Judges Wants Anonymous Blogger Outted

[Select]

A Manhattan judge ruled yesterday that a blogger can't hide behind a web of anonymity while flinging the ugly words "skank" and "ho" at somebody online.

The sternly worded ruling orders Google to give up the identity of an anonymous blogger-assailant who inexplicably devoted an entire blog -- titled "Skanks in NYC" -- to maligning beautiful blond model Liskula Cohen.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08182009/ne ... 185152.htm

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Oh look. A win for frivolous nonsense.

[Select]

I'm curious to see if other judges would follow this and try to oust anonymous bloggers.

[Partha]

I can see that at least ONE judge has never heard of Silence Dogood.

[Kulaf]

I think she has a strong claim for libel and she should have the right to serve her defamer. I am fairly certain that the blog violates Google's ToS agreement and therefore they have no reason to protect the person;s identity on any grounds.

[Partha]

I think she has a strong claim for libel and she should have the right to serve her defamer. I am fairly certain that the blog violates Google's ToS agreement and therefore they have no reason to protect the person;s identity on any grounds.

Have you read the ToS? It does not.

Blogger Content Policy

Blogger is a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech. We believe Blogger increases the availability of information, encourages healthy debate, and makes possible new connections between people.

We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share. It is our belief that censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression.

In order to uphold these values, we need to curb abuses that threaten our ability to provide this service and the freedom of expression it encourages. As a result, there are some boundaries on the type of content that can be hosted with Blogger. The boundaries we've defined are those that both comply with legal requirements and that serve to enhance the service as a whole.
Content Boundaries

Our content policies play an important role in maintaining a positive experience for you, the users. Please respect these guidelines. From time to time, we may change our content policies so please check back here. Also, please note that when applying the policies below, we may make exceptions based on artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific considerations or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.

Adult Content: We do allow adult content on Blogger, including images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity. But, please mark your blog as 'adult' in your Blogger settings. Otherwise, we may put it behind a 'mature content' interstitial.

There are some exceptions to our adult content policy:

* Do not use Blogger as a way to make money on adult content. For example, don't create blogs where a significant percentage of the content is ads or links to commercial porn sites.
* No incest or bestiality content: We do not allow image, video or text content that depicts or encourages incest or bestiality.

Child safety: We have a zero tolerance policy towards content that exploits children. Some examples of this include:

* Child pornography: We will terminate the accounts of any user we find publishing or distributing child pornography. We will also report that user to law enforcement.
* Pedophilia: We do not allow content that encourages or promotes sexual attraction towards children. For example, do not create blogs with galleries of images of children where the collection of images or text accompanying the images is sexually suggestive.

Hate Speech: We want you to use Blogger to express your opinions, even very controversial ones. But, don't cross the line by publishing hate speech. By this, we mean content that promotes hate or violence towards groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity. For example, don't write a blog saying that members of Race X are criminals or advocating violence against followers of Religion Y.

Crude Content: Don't post content just to be shocking or graphic. For example, collections of close-up images of gunshot wounds or accident scenes without additional context or commentary would violate this policy.

Violence: Don't threaten other people on your blog. For example, don't post death threats against another person or group of people and don't post content encouraging your readers to take violent action against another person or group of people.

Copyright: It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found here. Also, please don't provide links to sites where your readers can illegally download other people's content.

Personal and confidential information: It's not ok to publish another person's personal and confidential information. For example, don't post someone else's credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, unlisted phone numbers, and driver's license numbers. Also, please keep in mind that in most cases, information that is already available elsewhere on the Internet or in public records is not considered to be private or confidential under our policies.

Impersonating others: Please don't mislead or confuse readers by pretending to be someone else or pretending to represent an organization when you don't. We're not saying you can't publish parody or satire - just avoid content that is likely to mislead readers about your true identity.

Illegal activities: Don't use Blogger to engage in illegal activities or to promote dangerous and illegal activities. For example, don't author a blog encouraging people to drink and drive. Otherwise, we may delete your content. Also, in serious cases such as those involving the abuse of children, we may report you to the appropriate authorities.

Spam: Spam takes several forms in Blogger, all of which can result in deletion of your account or blog. Some examples include creating blogs designed to drive traffic to your site or to move it up in search listings and posting comments on other people's blogs just to promote your site or product.

Malware and viruses: Do not create blogs that transmit viruses, cause pop-ups, attempt to install software without the reader's consent, or otherwise impact readers with malicious code. This is strictly forbidden on Blogger.
Enforcement of Blogger's Content Policy

If you encounter a blog that you believe violates our content policies, please report it to us using the 'Flag Blog' link located at the top of each blog (Note: If the blog owner has hidden this link, you can still report the blog by filling out this form).

Our team reviews these flags for policy violations. If the blog does not violate our policies, we will not take any action against the blog or blog owner. If we find that a blog does violate our content policies, we take one or more of the following actions based on the severity of the violation:

* Put the blog behind a 'mature content' interstitial
* Put the blog behind an interstitial where only the blog author can access the content
* Delete the blog
* Disable the author's access to his/her Blogger account
* Disable the author's access to his/her Google account
* Report the user to law enforcement

There's nothing in calling someone a 'ho' or a 'skank' that violates these Terms.

[Kulaf]

Illegal activities: Don't use Blogger to engage in illegal activities or to promote dangerous and illegal activities. For example, don't author a blog encouraging people to drink and drive. Otherwise, we may delete your content. Also, in serious cases such as those involving the abuse of children, we may report you to the appropriate authorities.

Libelous content is against the law.

[Partha]

Sorry, she can't prove that it's actually damaged her reputation, therefore it isn't libel.

Anyways, the Supreme Court said it best -

"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea,"

Claiming otherwise would be, for instance, claiming that Goodeyes had the right to sue SicTim for calling him kidfucker.

[Lurker]

You don't know if she can prove damage to her reputation. And the judge in the case felt there was enough evidence to move forward with a defamation suit. The blogger's defense was that he was stating opinion, not fact. The judge concluded otherwise, and stated that the blog posts contained "assertions of objective fact that, if proven false, could form the predicate for a defamation claim." That doesn't mean she'll win a libel case, but according to the judge she has a right to a day in court and that requires the release of the defendants identity.

The Google TOS agreement has nothing to do with this since Google didn't willingly release the identity. They are only doing so as a result of the court order.

[Kulaf]

Sorry, she can't prove that it's actually damaged her reputation, therefore it isn't libel.

Anyways, the Supreme Court said it best -

"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea,"

Claiming otherwise would be, for instance, claiming that Goodeyes had the right to sue SicTim for calling him kidfucker.

What does:

"Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech"

have to do with what we are discussing? This is not a 1st amendment issue.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sorry, she can't prove that it's actually damaged her reputation, therefore it isn't libel.

How do you know it hasn't damaged her reputation? Or won't damage her reputation? Your logic is flawed.

Anyway, something can be libel and not damage a reputation. Let's someone writes on a blog "My boss, Frank, is a female alien with teeth in her four vaginas." In that hypothetical, that person has committed libel, as that is clearly untrue. If Frank wanted to bring suit, he would win. But since libel is a civil issue, not a criminal one, the question of damages arises. Did anyone really beleive that Frank was a female alien with four vaginas? The answer to that (unless you're from Kentucky or near them parts) is no. So Frank would be awarded a damage amount of $0. Technical violations of civil law are meaningless unless a person can prove a diminishment of life.

[Select]

I think the unmasking might be enough of an award. It sounds like it would be someone close-ish to her and now their reputation is at risk.

[Harlowe]

I agree that unmasking the person's identity is probably enough of a punishment. I don't believe you are going to actually win a case against someone else having the opinion you are a skank or asshole etc.

[Partha]

How do you know it hasn't damaged her reputation? Or won't damage her reputation? Your logic is flawed.

No. The legal definition says she must show harm. If no harm can be shown, then there's no libel.

Anyway, something can be libel and not damage a reputation. Let's someone writes on a blog "My boss, Frank, is a female alien with teeth in her four vaginas." In that hypothetical, that person has committed libel, as that is clearly untrue. If Frank wanted to bring suit, he would win. But since libel is a civil issue, not a criminal one, the question of damages arises. Did anyone really beleive that Frank was a female alien with four vaginas? The answer to that (unless you're from Kentucky or near them parts) is no. So Frank would be awarded a damage amount of $0. Technical violations of civil law are meaningless unless a person can prove a diminishment of life.

No, Frank's case, like so many before it, would be thrown out long before. If we were lucky, he'd get smacked for court costs too, for wasting everyone's time.

Um, Kulaf?

What does:

"Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech"

have to do with what we are discussing? This is not a 1st amendment issue

Offering your opinion of a person is pretty much the definition of free speech, no matter how cruel, as long as they're not advocating violence agains that person.

[Kulaf]

But the government is not asking him.....nor telling him he cannot put what he wants on the Blog. But there are consequenses to certain forms of speech. Libel and Slander being two non-protected forms of speech are not subject to 1st amendment protection.

[Partha]

Ok, first off? It's not slander. If it were anything, it would be libel. Check with any legal web site to figure out why that is. Thanks.

Secondly, it's not libel because she can't prove that her career has been hurt by an anonymous blog with a number of hits that low. She'd have to prove that she lost a job or took a pay cut as a result of being seen as a 'ho' by a sixth-rate free blog. You MUST prove injury to get a judgment in your favor, unlike what Embar is throwing out there as his fantasy.

That all said, I'm not surprised at someone who approved of Free Speech Zones being fine with government controlling the opinions of it's people. Makes that whole 'I'm a LIbertarian and I'm OK!' shtick look even more ridiculous than usual, though.

[Kulaf]

Ok first off.....and in the spirit of potential detante I will respectfully point out the two quotes where I am directly refering to her case and use the term libel.

That cleared up you cannot say she cannot "prove" something by denying her access to the venue in which she can prove it. If you deny her the right to bring suit against the anonymous blogger then you deny her the right to prove her libel claim.

And finally I will again state that his is not a 1st amendment issue because the government is not involved in any way in attempting to deny his ability to put content on his blog. He just must face the potential consequences of posting libelous content. Ohh and as an asside.....I consider myself on Independent......not a Libertarian.

[Lurker]

Partha,
I don't know how you are making such an absolute statement that she can't prove damage. As I said the other day, you can't possibly know that. This might be a board first and last, but I actually agree with Kulaf.

[Kulaf]

Funny how cogent I can be when I just leave all the personal stuff out of my posts. Normally that would have been twice as long as mostly dealing with Partha.

[Select]

I think the media is making a deal out of 'ho' and 'skank'. I think the website also had things like she was willing to accept cash for oral/sex. Portraying her as actually willing to take money for sexual favors could be more damaging than name calling.

Edit:

"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."

Well, the article doesn't say if the blog said she'd take money. But the above suggests it.