Court orders Google to reveal anonymous blogger's identity

[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!!

[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.