Talk about a "chilling effect." If intrepid Internet patriots are denied the anonymity from which we type anything we want about anyone who deserves abuse, what will become of discourse? How will the world know who the "Skanks in NYC" are, or how crazed the right-wing is? Our Constitution is being DISMANTLED before our eyes & we aren't doing anything about it! Where's that watering can?A Vogue cover girl has won a precedent-setting court battle to unmask an anonymous blogger who called her a “skank” on the internet.
In a case with potentially far-reaching repercussions, Liskula Cohen sought the identity of the blogger who maligned her on the Skanks in NYC blog so that she could sue him or her for defamation.
10 comments:
I've been called a lot worse on the internet.
Where's my lawyer?
~
I've been called:
an extremist (dissed Bill O'Rielly)
a Liar (said that a triple heart bypass would be free in NZ)
a bully ( as a moderator asked people to be polite to each other)
and most worstly an Australian!!!11one.
Hello is that Danny Crane? I have a case you might be interested in...
Affronted Editor Types:
Hokey Smokes, they confused you w/ Another Emu? The fucking nerve. That really calls for a duel, not an an attorney or barrister.
We really must get out more, as no one's hurt our feelings on the Internet or anywhere else for quite some time.
We really must get out more...
Noun
* S: (n) agoraphobia (a morbid fear of open spaces (as fear of being caught alone in some public place))
~
DSM-IV(R) Editor Notes:
From the Greek: agora (marketplace) + phobia (fear); fear of the marketplace.
We're afraid if we go outside, we'll become a consumer. Or have to talk to someone.
That's setting a scary precedent for all bloggers.
Scandal Editor Notes:
No sheet. We're almost nervous ourselves, but we're not sure that politicians, as public figures, can do much to scum like us.
We will probably be nicer to models from now on though.
Did she sue over nothing more than being called an old hag?
And Google capitulated to that?
It seems like there ought to be at least death threats involved before revealing someone's identity.
What a rotten precedent.
Old Hag Editor Thinks:
Well, for a model (Ms. Cohen, not us, as if we needed to make that clear) we'd have to suppose this sort of thing might interfere w/ one's livelihood. Sort of. (Especially the "40-something." Older people like us are becoming very sensitive about that sort of thing.)
The lessons for Internet smarty-pantses like ourself is to pick one's targets carefully, we figure.
We'll draw the legal action line at credible threats of physical harm, though one would probably have to uncover the threatener's identity to determine credibility. Catch-22.
It seems some cowardly people believe that anonymity of the Internet gives them a license to smear and slander people. I doubt very much that's what the writers of the First Amendment had in mind.
However, when one makes a derogatory comment all they have to do in court is prove that what they said is true. If they can't, then they should get what they deserve.
Post a Comment