Judge: 'Skanks in NYC' blogger may be unmasked
I know that some people have pleasures that are not entirely innocent.
They go to sites such as What Would Tyler Durden Do? or Dlisted to read the occasionally besmirching remark aimed at those more famous, wealthy, and beautiful than themselves.
Sometimes, the bloggers behind these bastions of moral sure-footedness prefer to remain anonymous. However, a court ruling on Monday in New York might change that.
Liskula Cohen, a Vogue cover model, won an interesting case against the nameless blogger behind the erudite site Skanks in NYC.
Judge Joan Madden ruled that Cohen is entitled to know the identity of the blogger as phrases such as "psychotic, lying, whoring...skank" might possibly be defamatory.
Initially, Cohen sued in January, asking the court to order Google, which was host to the site on Blogger, to reveal its author's identity.
In this proceeding, the judge declared that Google must inform the blogger that he or she should probably get a lawyer, as there is a risk of unmasking.
The blogger's lawyer claimed that the views expressed were "hyperbole" and that blogs "have evolved as the modern-day soapbox for personal opinions."
The lawyer also offered the view that blogs have "mere venting purposes, affording the less outspoken a protected forum for voicing gripes, leveling invective, and ranting about anything at all."
I wasn't entirely aware of that.
And the judge seems to have looked somewhat askance at these arguments. Especially, it seems, when she saw that the hyperbolic comments were placed near somewhat-provocative pictures of the model.
Judge Madden declared that placing such epithets as "ho" and "skank" next to these images might create "a negative implication of sexual promiscuity."
It is not for me to say why anyone would wish to create a blog called Skanks in NYC (the blog was taken down in March).
However, it will be interesting to see, as this lawsuit progresses, just what implications it might create for those who choose to blog anonymously and call people rather rude things.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
You don't get to sue people to make them shut up because they're criticizing you. Maybe with the way the country is headed it'll happen, but for now we still have something of a 1st Amendment.
The blogger becomes world famous and an overnight "celebrity".
The D-Bag gets paid, even though they are generally accepted as a D-Bag.
Seems to me that these cases should be put up to a public opinion poll where you, in web 2.0 fashion, txt in your vote to 56789. If the public agrees that the celebrity is a D-Bag, then the blogger is only calling a hoe a hoe and stating general facts about the person. If the public decides the celebrity is not a D-Bag (or in this case a skank), then the blogger is guilty of slander, has to blog an apology, and post a pic of them kissing the celebrity's ass.
theinvective.blogspot.com
First of all, what does it say about the direction of our country when a person can't even vent about another person, situation, or otherwise? While I do not agree with everything other people say, such as racist speech, name calling, outrageously petty whine lines, and many other similar rants, I would be the last person to say that these people should have their views/speech silenced. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and has the right to express those opinions. If everyone sued everyone that "hurt their feelings", we would have a tremendously backlogged judicial system.
Also, I think these rich, cry-babies need to get life. Personally, I would not give a rat's behind what anyone had to say about me if I had had hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seems to me many of these rich people need to get out in the real world some. Maybe it would help toughen up their paper thin skin.
In closing, its called freedom of speech you bunch of pansies. Get over it.
If it were you, you would not like a newspaper publishing a photograph of you with words like like what she's had next to it. She's in an industry where she's already fighting these stereotypes - why should she put up with that? This was a PUBLISHED article (yes the internet counts as published, check your statutes) with pictures of her to ensure there was no mistaking who this blogger was talking about.
He wasn't exercising his 'freedom of speech' for the intended purposes of those rights - he was exploiting them to harm a person.
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/31172373.html
If those bottom pictures are really her, then the blogger might have a reason to state this opinion. Perhaps the blogger went too far, but ... boy... those pictures do not paint a pretty picture. If there is any damage brought to herself, it might very well be her own behavior and those photos. Yuck...
A Google spokeswoman said: "We sympathise with anyone who may be the victim of cyber bullying.
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/model-forces-google-to-reveal-skank-bloggers-identity-20090819-epz0.html
Cyber bullying has lead to deaths. It is about time we realise that rights go both ways.
ANDREW MURRY
"It might make some people behave more like adults and responsible citizens."
It also tends to suppress controversial opinions. History is full of examples of people who are harassed and even
killed because they disagree or hold an opinion outside the mainstream. Governments are not immune abusing people for their opinions and speech. The U.S government kept illegal dossiers on and harassed anti-war protesters and civil rights leaders among others. Portions of the FBI's illegal activities against John Lennon and others under Hoover and Nixon where recently declassified. I don't believe it's worth it just to maybe silence a few trolls.
"no its not freedom of speech when you are willing to stand up and take credit for what you are saying."
whether speech is credited or uncredited has no effect on the protection of the speech.
Initially, Cohen sued in January, asking the court to order Google, which was host to the site on Blogger, to reveal its author's identity."
What the hell? If I have some jackass driving through my neighborhood with his music blaring at 120db at 2am every morning does that mean I can get a judge to issue a court order requiring the DMV to give me the owner of that vehicles name? So I can harass him? Or maybe look up his address in the phone book and go kick his ass?
That seems to me what Cohen wants to do given there is no lawsuit mentioned. IF they file a lawsuit, let them use the courts powers to get his name. If they do NOT file a lawsuit then what the hell right do they have to know his name?
I guess I had better stop sending 'letters to the editor' in my local paper.
Aside from that, some cretin driving through your neighborhood blaring his stereo would more likely be a violation of a noise ordinance, and hence a criminal misdemeanor which the local authorities would enforce, not you. Now, if said cretin were to specifically target you by parking outside your house and blasting his music then you could have a civil case, under which senario you could discover his identity and address. But that wouldn't give you the right to take the law into your own hands, which you seem to imply is the only logical outcome.
Are you saying that if you were photographed in a private moment, or photographed for a promotional shoot you would want that to be the basis of your entire character description?
BTW, you can call someone a skank if you can back it up. So go ahead, prove it. If you can't, shut your mouth.
I understand what they're saying, It just happens I am not in total agreement.
My concern is when people exploit such things to abuse other rights, such as the right not to be subject to slander.
As for correcting people on understanding, I hesitate to suggest you may want to look up the meaning of irony when 1. you, being anonymous, call me up for being anonymous on the premise of me apparently berating the concept of anonymity (which i have not).
2. you fail to comprehend the idea of a forum that is surely about people debating topics and disagreeing. I do not see why I should agree with others any more than why they should agree with me. We are all simply expressing views and giving the rationale for those views. We critique each other's rationale, make comment, etc. Healthy debate. Free discourse. It is why anonymity is a good thing. Debate is a good thing.
it is time to end posts that are degrading. freedom of speech does not literally mean freedom to say whatever you want to.
The RIGHT to Freedom of speech does not negate another person's RIGHT to not be insulted, degraded nor have their character defamed.
Defamation exist to protect reputations, which generally means someone has to present a false statement as fact or present facts in a misleading way. One only has to look at the defenses to charges of defamation. For example, a statement of opinion or a true statement (also statement made with a good faith belief they were true). Merely insulting some is not sufficient.
In this case the judge has allowed to uncover the person identity, but the merit of her claim remain untested.
Other judge denied such request for much more.
Just as a side note, an isult could be classified as 'slander'; 'verbal abuse'; 'harrassment' (and in some jurisdictions bullying and some even drill down to 'cyber bullying' such as in several European and Australasian jurisdictations) are covered under statutes in most legislatures in addition to defamation of character (which I agree relates to reputation - which is actually the claim in this case as the blogger was claiming - via an insult - that the woman was sexaully promiscous)
Blogging annonymously on the internet allows people to be honest about their feelings. I'd rather read people's honest feelings than some watered-down politically correct blog where everyone's opinion is sacred and respected.
Is her taking him to court in any way a sexually promiscuous act? No - ergo, not a ***** nor a skank. Is her litigative action in anyway deceiptful or lying? No - indeed his hiding behind anonymity could be considered deceipt, his description of her could be a lie - but her action is not a lie ergo she is not a liar based on these actions.
Pyschotic? So are we going to say that anyone that is accused of something they didn't do, and then goes through the due process they have just as much right to as this blogger does to anonymity is now psychotic?
Surely a person who goes around making ficticious claims about a women with no basis is more psychotic. Surely a person who has a blog called 'Skanks in NYC" is far more worthy of the title of psychotic - consider his research alone is just him looking at provocative pictures and then insulting people. It is completely anti-social behaviour which is right up there in the definition of psychotic... no where is "litigation to protect my right against defamation of character" in the definition of pyschosis.
NervClaX - your post could be evidence in the court hearing to suggest this blogger has indeed defamed her name. Well done for supporting Ms Cohen's cause.
You all speak of rights - but forget her rights, why? oH right... shes a psychotic, lying, whoring... skank... hmm and what was your basis for that... oh right some fat anonymous guy who can't get a date said it... he MUST be credible.
The DMCA is applicable. It deals strickly with copyright. Using open Ms. Cohen up to liability or a perjury charge.
@screamapillar
"You all speak of rights - but forget her rights, why? oH right... shes a psychotic, lying, whoring... skank... hmm and what was your basis for that... oh right some fat anonymous guy who can't get a date said it... he MUST be credible. "
By your logic you just defamed the blogger, who by the way it turns out is female and known to Ms. Cohen. Would you like to provide your full name now, since you seemed to support the sentiment of jakedog030 that it's cowardly to anonymously slam someone anonymously and that people take credit for their posts?
Hypocrisy thou art a cruel mistress.
" it's cowardly to anonymously slam someone anonymously and that people take credit for their posts? "
Should be
it's cowardly to anonymously slam someone and that people take credit for their posts?
For what it is worth, I did not identify the blogger and was discussing this as a 'case'. So no, this is not actually defamation. I do hope you understand the difference and were merely trying to get at me rather than truly not understanding this. I apologise for using sarcasm and dare I say, a little irony/wit, in insulting the blogger (whose identity was not known at the time, and in addition please note in the entire post I referred not to the person specifically rather conceptually and did not make definitive comments rather arguments, but anyway...) - Again, I assumed people on this site would understand sarcasm and irony (despite you accusing me of thinking others don't comprehend). It is just a debate unknown.
My issue with NervClaX's post was that he defended the right for anonymity for the right reasons (eg. expressing feeligns which is a good thing) but I was concerned about the defence of the blogger who was not doing this - they weren't expressing feelings they were making statements. Just my opinion.
Indeed protection of anonymous speech is vital for free and open discussion, it allows you to open up ideas that may not normally be considered without fear of repremand etc etc. Even most Freedom of Information type legislations have exemptions for information that is simply 'discussion' - eg a forum.
However, this wasn't someone having a discussion, trying to 'go outside the box' or whatever. He was insulting a woman using sexually degrading terms. He was perpetuating sexual stereotyping and not just suggesting but outright stating as if it were fact that that she was sexually promiscuous. Why, just because she is a female, is it suddenly ok to say she's a *****? We would all be outraged if he blogged some black guy was a criminal on the basis that he was black and wore clothing that made him look 'mean' despite him only wearing that for a promotional image. It is inappropriate for women to be abused in this way CONSTANTLY without any consideration of consequences.
What we are missing here is that there is a responsbility. You have the right to free speech, but I have the right to not have my name smeered by some little git hiding behind 'the right to anonymity'. It is an abuse of a precious right. When we have a civil liberity as precious as protection of anonymous freedom of speech, it is critical that it is not exploited an abused - lest we lose it. Lest we are deemed unworthy and/or too irresponsible to be trusted with it.
Too many people talk only of rights as if there is only one side to it. Rights only work when you acknowledge that the other person next to you also has rights. What that creates is an understanding of the responsibility of upholding all rights, not just YOUR rights. A bit of courtesy doesn't go astray but is sorely lacking in this "me me me I'm so bloody important stuff you all" world.
I am the last person to fight for the cause of models in a general sense, I think that the industry perpetuates the stereotype of sexualisation as the only basis for a woman's worth. However, there is a big difference between talking about an industry and criticising that - and making ficiticious claims about someone as if it is fact.
Indeed, it is no one's business what a person's sexual history is. That being said, it can be harmful to your career if people judge you on such things.
Recently (as in last month) in Victoria, Australia there was a well publicised case of a cabinet politiican accused of rape. He was found innocent and the case thrown out but as the accusation was done publically he is ruined. Is this ok? Is it ok to ruin a person on a false claim? Sure, he 'might' have been sleezy, he 'might' have even behaved inappropriately, but that is not rape. Nevertheless, this innocent man whose entire job (politician) is based on public opinion is ruined (a model is in a similar boat depending on her sponsors). But I suppose it is ok that he was falsely accused of rape in a public forum because it was just freedom of speech. Sure, the Office of Public Prosecutions was obliged to act on the claim, but hey, what do you care? She was just speaking freely - and by the way - anonymously. I suppose it is ok that an innocent man has had his life destroyed because it was all in the interest of freedom of speech.
"Too many people talk only of rights as if there is only one side to it. Rights only work when you acknowledge that the other person next to you also has rights. What that creates is an understanding of the responsibility of upholding all rights, not just YOUR rights..."
Couldn't have said it better myself!
What happens as a result, is some judge has to make a call - that judge will be bound to work within the statutes that oblige them to rule on defamation of character for published material. It will not create precedence as some have claimed, because precedence assumes that the crime was ill defined. Defamation of character within published written material is very well defiend. My real concern is that this sort of thing often leads to a knee jerk reaction from legislators to withdraw the freedoms we so cherish.
So many at this forum don't understand that by defending this blogger's actions they are actually endangering the legitimate uses of freedom on anonymity. It is simliar to the risks we are facing with other personal freedoms slowly being eroded away due to the exploitation and abuse of these 'rights' by just a few.
I treasure the concept of free discourse (and thus the need for anonymity) so greatly that yes, I'll fight hard to defend it. Free, open discussion is the basis for any democracy to function properly. But not at the expense of what we fight to protect: each other.
- by George Orwellian August 19, 2009 10:50 PM PDT
- Here are two of my web sites to consider in relation to calling someone psychotic and calling a lawyer as evil for knowingly taking advantage of someone:<br />
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(52 Comments)<br />
http://psychotic-karin-kaufman.org/<br />
http://harvey-mars.com/<br />
<br />
I was sued for USD $30 million.<br />
<br />
I wonder when some media will pick up on this story.<br />
<br />
If you want a bullet-proof blog, try:<br />
<br />
http://baywords.com/signup