put!

[CJ Master]

Blah. I realize that "technically" Google is blameless in this. But Google are always hiding behind this "it's not my fault, it's the law" crap. Like in China, they help the authorities identify anonymous "cyber criminals" (ie bloggers who are critical of their government) then bleat that they had to help, that they have to obey the law.

I think their protests are dishonest. Google likes narking on people. You tell me, why does Google want to collect the personal info of their users? There are 2 reasons: to make money; and to drop them in the poo.

I used to like Google. I believed in their "Don't Be Evil" hype, God help me! :( But no more! Come on, everyone, repeat after me: Google smell!

Seriously though, there are plenty of online services that do their best to avoid having to nark on their users. A lot of pro-freedom organizations take care to delete their logs every couple of days so if a court demands info there'll be nothing to hand over. Check out Scroogle (http://scroogle.org/): they do exactly the same as Google's search facility, but they don't feel the need to keep tabs on everyone. (Note: if you want to use Scroogle to search the web, use this link - https://ssl.scroogle org (https://ssl.scroogle.org). This will make the session secure from eavesdroppers as well as from Google's nosey servers.)

And I'm sure you'd be cheering them on while they were in handcuffs and going for jail for disobeying a court order.

[MikeTheC]

@ OP: You're not exactly helping here much by presenting yourself like that.

@ Jill, et al: What do you expect from activist judges and a totally screwed up legal system in this country? Sadly, *nothing* surprises me anymore.

[hellmet]

She deserves a [__]. Censored out of fear of being sued.

[michaelzap]

She deserves a [__]. Censored out of fear of being sued.

That would of course be your opinion, and while it might be offensive you couldn't be sued for expressing it.

[t0p]

But how does the likelihood of you believing affect the right to anonymous opinion? Assuming of course, American civilians have the right to anonymous free speech (rather than just free speech). I'm not an American, so I'm not versed in your laws.

I'm not a yank either, so I don't know US law. But I know one thing: if we are to be given true freedom of speech, it must be a right to anonymous free speech. Very often we might want to say something, but the fact we might offend a powerful interest who would then persecute us might still our tongues. For instance, the blogger in question does not have the right of free speech if a non-slanderous comment like "I think Cohen's a skank" will lead to the blogger being dragged expensively through the courts.

In my opinion, defamation law is very iffy. Why on earth should I be punished for writing something unflattering but non-libellous about someone? And what's worse, this law seems engineered to protect the rich from being insulted by the poor. If I've got plenty of cash I might not care if Cohen wants to drag me through the courts. But if I have no money I just can't afford to be sued.

Surprise surprise, the law is there to protect the rich. I knew that already of course. But it's still good to say these things out loud occasionally, if only to remind myself what a vile world we live in.

[t0p]

And I'm sure you'd be cheering them on while they were in handcuffs and going for jail for disobeying a court order.

If they had any honour, they would not have been able to obey the court order. The court would have said "Identify the blogger" and Google would have replied: "We can't, coz we don't have a clue who the blogger is. We don't collect that kind of information. We're not NetKKKops."

Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that Google & Friends do want to be NetKKKops. You know Big Brother's terrible mythical database - the one that contains every imaginable piece of info on everyone? Well, Google is well on the way to owning that database. And you're on it.

[NCLI]

If they had any honour, they would not have been able to obey the court order. The court would have said "Identify the blogger" and Google would have replied: "We can't, coz we don't have a clue who the blogger is. We don't collect that kind of information. We're not NetKKKops."

Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that Google & Friends do want to be NetKKKops. You know Big Brother's terrible mythical database - the one that contains every imaginable piece of info on everyone? Well, Google is well on the way to owning that database. And you're on it.
Google builds that database to(yes I believe in this, no, I'm not a Google employee)improve your search results, thereby making you more likely to use their search engine and let them make more money. And yes, that includes the data from Gmail, etc.

I honestly don't see why they should want it otherwise.

[michaelzap]

Ithis law seems engineered to protect the rich from being insulted by the poor. If I've got plenty of cash I might not care if Cohen wants to drag me through the courts. But if I have no money I just can't afford to be sued.

Surprise surprise, the law is there to protect the rich.

Well, that's certainly true, but it applies to pretty much all laws (from traffic fines to child custody). In fact, defamation laws (in the US) specifically make it much more difficult for public figures to win such a case. They have to prove "actual malice", and pretty much any political or public figure is fair game to say whatever you like.


But I know one thing: if we are to be given true freedom of speech, it must be a right to anonymous free speech.


You don't have any legal right to do anything criminal anonymously or otherwise. If you're sending bomb threats to the White House, that's considered criminal (even if it is just "speech"). Wistleblower situations or political criticism that might subject you to pressure from someone powerful are a whole other ball of wax from maliciously tearing down a private citizen, and US law treats them very differently.

I don't know if you've ever opened up a Blogger account, but they don't ask you for very much personal information or verify anything other than that your email works. Some people want their names on their blog and other accounts (perhaps to protect their ownership). So I don't really see Google as doing anything extraordinary at all in this (the Ubuntu forums ask you for about the same data).

[t0p]

Google builds that database to(yes I believe in this, no, I'm not a Google employee)improve your search results, thereby making you more likely to use their search engine and let them make more money. And yes, that includes the data from Gmail, etc.

I honestly don't see why they should want it otherwise.

I use Scroogle. Before that, I used the CustomizeGoogle FF add-on with privacy settings on kill. And I never noticed any degradation in my search results quality after I decided to withhold my personal info from Google's systems.

[michaelzap]

I use Scroogle. Before that, I used the CustomizeGoogle FF add-on with privacy settings on kill. And I never noticed any degradation in my search results quality after I decided to withhold my personal info from Google's systems.

In my opinion, there are plenty of well-founded criticisms about Google's data mining and tracking practices. They've been called out on a number of things and changed some of them for the better as a result. When they do something wrong they deserve to hear about it, but that doesn't make them the root of all evil and the villain in every circumstance.

[starcannon]

My goodness I hope there is an appeal.

I think the blogger's defense is spot on, "blogs 'serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting', and should not be treated as factual assertions. " To have rejectge3d this is to hold everyone who types a message on a publicly readable server to the standards of a journalist, and provides the wealthy with the opportunity to silence opinions they find inconvenient.

Judge Joan Madden aught to be ashamed.
^^
This

[Post Monkeh]

My goodness I hope there is an appeal.

I think the blogger's defense is spot on, "blogs 'serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting', and should not be treated as factual assertions. " To have rejectge3d this is to hold everyone who types a message on a publicly readable server to the standards of a journalist, and provides the wealthy with the opportunity to silence opinions they find inconvenient.

Judge Joan Madden aught to be ashamed.

at first glance this seems like a bad decision, but if you're willing to give an opinion, you should be willing to defend it.

i don't think anything should happen to the person, but nor do i think that the internet should give you the right to just anonymously have a go at any old person they feel like.

[geoken]

I'm not a yank either, so I don't know US law. But I know one thing: if we are to be given true freedom of speech, it must be a right to anonymous free speech. Very often we might want to say something, but the fact we might offend a powerful interest who would then persecute us might still our tongues. For instance, the blogger in question does not have the right of free speech if a non-slanderous comment like "I think Cohen's a skank" will lead to the blogger being dragged expensively through the courts.

Are you trying to make a general point about your stance on this issue or do you believe "I think Cohen's a skank" is really the extent of the defamation in this specific case.

The blogger made claims about Cohen's sexual promiscuity (pretty damaging if you claim, as she does, to be completely monogamous) as well as claims about her drug use (also pretty damaging when potentially clients are referencing these claims). "Here is a pic of Cohen after she did 4 lines" is different from "I think Cohen is a cokehead". The blogger, according to the judge, was guilty of the former.

Also, it's funny how you try and turn this into some poor vs rich argument when the blogger was someone who hung out with Cohen's group of friends and is presumably of similar social stature.

[Dobbie03]

What an f'n joke. Next thing you know you will see murderers and rapist getting payouts for "hurt feelings" because they were called mean names in prison......oh yeah thats already happend....

[michaelzap]

What an f'n joke. Next thing you know you will see murderers and rapist getting payouts for "hurt feelings" because they were called mean names in prison......oh yeah thats already happend....
Is the blogger the murderer/rapist in your metaphor, or is the model? And when has a prisoner ever gotten a "payout" for being called "mean names in prison"? That bears no resemblance to any prison I've ever encountered.

[Dobbie03]

No the murderer and rapists are real people, they were called, shock horror, by the prison guards "murderer" and "rapist", these inmates hired lawyers and took the guards to court and won. True story. I will try and find the newspaper article on this.

In New Zealand, prison inmates have more rights than your average person. Its messed up beyond belief.

[michaelzap]

I will try and find the newspaper article on this.
Somehow I doubt that you will find an article that confirms this story as you portray it.


In New Zealand, prison inmates have more rights than your average person. Its messed up beyond belief.
It's messed up that you believe that, since it defies all logic.

[Lavaeagle]

@Michaelzap you make some good points.

Freedom of speech is a statement that means something that you believe in.
I would stand with you to the end if you actually ment and believed in what you said.

Not an offensive remark.
I would throw you to the sharks.

I believe it is somewhat unpatriotic and degrading when I hear teenagers use freedom of speech to attack someone like what has just happend here. Though I still think the judge should not have ordered Google to give out the user's name.

[samjh]

the criminal energy required to 'publish' something libelous nowadays is negligible.Which does not support the argument that blogs shouldn't be taken seriously or that libel published in them should not be subject to law.

If libel is easier on the Internet than on print, then people need to be protected from such libel. Just because it is easy to publish, is no excuse for spouting off libellous claims against a person and ruining their life.

If your blog contains lines like what the blogger had: "She's a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.", you had better qualify it as mere opinion rather than passing it off as fact. We all know how long content on the Internet can stay online for, and how many people it can reach. When you say or write defamatory comments in any medium -- even among friends -- you'd better have some solid facts to back it up.


What do you expect from activist judges and a totally screwed up legal system in this country? Sadly, *nothing* surprises me anymore.

Judicial activism is a two-edged sword. It keeps laws applicable and up-to-date with modern society (eg. native title, civil rights). But it can also create uncertainty (eg. patents).

In this particular case, I'm in favour of what you call "judicial activism" because it rightly recognises the great risks "anonymous blogging" poses to peoples' reputations and livehood and seeks to protect it.

Free speech is not absolutely free. The law has long treated free speech as a right which should be exercised with responsibility. If your free speech wrongfully deprives another of their otherwise good reputation or livelihood, you should be held accountable. Hiding behind "anonymity" is just anarchist garbage.

[phrostbyte]

It's not very easy to win a case like this in the USA, and in fact it's downright dangerous to sue someone for libel, because losing a libel case has unique consequences for the plaintiff. Falsely or incorrectly suing someone for libel is a crime, that is often considered more serious then libel itself.

The difficulty of suing for libel in the USA (versus other countries) is the US Constitution explicitly protects speech. The Constitution and case law strongly protects free speech, including harmful, or offensive speech. Libel laws have to work with a limited framework.

You have prove actual damages occurred (1), that the statements are false (2), that the speech was intentionally written to cause damage (3), that you aren't a public or known individual (if you are 1, 2 and 3 doesn't even matter). This is not easy, especially in this case (the women is apparently well known). Libel laws are not designed to protect politicians, actors, big name CEOs, authors, or other such individuals who actively make themselves known to the general public.

If you lose the case, the defendant typically wins a judgment of attorney fees and other statutory damages under anti-SLAPP (anti-censorship) laws, which can be very expensive for the person suing for libel. This is especially unique for libel cases, since there are laws designed to protect people who are sued for libel.

[JillSwift]

Freedom of speech is a statement that means something that you believe in.
I would stand with you to the end if you actually ment and believed in what you said.

Not an offensive remark.
I would throw you to the sharks.

Ok, I have an important question for everyone who has espoused this opinion here.

What's the objective difference between "what one means and believes in" and an "offensive remark"?

Because I know already there is no objective measure. Take this case - lets assume (and I suspect it is a safe assumption) that the blogger truly believes and means what he said about the model. He has a reason for saying it, he's concerned about her influence over others.

Because his opinion in this is essentially singular, and because of the stigma surrounding the subjects of sexual promiscuity and drug use, it's offensive to hear. Even if it happened to be true, it's still offensive to hear.

So here we are, looking at a statement that the speaker truly means and believes in, and that statement is also considered offensive.

It is not clear that there is an objective difference. It is, however, completely clear that abridging the right to speech in order to prevent offense simply makes it possible to quash minority opinions. This is unacceptable for what I hope are obvious and clear reasons.

The blogger in question deserved to maintain his anonymity until and unless a crime could be proven. Seeing as one anonymous blogger spewing obvious invective holds no reasonable sway over the model's career given the prolific professional reports of her behavior and professionalism on the job.

[michaelzap]

Because I know already there is no objective measure. Take this case - lets assume (and I suspect it is a safe assumption) that the blogger truly believes and means what he said about the model.

I believe that you're right. There is no objective standard as to what is "offensive". That has no bearing on this case, however.

The plaintiff (the model) has to prove that the defendant (the blogger) knew that what s/he was saying was false and did so intentionally to harm her (and that such harm was caused - a real loss of job, injury, etc. - and that she is not a public figure, since they are not entitled to much libel protection at all). I doubt very much that the case would be proceeding at all unless it's clear to everyone who examines the evidence that what the blogger posted were knowing falsehoods. Not "opinion" (I think she's a skank) but clear-cut lies (here is a photo of her engaging in oral sex - a fake photo).

This is not about whether what the blogger said was offensive. It's about whether s/he intentionally spread malicious falsehoods in order to hurt her and succeeded in doing so. That's a pretty high bar to clear, and if the blogger did this I don't see how s/he's entitled to "free speech" protection and anonymity as well.

[JillSwift]

I believe that you're right. There is no objective standard as to what is "offensive". That has no bearing on this case, however.

The plaintiff (the model) has to prove that the defendant (the blogger) knew that what s/he was saying was false and did so intentionally to harm her (and that such harm was caused - a real loss of job, injury, etc. - and that she is not a public figure, since they are not entitled to much libel protection at all). I doubt very much that the case would be proceeding at all unless it's clear to everyone who examines the evidence that what the blogger posted were knowing falsehoods. Not "opinion" (I think she's a skank) but clear-cut lies (here is a photo of her engaging in oral sex - a fake photo).

This is not about whether what the blogger said was offensive. It's about whether s/he intentionally spread malicious falsehoods in order to hurt her and succeeded in doing so. That's a pretty high bar to clear, and if the blogger did this I don't see how s/he's entitled to "free speech" protection and anonymity as well.Essentially a straw-man. I was addressing the false idea that there is some "line" one can cross to go from free speech to restricted offensive speech.

My problem with the case itself is that his defense was right. It can't be libel if it's obviously the opinion of one person not in a position to effect a person's standing in the community. Ordering his information made available means he's going to be punished for a crime not yet proven to have taken place - by forcing the expenditure of resources defending himself in court, against someone with vastly superior access to resources.

[michaelzap]

Essentially a straw-man. I was addressing the false idea that there is some "line" one can cross to go from free speech to restricted offensive speech.
That's a false idea that you brought up in order to knock down, which is the very definition of a straw man.


My problem with the case itself is that his defense was right. It can't be libel if it's obviously the opinion of one person not in a position to effect a person's standing in the community. Ordering his information made available means he's going to be punished for a crime not yet proven to have taken place - by forcing the expenditure of resources defending himself in court, against someone with vastly superior access to resources.
If the model can't prove that this was not opinion it was knowing falsehood and that she did suffer a real damage as a result, then she will lose the case. She has to prove quite a lot to even have a shot at winning, and since one of those things is that the person who said these things knew they were false obviously she has to know who it was who said them. Blanket anonymity would essentially mean that no one could ever be held accountable for real, harmful defamation because their motivation could never be proven, which seems a bit radical to me.

You make a lot of assumptions about this case that I don't think you know are true. Why do you assume that the model has vastly superior resources? Or that revealing her/his name will result in some sort of "punishment"? Or that the defense was "right" and proved things that I very much doubt they've shown?

It's certainly true that a frivolous lawsuit could be unfairly costly to someone, but I don't see why we should assume that's what's happening here. This isn't a student being forced to take down an anti-apartheid banner from his dorm room window or a gay rights group being denied a marching permit in a small town. This is a blog devoted to saying nasty things about someone, and if those nasty things were knowing lies and succeeded in hurting her, then I don't see why he should be protected under the banner of "free speech".

[JillSwift]

That's a false idea that you brought up in order to knock down, which is the very definition of a straw man.Didn't read the post I was responding to, then?



If the model can't prove that this was not opinion it was knowing falsehood and that she did suffer a real damage as a result, then she will lose the case. She has to prove quite a lot to even have a shot at winning, and since one of those things is that the person who said these things knew they were false obviously she has to know who it was who said them. Blanket anonymity would essentially mean that no one could ever be held accountable for real, harmful defamation because their motivation could never be proven, which seems a bit radical to me. I never said that. I said there had to be proof of harm - proof of crime - before that anonymity could be taken away. Given the context - a lone blogger and obvious invective - it is highly unlikely harm was done.


You make a lot of assumptions about this case that I don't think you know are true. Why do you assume that the model has vastly superior resources? Or that revealing her/his name will result in some sort of "punishment"? Or that the defense was "right" and proved things that I very much doubt they've shown?the defense has to prove nothing, that's up to the accusers. The defense's statement is accurate, they were in no position to do harm.

The punishment comes in the form of the libel lawsuit - frivolous or not it will cost the blogger. It is an assumption that the successful model has greater access to resources than does the blogger, but I feel safe in that assumption.


It's certainly true that a frivolous lawsuit could be unfairly costly to someone, but I don't see why we should assume that's what's happening here. This isn't a student being forced to take down an anti-apartheid banner from his dorm room window or a gay rights group being denied a marching permit in a small town. This is a blog devoted to saying nasty things about someone, and if those nasty things were knowing lies and succeeded in hurting her, then I don't see why he should be protected under the banner of "free speech".
Until and unless harm can be proven, the blogger should be allowed his anonymity. Proving harm does not require the identity of the blogger, and civil pursuits have precedence for suing "anonymous et al", revealing identity only after the tort or crime has been proven.

Note this allows for the punishment of crime - libel and slander - without abridging free speech.

[michaelzap]

Didn't read the post I was responding to, then?
I did. It was clearly unrepresentative of the case or most of the opinions presented in this thread. Nice cherry picking though.



I never said that. I said there had to be proof of harm - proof of crime - before that anonymity could be taken away...The punishment comes in the form of the libel lawsuit - frivolous or not it will cost the blogger.
Where is freedom to remain anonymous and not be held accountable in the Bill of Rights? You're extending some very novel "rights" to people, at least as far as US law is concerned. People have no legal "right" to hide themselves in order to avoid legal action. You may wish that this were so (and I grant you that in the US frivolous lawsuits are often used as a bludgeon), but wishing doesn't make it so.



Until and unless harm can be proven, the blogger should be allowed his anonymity. Proving harm does not require the identity of the blogger, and civil pursuits have precedence for suing "anonymous et al", revealing identity only after the tort or crime has been proven.
It does when you have to prove that the blogger knew that what s/he was saying was false and intended to hurt the model by saying it. You would require the model to prove this without knowing the blogger's identity? You just don't want anyone to ever be able to sue for libel then, which is a point of view that you're entitled to hold but US law doesn't back you up (I don't think I should have to pay income tax either).

And again, why does this person's "free speech" depend upon anonymity? I could see that if this person had been tortured by **** Cheney or exposed a death squad within the Obama White House, but not in a case involving a nasty blog. The judge has probably looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these statements were libel (meaning they were KNOWINGLY FALSE, INTENTIONALLY HARMFUL, and SUCCEEDED IN DOING HARM) and thus the case should proceed and the blogger needs to present a defense.

Personally I don't see any reason to rise to this person's defense or any higher principle that needs defending even if the blogger is a jerk.

[JillSwift]

I did. It was clearly unrepresentative of the case or most of the opinions presented in this thread. Nice cherry picking though.So I'm not allowed to comment on an idea unless it's the most commonly expressed idea?



Where is freedom to remain anonymous and not be held accountable in the Bill of Rights? You're extending some very novel "rights" to people, at least as far as US law is concerned. People have no legal "right" to hide themselves in order to avoid legal action. You may wish that this were so (and I grant you that in the US frivolous lawsuits are often used as a bludgeon), but wishing doesn't make it so.


It does when you have to prove that the blogger knew that what s/he was saying was false and intended to hurt the model by saying it. You would require the model to prove this without knowing the blogger's identity? You just don't want anyone to ever be able to sue for libel then, which is a point of view that you're entitled to hold but US law doesn't back you up (I don't think I should have to pay income tax either).

And again, why does this person's "free speech" depend upon anonymity? I could see that if this person had been tortured by **** Cheney or exposed a death squad within the Obama White House, but not in a case involving a nasty blog. The judge has probably looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these statements were libel (meaning they were KNOWINGLY FALSE, INTENTIONALLY HARMFUL, and SUCCEEDED IN DOING HARM) and thus the case should proceed and the blogger needs to present a defense.

Personally I don't see any reason to rise to this person's defense or any higher principle that needs defending even if the blogger is a jerk.
You keep ascribing to my arguments ideas that are not there.

I'm not going to bother to re-phrase my argument again. We disagree, enough said.

[geoken]

Until and unless harm can be proven, the blogger should be allowed his anonymity. Proving harm does not require the identity of the blogger, and civil pursuits have precedence for suing "anonymous et al", revealing identity only after the tort or crime has been proven.

Note this allows for the punishment of crime - libel and slander - without abridging free speech.

Harm was proven, or at least proven to a point which the judge considered satisfactory. The model claimed that prospective clients specifically referenced comments made about her on the blog. She was obviously able to offer enough proof of this to convince the judge.

"It is an assumption that the successful model has greater access to resources than does the blogger, but I feel safe in that assumption."

As I've already noted earlier in this thread, if you read about this story from alternate news sources you'll learn that the blogger, a female, was someone who associated with the model. The model claims the blogger was someone who she knew only in passing but was present at many of the social events she attended. If anything, it would be safer to assume that they are of similar social stature.

[Sand & Mercury]

How is this Google's fault? They were given a court order.
That's totally right. I must've had a brain fart. Edited my post. :lol:

In this case, **** move, judge/jury

[geoken]

I'm not going to bother to re-phrase my argument again. We disagree, enough said.

Your disagreement stems from the fact that you are arguing 'harm must be proven' while michaelzap is of the opinion that harm obviously was proven since harm is a pre-requisite of libel and the judge has said she has ordered the identity of the blogger to be revealed because there is a strong case for libel (therefore the judge must be of the opinion that the pre-requisites of libel have been met).

[geoken]

That's totally right. I must've had a brain fart. Edited my post. :lol:

In this case, **** move, judge/jury

I can only hope that you'll never have your life impacted by a vindictive person intent on causing you harm through the public spreading of lies.

Words are powerful. I could imagine many situations where the spreading of calculated lies can have a far greater effect on my life than crimes which no one would disagree on (like robbery, assault and vandalism of personal property).

[Tristam Green]

I can only hope that you'll never have your life impacted by a vindictive person intent on causing you harm through the public spreading of lies.

Words are powerful. I could imagine many situations where the spreading of calculated lies can have a far greater effect on my life than crimes which no one would disagree on (like robbery, assault and vandalism of personal property).

I agree with you, geoken. "Sticks and Stones" really doesn't apply anymore. My online personality (Tristam Green) was once pretty well blasted unfounded on another community, and I'll tell you for certain: the person behind the keyboard (me) felt the sting as if he'd been sitting directly in front of the person hurling the insult.

[michaelzap]

Your disagreement stems from the fact that you are arguing 'harm must be proven' while michaelzap is of the opinion that harm obviously was proven since harm is a pre-requisite of libel and the judge has said she has ordered the identity of the blogger to be revealed because there is a strong case for libel (therefore the judge must be of the opinion that the pre-requisites of libel have been met).

That's part of it. I also don't feel that forcing this person to reveal her/himself and mount a defense is "punishment". The courts are supposed to exist in order to resolve disputes, and this person is claiming the "right" be immune to the whole process.

Whether or not the whole laws/courts/prisons idea is a good one or actually works in practice is questionable, in my opinion. But if we put that aside, then every citizen is supposed to go to the courts when they have a conflict with another citizen, and the court is supposed to decide who's right and how the issue should be resolved. So under this system you can't claim that you're being "punished" just because you're being required to participate in this process.

I can just see the police lineups of suspected assailants where some refuse to remove their ski masks in order to be identified because that would violate their "rights".

[Grenage]

Agreed, if a crime had actually been commited.

[michaelzap]

Agreed, if a crime had actually been commited.
The courts are supposed to determine that. It's entirely possible that they'll find the blogger innocent, but first they need to have a trial. It's really hard to prove libel in a US court, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the model loses her case (and I bet the blogger then sues her).

[zboot]

There is a difference between criticism " zboot's idea on X is stupid" and defamation "zboot is a pedophile".

One you can do all day, the other is problematic.

To people who claim free speech covers both cases, I will remind you once again, there is NO such thing as 100% free speech. There is a quote I'm too lazy to look up right now which paraphrased reads "One person's rights end where another person's begins". One of the things our laws do is try to strike the balance between my rights and those of everyone else. My right to drink ends at the point where it can endanger other people's rights to live - that's why we fine and jail people who drive drunk.

[howlingmadhowie]

Which does not support the argument that blogs shouldn't be taken seriously or that libel published in them should not be subject to law.

If libel is easier on the Internet than on print, then people need to be protected from such libel. Just because it is easy to publish, is no excuse for spouting off libellous claims against a person and ruining their life.


one of the mainstays of a number of legal systems is the idea of criminal energy. if the alleged criminal really tried to hurt someone and invested a lot of time and effort in doing so, they have shown themselves to be more dangerous than a criminal who commits a crime without having to invest time and effort to do so. the time and effort prove intent. many legal systems say "well it's possible that had it been more difficult to do, the defendant might not have seen it through to the end, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and reduce his sentence".

conversely this means that blog postings and the like can be created very quickly with little effort. there is no way in hell they should be held to the same legal standings as slander or libel written in a book or a newspaper article.

the trouble is that our society is one where people are desperately trying to take offense. the judge could have said "the plaintiff is right, the defendant is an idiot. case dismissed", and the world would have been a better place. instead every blog poster now has to make sure that everything they write and everything they have ever written is totally clean and kosher.

of course, bloggers aren't going to do this, which means more food for the lawyers and eventually more (poor) people behind bars. the system is insane.

[samjh]

Defamation (I use defamation here, since libel and slander fall under this broader category) is usually not a crime. It is a civil tort. Criminal defamation is usually concerned with public peace, which is both very rare and not the subject of this particular case under discussion.

What you call "criminal energy" is a contentious legal term. I have not come across it, albeit only as a law student. Nor have I heard the term in any observed criminal hearing. It seems to be a somewhat obscure term used in some civil law jurisdictions (most in continental Europe), with multiple meanings depending on context. Certainly, it is not a term I've ever encountered in cases or texts in common law jurisdictions (ie. US, British Commonwealth, etc.). I don't think the notion of "criminal energy" is of any relevance to defamation.

Whatever "criminal energy" is, I cannot agree with your description of it, if your description is correct. See the following example:

A published on a blog that B is a dishonest, thieving, lying ******* who stole from his previous employer. B almost gets a job with a new employer, but the hiring manager finds the blog article and decides not to offer the job to B.
Same situation as 1 above, but A published his claim in a public announcement column of a local newspaper for a fee, and the hiring manager discovered the information there.
Which has the greater consequence, 1 or 2? The consequence is the same in the matter of that particular employer. The consequence may be more severe for 1 for later potential employers, since items published on the Internet are more accessible and tend to be more permanent than items published in a newspaper's public announcement column. Even though the wrong done by A in 1 was easier than in 2, the consequences of the wrong committed in 1 is probably going to be far worse than in 2.

I hope you follow what I'm saying. When it comes to wrongs done by a person to another, the difficulty involved in doing that wrong is irrelevant to the damage suffered by the victim. In fact, even easier wrongs may have more damaging consequences than difficult wrongs. When it comes to torts, such as defamation, one of the key elements is the extent of the damage suffered -- in other words, the consequence of the wrong affecting the victim.

In the present case of the blogger and the model, it doesn't matter an iota whether a blog is an easy medium to publish or not. The model still suffered harm when potential clients received negative impressions due to the blogger's article, losing potential income as a result. Indeed, the fact that the negative opinion was published on a blog, rather than more restrictive media, may have caused greater harm to the model than if the medium was in (for example) print, since the information would be more accessible and wide-spread.

For those of us who write on blogs (that includes me), we should be mindful of the fact that blogs are very widely accessible, easily found, and that opinions contained therein are often taken seriously by the reader (just look at the number of people who follow how-to instructions or advice published on blogs). If we are going to write something negative about a particular individual, the onus is on us to ensure that the material will not be defamatory. We are not insulated from the society within which we live. To think that we can write whatever we want with no thought for the consequences, would be very irresponsible. That is my beef about the "free speech" argument in this case. Rights need to be balanced by responsibilities, and part of that responsibility is the spine to stand up and fight to exercise a right, rather than hide behind the shield of "anonymity".

[michaelzap]

In the present case of the blogger and the model, it doesn't matter an iota whether a blog is an easy medium to publish or not.

I mostly agree with you, but I do think that this may be disputed during the trial and it could be relevant. In the US, defamation (we should indeed be using that term, since it's the correct one) requires malicious intent, and I could see the blogger making the argument that s/he just wrote and posted things on a lark and never really meant to hurt the model (and blogging made it so easy that I never really considered the consequences). If the jury believes this, then they'll find the blogger innocent, but it has to go to trial in order to weigh such arguments.


Rights need to be balanced by responsibilities, and part of that responsibility is the spine to stand up and fight to exercise a right, rather than hide behind the shield of "anonymity".Absolutely! Since when did free speech = anonymous speech? There are plenty of circumstances when people need anonymity in order to safely express something (presumably something true, or at least that they believe is true), but the idea that you have a "right" to anonymity when you've done something that may be harmful or criminal is just wrong in my opinion.

[Post Monkeh]

Absolutely! Since when did free speech = anonymous speech? There are plenty of circumstances when people need anonymity in order to safely express something (presumably something true, or at least that they believe is true), but the idea that you have a "right" to anonymity when you've done something that may be harmful or criminal is just wrong in my opinion.

this is the crux of the case here.

as far as i'm concerned, posts on the internet should be no different than standing up in the street and making a speach, or writing a letter to a paper.

that goes not just for cases like this, but also for cases like online abuse & bullying. why should the fact that you're doing it online give you the right to hide behind a computer screen and expect to just do and say what you want?
what is the difference between a racist calling someone a n***er to their face or calling them a n***er in an online blog, other than the fact that one makes them a coward who's too afraid to face the consequences of their beliefs and actions? what's the difference here?

would people expect the courts to decide my right to anomymity should be maintained if i posted blogs about how i love to drown cute little kittens? would there be so many people DEFENDING my right to anonymity if i was posting things that they found morally questionable?



fact is, the vast majority of internet users can maintain their anonymity very easily, but as soon as you begin breaking the law with your internet use, or as soon as you begin personally attacking people, you cannot just expect to be able to do it anonymously. you couldn't abuse someone in the street anonymously, why should you be able to do it online?

[howlingmadhowie]

Defamation (I use defamation here, since libel and slander fall under this broader category) is usually not a crime. It is a civil tort. Criminal defamation is usually concerned with public peace, which is both very rare and not the subject of this particular case under discussion.

What you call "criminal energy" is a contentious legal term. I have not come across it, albeit only as a law student. Nor have I heard the term in any observed criminal hearing. It seems to be a somewhat obscure term used in some civil law jurisdictions (most in continental Europe), with multiple meanings depending on context. Certainly, it is not a term I've ever encountered in cases or texts in common law jurisdictions (ie. US, British Commonwealth, etc.). I don't think the notion of "criminal energy" is of any relevance to defamation.

Whatever "criminal energy" is, I cannot agree with your description of it, if your description is correct. See the following example:

A published on a blog that B is a dishonest, thieving, lying ******* who stole from his previous employer. B almost gets a job with a new employer, but the hiring manager finds the blog article and decides not to offer the job to B.
Same situation as 1 above, but A published his claim in a public announcement column of a local newspaper for a fee, and the hiring manager discovered the information there.
Which has the greater consequence, 1 or 2? The consequence is the same in the matter of that particular employer. The consequence may be more severe for 1 for later potential employers, since items published on the Internet are more accessible and tend to be more permanent than items published in a newspaper's public announcement column. Even though the wrong done by A in 1 was easier than in 2, the consequences of the wrong committed in 1 is probably going to be far worse than in 2.

I hope you follow what I'm saying. When it comes to wrongs done by a person to another, the difficulty involved in doing that wrong is irrelevant to the damage suffered by the victim. In fact, even easier wrongs may have more damaging consequences than difficult wrongs. When it comes to torts, such as defamation, one of the key elements is the extent of the damage suffered -- in other words, the consequence of the wrong affecting the victim.

In the present case of the blogger and the model, it doesn't matter an iota whether a blog is an easy medium to publish or not. The model still suffered harm when potential clients received negative impressions due to the blogger's article, losing potential income as a result. Indeed, the fact that the negative opinion was published on a blog, rather than more restrictive media, may have caused greater harm to the model than if the medium was in (for example) print, since the information would be more accessible and wide-spread.

For those of us who write on blogs (that includes me), we should be mindful of the fact that blogs are very widely accessible, easily found, and that opinions contained therein are often taken seriously by the reader (just look at the number of people who follow how-to instructions or advice published on blogs). If we are going to write something negative about a particular individual, the onus is on us to ensure that the material will not be defamatory. We are not insulated from the society within which we live. To think that we can write whatever we want with no thought for the consequences, would be very irresponsible. That is my beef about the "free speech" argument in this case. Rights need to be balanced by responsibilities, and part of that responsibility is the spine to stand up and fight to exercise a right, rather than hide behind the shield of "anonymity".

criminal energy is a mainstay of german criminal and civil law, and well it ought to be. or do you really believe an off-the-cuff remark should be pursued, judged and punished with the same stringency as a concerted program of defamation?

[howlingmadhowie]

this is the crux of the case here.

as far as i'm concerned, posts on the internet should be no different than standing up in the street and making a speach, or writing a letter to a paper.

that goes not just for cases like this, but also for cases like online abuse & bullying. why should the fact that you're doing it online give you the right to hide behind a computer screen and expect to just do and say what you want?
what is the difference between a racist calling someone a n***er to their face or calling them a n***er in an online blog, other than the fact that one makes them a coward who's too afraid to face the consequences of their beliefs and actions? what's the difference here?

would people expect the courts to decide my right to anomymity should be maintained if i posted blogs about how i love to drown cute little kittens? would there be so many people DEFENDING my right to anonymity if i was posting things that they found morally questionable?



fact is, the vast majority of internet users can maintain their anonymity very easily, but as soon as you begin breaking the law with your internet use, or as soon as you begin personally attacking people, you cannot just expect to be able to do it anonymously. you couldn't abuse someone in the street anonymously, why should you be able to do it online?

the validity of the source is of great importance here. if some random homeless person insults me, i would be (quite rightly) laughed out of court if i tried to sue him for defamation. if it was some major newspaper, that would not be the case.

[Bezmotivnik]

[YAWN!]

So, did anyone ever port the Vidalia package to Ubuntu?

End of problem.

[Grenage]

They wouldn't need to, there is a decent firefox addon for using the tor network :)

[harry2006]

never heard of such things...too scary!

[rookcifer]

I don't know what was said about the model, but if it was sufficiently nasty, slander is still slander, and the courts are charged with upholding the laws pertinent to it.


By definition, you can't slander someone with the written word. Since you are not aware of the proper definition of terms pertinent to this discussion, your opinion should not be taken seriously.

[Post Monkeh]

the validity of the source is of great importance here. if some random homeless person insults me, i would be (quite rightly) laughed out of court if i tried to sue him for defamation. if it was some major newspaper, that would not be the case.

true, but no one should be able to just broadcast accusations about you anonymously.
some random insults in the street are far less damaging than online abuse.
as has been mentioned previously, if something is put online, it is essentially being put before an audience of millions. granted, the person making the accusations may be a crackpot, but that can't be known if they are allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity just because they're too chicken to attach their name to their comments.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

She's a bitch
So I did some creative editing but big deal. I don't care if she finds out who I am. I'm not afraid of dogs.

[Post Monkeh]

By definition, you can't slander someone with the written word. Since you are not aware of the proper definition of terms pertinent to this discussion, your opinion should not be taken seriously.
being unaware of the exact legal differences between calling someone a junkie in a letter or calling them a junkie in a speech hardly makes an opinion irrelevant.
some people just like being smart arses.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

Yeah, it's called defamation, more specifically libel. So now you know. So now your opinion is relevant :lolflag:

[cprofitt]

Judge Joan Madden aught to be ashamed.


Actually originally I would have agreed with you... but on reading the rest of the thread it appears the judge may have been correct.

[samjh]

criminal energy is a mainstay of german criminal and civil law, and well it ought to be. or do you really believe an off-the-cuff remark should be pursued, judged and punished with the same stringency as a concerted program of defamation?

What a disingenuous comparison.

Obviously, if I make a false statement to my friend, "John was sleeping with a *****", and that comment is taken seriously by his wife which causes them to divorce, then John could have legal action against me in defamation. If no harm is done (ie. the people I spoke to didn't take it seriously) or the statement was provably true, then there is no action. If I published the same false information about John on an Internet blog which caused his wife to divorce him, then John could very well sue me. But if the blog wasn't taken seriously by anyone and John suffered no harm, or the information was provably true, then he would have no action.

The key is the consequence for the victim, not the convenience of the wrong-doer.

If I purposely tripped someone over on the footpath and caused them to break their legs, am I less guilty than if I set up an elaborate trap and waited in ambush for several hours? Surely, just sticking out my foot would be a lot easier than constructing a trap! But to say I'd be less guilty would be ridiculous.

In the case of the model, the judge must have been satisfied that the blogger's comments caused harm to the model, and that an action for defamation was viable. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the blogger to have their identity disclosed.

[Bezmotivnik]

They wouldn't need to, there is a decent firefox addon for using the tor network :)
If it's as transparent and full-featured as Vidalia, let me know!

I'm not into screwing around with software installation.

Thanks!

Actually, Vidalia is in the repository...but I can't get it to work.

[bryncoles]

http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/288182.html

and now the anonymous blogger is crying foul, having been caught doing something they shouldn't (whihc is to say, defaming their peers):


[Rosemary] Port is angry that Google revealed her identity - the site [her blog] was run anonymously - and wants to file a $15m (around £9.1m) lawsuit against the company..

That's someone else who fails to understand that it a was court order which forced the revealing of the bloggers identity. Google is not actually at fault here...

She should blog about it!

[Tristam Green]

By definition, you can't slander someone with the written word. Since you are not aware of the proper definition of terms pertinent to this discussion, your opinion should not be taken seriously.

By definition, you're only four days late to point that out, which JillSwift handled expertly and without any commentary about the pertinence of my thought.

Thanks for the information though! I'll put it to good use in the future!



bryncoles - you sound surprised. Miss Port is probably completely unaware of Blogger.com's Terms of Conditions, to this day.

[bryncoles]

bryncoles - you sound surprised. Miss Port is probably completely unaware of Blogger.com's Terms of Conditions, to this day.

I am surprised! I hope her lawyer points them out to her...

[michaelzap]

If you think that case raises complicated issues, check out this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302140.html

[michaelzap]

LOL

Now the model has dropped her defamation suit (she just wanted the blogger identified), but the blogger is suing Google:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/blogger-unmasked/


Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that Cohen demonstrated sufficient claims for the defamation lawsuit, and ordered Google to comply with the subpoena. Madden said that the words, posted in conjunction with provocative photos of Cohen, implied that the model was “a sexually promiscuous woman,” belying that the comments were merely opinion or hyperbole.

Google complied with the order, but Port essentially asserts that Google should have defied the court to protect her First Amendment right to call Cohen a skank anonymously.

[HappinessNow]

If they appeal it to the Supreme Court it will fall under free speech, the blogger just needs to cough up the funds to take it to the Supreme Court (perhaps Google will help out?).

[michaelzap]

If they appeal it to the Supreme Court it will fall under free speech, the blogger just needs to cough up the funds to take it to the Supreme Court (perhaps Google will help out?).

I doubt that very much. I think that most free speech cases that go to the USSC nowadays end up limiting previous interpretations of free speech rights, and this case is far from clear-cut. No one stopped her from expressing herself nor has she suffered any consequences for having done so - we just know her name now.

[HappinessNow]

I doubt that very much. I think that most free speech cases that go to the USSC nowadays end up limiting previous interpretations of free speech rights, and this case is far from clear-cut. No one stopped her from expressing herself nor has she suffered any consequences for having done so - we just know her name now.The fact that it is not clear cut and is tredding on new territory is why it will need to go to the Supreme Court, new laws have to be made to fit.

[Tristam Green]

If they appeal it to the Supreme Court it will fall under free speech, the blogger just needs to cough up the funds to take it to the Supreme Court (perhaps Google will help out?).

I doubt that Google will associate themselves with this, and will try to distance themselves from this case as much as possible. That includes more than likely *not* fronting the bill for any Supreme Court legislation. They're a tech company, not a law firm for ideologies.


The fact that it is not clear cut and is tredding on new territory is why it will need to go to the Supreme Court, new laws have to be made to fit.

Hardly. New laws don't need to be made for this. She didn't want to take responsibility (read: own up and say "it was me") for her crass remarks, and got caught. I wouldn't be surprised if she does try to take it to the Supreme Court, only to get laughed out of the halls.

[geoken]

The fact that it is not clear cut and is tredding on new territory is why it will need to go to the Supreme Court, new laws have to be made to fit.

No new law is needed.

1)anonymous person makes public claims against someone
2)recipient of claims accuses anonymous person of defamation and asks courts to reveal identity
3)courts decide the case for defamation is adequate and order anonymous person's identity to be reveled

Just because the medium is new doesn't make it any more complex than if the exact same happened with a newspaper of flyers plastered around a neighborhood.

[michaelzap]

The fact that it is not clear cut and is tredding on new territory is why it will need to go to the Supreme Court, new laws have to be made to fit.

But the Supreme Court doesn't make laws, and in general they don't like to review and perhaps overrule lower court rulings unless there's some clear Constitutional issue involved (and in my opinion this case seems unlikely to provide that).

[michaelzap]

Just because the medium is new doesn't make it any more complex than if the exact same happened with a newspaper of flyers plastered around a neighborhood.

Although perhaps the blogger's case against Google raises novel issues (whether she had a right to expect them to defend her anonymity, despite the court order and Google's Terms of Service).

[LowSky]

George Carlin said it best, Im paraphrasing "We dont have rights, we have privaleges and at any moment the government can take them away."

Freedom of speech/press is one of the most abused of the Bill of Rights. Since the begining of our history as a nation's presidents and congress and courts have limited the freedom of this "right".

[Tristam Green]

George Carlin said it best, Im paraphrasing "We dont have rights, we have privaleges and at any moment the government can take them away."

Freedom of speech/press is one of the most abused of the Bill of Rights. Since the begining of our history as a nation's presidents and congress and courts have limited the freedom of this "right".

That freedom does not absolve one of accountability, though.

Geez, you people make me laugh and depressed all at once.

If you say I'm ugly to my face, we may kungfu fight and I will disagree with you, but I'll respect your right to do just that with my dying breath. Do it behind my back, though, and you'll be thought a coward by countless persons.

I'm loving the developments in this story.

from The Register:


Enter stage left "high-powered" attorney Salvatore Strazzullo, who's prepared to claim that Google has "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity".

He declared: "I'm ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers wrote 'The Federalist Papers' under pseudonyms. Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously. Shouldn't that right extend to the new public square of the internet?"

Yes. They wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms, but they also owned up to which ones were written by which author. It didn't stay some hidden state secret.

Oh, and one more thing: The Federalist Papers were against the addition of a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution - you can't exactly have your precious First Amendment if no amendments exist...

[michaelzap]

Yes. They wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms, but they also owned up to which ones were written by which author. It didn't stay some hidden state secret.

Oh, and one more thing: The Federalist Papers were against the addition of a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution - you can't exactly have your precious First Amendment if no amendments exist...

Hamilton wrote an article in the Federalist Papers arguing that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Madison wrote a lot of the other articles, however, and he's the one who spearheaded the writing and adoption of the Bill of Rights (he's known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights"). Hamilton was probably the most conservative of the Founding Fathers, since he essentially wanted to establish a form of presidential monarchy.

What's really interesting to me about bringing up the Federalist Papers in this context is that they were published anonymously (long before there were internet blogs), not out of fear but in order to influence the debate on ratification of the Constitution without affecting or being affected by their political positions in the debate.

Both Hamilton and Madison gave lists of who wrote which article in later years, but they thought that anonymity served them at the time.

[Tristam Green]

Both Hamilton and Madison gave lists of who wrote which article in later years, but they thought that anonymity served them at the time.

I am skeptical that this is the case here.

[michaelzap]

I am skeptical that this is the case here.

I agree. I just thought that it's interesting to bring up a situation involving anonymous speech that was long before the existence of blogs. Kind of makes the point that the Founding Fathers had certainly considered such issues and that this is not a new issue just because it's taking place on new technologies.

[aysiu]

There's a difference between publishing an anonymous newsletter, leaflet, or magazine to criticize an oppressive government... and posting an anonymous blog to harass and antagonize someone else, especially when you are not the publisher of the blog but a third-party is.

The third-party has every right to reveal your identity, especially if ordered by the courts to reveal it.

[michaelzap]

There's a difference between publishing an anonymous newsletter, leaflet, or magazine to criticize an oppressive government... and posting an anonymous blog to harass and antagonize someone else, especially when you are not the publisher of the blog but a third-party is.

The third-party has every right to reveal your identity, especially if ordered by the courts to reveal it.

I totally agree.

The Federalist Papers really are interesting in this context, however. As far as I recall, they were published in a newspaper (third party) after the Revolution was over (so they weren't criticizing an oppressive government). And in them Hamilton referred to Aaron Burr as a "notorious skank", which led to some unfortunate consequences.

Just interesting (to me anyway) to see how the people who wrote the Bill of Rights made use of anonymity (in an admittedly very different way).

[doas777]

Correct, the order to reveal the bloggers identity was based on the judge deciding that the model had a solid case for defamation of character.

You either agree with laws protecting people from public defamation or not. The unmasking of this blogger is simply a consequence of the aforementioned laws.

actually in print it's lible, and has to consist of more than opinions.

[michaelzap]

actually in print it's lible, and has to consist of more than opinions.

"Defamation" is the generic term, encompassing both slander and libel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation


In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

[doas777]

"Defamation" is the generic term, encompassing both slander and libel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
sry, I was responding to a quote within a quote ( "slander is slander") that didn;t come over in the quote.

regardless, this whole thing shows that we need to ban judges from decisions like this. they will only continue to take away our rights when people with power/money insist.

[Post Monkeh]

sry, I was responding to a quote within a quote ( "slander is slander") that didn;t come over in the quote.

regardless, this whole thing shows that we need to ban judges from decisions like this. they will only continue to take away our rights when people with power/money insist.

you're a slutty hermaphrodite who loves forcing small children to take crack!



it's ok, it's my right to be able to anonymously throw unfounded allegations around without worrying about the consequences.

[michaelzap]

regardless, this whole thing shows that we need to ban judges from decisions like this. they will only continue to take away our rights when people with power/money insist.

Judges interpret the laws made by the legislatures. I don't see anything in this case that deviates from my (limited) understanding of the applicable laws. Why is the judge to blame for dealing with the situation as instructed by the legislators (theoretically elected by the citizens)?

You can argue that the current "democratic" political system is broken and favors the powerful, and we would agree on that. But that still begs the question: Who should make these decisions? Would you prefer a free-for-all where everything is permitted, and how would that arrangement be better for the powerless than what they have now?

I ask these questions despite being a self-identified anarchist because avoiding the hard questions about how to run a society is no basis for building a better one.

[Support the 2nd]

Once again....freedom extends as far as someone elses checkbook. If someone else has more money, you will be shut down.

[Support the 2nd]

I totally agree.

The Federalist Papers really are interesting in this context, however. As far as I recall, they were published in a newspaper (third party) after the Revolution was over (so they weren't criticizing an oppressive government). And in them Hamilton referred to Aaron Burr as a "notorious skank", which led to some unfortunate consequences.

Just interesting (to me anyway) to see how the people who wrote the Bill of Rights made use of anonymity (in an admittedly very different way).

The Federalist Papers were written from the side of those who wanted to create a strong centralized Federal Government. For an equal look into the side that included Jefferson and Franklin, I suggest looking into the Anti-Federalist Papers. We were left with a mix of both for our Constitution, however, over time we have become more and more centralized, as opposed to united states.

[doas777]

But that still begs the question: Who should make these decisions? Would you prefer a free-for-all where everything is permitted, and how would that arrangement be better for the powerless than what they have now?

when it comes to speech, that is exactly what the first amendment grants me and everyone else. it wasn't until many decades later that some judge made the "fire in a crowded theatre" decision. t he law says I have the right, but some judge said I didn't, and that precedent has left us far less free.

defamation/libel/slander are based in a history of media concentration where a single entity has vast control over local media and is capable of making statements without noticeable counter-arguments. it also relies on the information being "untrue" in some objective fashion. in this case we have personal oppinions expressed by an individual. that makes this a 1st amendment instance plain and simple.

the law may say otherwise, but that doesn't make the law right or ethical.

[t0p]

Well if anything, this case should at least show "anonymous" bloggers that in fact they are probably not anonymous. And if you want the protection of anonymity while defaming people/telling the uncomfortable truth, you have to take steps to achieve it.

Anyone here want to be faceless and controversial? Or simply avoid having death squads calling on you in the small hours? Then check out this guide (http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers) by the eff. Oh, and don't trust google. They'll rat you out the first chance they get. :p

[geoken]

the law may say otherwise, but that doesn't make the law right or ethical.

So let's completely ignore the laws, for the sake of argument.

Do you believe people should be allowed to craft intricate lies about you and freely spread them, then be completely free from any penalties as these lies slowly destroy your life and livelihood?

For example, a developer is trying to buy your house because it's the last property he needs to build a strip mall. You refuse so he invests large sums of money into publicly defaming you until you can no longer find employment and are forced out by an angry mob.

[doas777]

So let's completely ignore the laws, for the sake of argument.

Do you believe people should be allowed to craft intricate lies about you and freely spread them, then be completely free from any penalties as these lies slowly destroy your life and livelihood?

For example, a developer is trying to buy your house because it's the last property he needs to build a strip mall. You refuse so he invests large sums of money into publicly defaming you until you can no longer find employment and are forced out by an angry mob.

that is the price, and the responsibility of living in a free society. I am allowed to use my free speech to make fun of others, and they have the same right. If I don't like what someone else say, I have the right to leave. and even if I couldn't leave, I can always ignore maligners.

"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

additionally, I see no "intricate lies" in the word "Skank" (mods, I do not believe this to be a verboten word, but edit at need). to me it implies a specifically personal opinion, as there is no objective definition for the word, if it can even be called one. this is not a well crafted political campaign, or a clandestine industry push, or an illuminati plot. this is simply two people rubbing eachother wrong, and bringing other people into it.

the scary thing hear, is that this minor an issue became all the cause needed to compel the unveiling of a poster. this has to be reserved for the big things. stuff where lives are lost. otherwise what will be trivial next year? and the year after?

[Support the 2nd]

I am a libertarian, but even the founders said free speech does not cover libel. The argument is what is really libel.

[michaelzap]

So let's completely ignore the laws, for the sake of argument.

Do you believe people should be allowed to craft intricate lies about you and freely spread them, then be completely free from any penalties as these lies slowly destroy your life and livelihood?

For example, a developer is trying to buy your house because it's the last property he needs to build a strip mall. You refuse so he invests large sums of money into publicly defaming you until you can no longer find employment and are forced out by an angry mob.

This is exactly the sort of question that I was hoping this discussion would inspire. Just because one opposes the current legal framework for making these decisions (or even the concept of liberal democracy in general), does that necessarily mean that you can't imagine an alternative structure other than a free-for-all? The current legal system is far too invested in protecting property and favors punishment over conflict resolution, but if those things were changed and our political systems really represented everyone's interests equally, wouldn't we still need arbiters of these and other disputes?


it wasn't until many decades later that some judge made the "fire in a crowded theatre" decision. t he law says I have the right, but some judge said I didn't, and that precedent has left us far less free.


There were actually no Supreme Court decisions related to the first amendment until the 20th Century. And the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" decision was overruled by a later court (and the quote actually refers to "shouting fire FALSELY in a crowded theater", since if there really were a fire that would be a very useful thing to shout). The courts are supposed to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority, so attacking "judges" really misses the point; it's all of us as a society that has to address these issues.


defamation/libel/slander are based in a history of media concentration where a single entity has vast control over local media and is capable of making statements without noticeable counter-arguments.

It actually goes back to Roman times, so I don't think media concentration played that much of a role in defining it.

[t0p]

And the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" decision was overruled by a later court (and the quote actually refers to "shouting fire FALSELY in a crowded theater", since if there really were a fire that would be a very useful thing to shout)..

"Free speech is the right to shout 'Theater!' in a crowded fire" ~Yippie proverb

[geoken]

that is the price, and the responsibility of living in a free society. I am allowed to use my free speech to make fun of others, and they have the same right. If I don't like what someone else say, I have the right to leave. and even if I couldn't leave, I can always ignore maligners.

"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

additionally, I see no "intricate lies" in the word "Skank" (mods, I do not believe this to be a verboten word, but edit at need). to me it implies a specifically personal opinion, as there is no objective definition for the word, if it can even be called one. this is not a well crafted political campaign, or a clandestine industry push, or an illuminati plot. this is simply two people rubbing eachother wrong, and bringing other people into it.

the scary thing hear, is that this minor an issue became all the cause needed to compel the unveiling of a poster. this has to be reserved for the big things. stuff where lives are lost. otherwise what will be trivial next year? and the year after?

I was asking you a hypothetical question because I didn't feel like arguing about the specific facts of this case before we actually got to the meat of the issue. Regarding the hypothetical situation I outlined, would you think the 'developer's' actions should go without any recourse for punishment.

FYI, a lot more was said about the model than what you claim in your convenient straw man. The blog claimed she was using/abusing drugs while the model claims she has a zero tolerance policy with drugs and that these accusations affected her contracts with potential clients.

[samjh]

The current legal system is far too invested in protecting property and favors punishment over conflict resolution...

Interesting view. I have to disagree with this, at least from an Australian perspective.

The trend in recent times is for the courts to push alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation, arbitration, and the use of specialised tribunals to decide on cases involving highly specialised areas of law (Australian examples include the Industrial Relations Tribunal, Anti Discrimination Tribunals, Australian Competition Tribunal, etc.). It has become common practice in Australian courts for some form of ADR -- most commonly mediation -- to be ordered by the judge prior to litigation, and for parties to make genuine effort to resolve their dispute using ADR options.

Civil litigation does not favour punishment. Most civil litigation involves the plaintiff suing for damages over some wrong done by the defendant, such as breach of contract, or a tort (eg. personal injury, defamation, negligence, crime), and the damages are generally calculated to restore the losses incurred by the plaintiff as fully as possible. It's unfortunate that in a lot of cases, the losses can never be fully recouped, such as personal injuries claims where the plaintiff is permanently maimed, or negligent deaths, but the courts will do their best in accordance with the law to compensate the plaintiff(s). The purpose of compensation is usually restorative (restoring the loss suffered), not punitive (punishing the wrong-doer). Punitive penalties are usually the reserve of the criminal law system.

[michaelzap]

Interesting view. I have to disagree with this, at least from an Australian perspective.

Wow. That's certainly not the trend in the US. The prisons there are overflowing, and lawsuits often end in huge punitive judgments far beyond any actual damages suffered.

[michaelzap]

Funny. I keep coming across pertinent articles that seem worth sharing on this thread. This one is from back in 2005 and recounts the Wikipedia "Seigenthaler incident":

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/media/11web.html

[samjh]

NY Times requires registration. Care to copy-paste the article for us non-members? :)

[michaelzap]

NY Times requires registration. Care to copy-paste the article for us non-members? :)

NYT registration is free (for the time being anyway), but I can understand not wanting to do that just to read this article.


December 11, 2005
A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Wikipedia Prank
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker losing his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility.

A man in Nashville has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville.

Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Mr. Seigenthaler on Friday that he had written the material suggesting that Mr. Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers.

Mr. Seigenthaler discovered the false entry only recently and wrote about it in an op-ed article in USA Today, saying he was especially annoyed that he could not track down the perpetrator because of Internet privacy laws. His plight touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia - and by extension the entire Internet - and the difficulty in holding Web sites and their users accountable, even when someone is defamed.

In a confessional letter to Mr. Seigenthaler, Mr. Chase said he thought Wikipedia was a "gag" Web site and that he had written the assassination tale to shock a co-worker, who knew of the Seigenthaler family and its illustrious history in Nashville.

"It had the intended effect," Mr. Chase said of his prank in an interview. But Mr. Chase said that once he became aware last week through news accounts of the damage he had done to Mr. Seigenthaler, he was remorseful and also a little scared of what might happen to him.

Mr. Chase also found that he was slowly being cornered in cyberspace, thanks to the sleuthing efforts of Daniel Brandt, 57, of San Antonio, who makes his living as a book indexer. Mr. Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site (www.wikipedia-watch.org) in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself.

Using information in Mr. Seigenthaler's article and some online tools, Mr. Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville. Mr. Brandt called the company and told employees there about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything definitive.

Mr. Brandt then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection.

A call by a New York Times reporter to the delivery company on Thursday made employees nervous, Mr. Chase later told Mr. Seigenthaler. On Friday, Mr. Chase hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Seigenthaler's office, confessing what he had done, and later they talked at length.

Mr. Chase told him that the Seigenthaler name had come up at work and that he had popped it into a search engine and was led to Wikipedia, where, he said, he was surprised that anyone could make an entry.

Mr. Chase wrote: "I am truly sorry to have offended you, sir. Whatever fame comes to me from this will be ill-gotten indeed."

Mr. Seigenthaler said Mr. Brandt was "a genius" for tracking down Mr. Chase. He said he "was not after a pound of flesh" and would not take Mr. Chase to court.

Mr. Chase resigned from his job because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Mr. Seigenthaler urged Mr. Chase's boss to rehire him, but Mr. Chase said that, so far, this had not happened.

Mr. Chase said that as Mr. Brandt and the news media were closing in and he realized how much he had hurt Mr. Seigenthaler, he decided that stepping forward was "the right thing to do."

Mr. Seigenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center, said that as a longtime advocate of free speech, he found it awkward to be tracking down someone who had exercised that right.

"I still believe in free expression," he said. "What I want is accountability."

Jimmy Wales, who founded Wikipedia, said that the site would make more information about users available to make it easier to lodge complaints. But he portrayed the error as something that fell through the cracks, not a sign of a systemic problem. "We have to continually evaluate whether our controls are enough," he said.

[michaelzap]

Lots of people are interested in this case, it seems:
http://open.salon.com/blog/david_goodloe/2009/08/25/on_blogging_opinion_and_anonymity

[Chronon]

NY Times requires registration. Care to copy-paste the article for us non-members? :)

I often use bugmenot to access such free content.