Judge Orders Google to Reveal Identity of Anonymous Blogger
On Monday, a Manhattan judge rules that a blogger cannot hide behind a web of anonymity while flinging insults at another individual. The ruling orders Google to turn over the identity of an anonymous blogger who devoted an entire blog entitled "Skanks in NYC" to defame model Liskula Cohen.
Once Ms. Cohen learns the identity of her online attacker, which may happen as early as today, she can then serve the blogger with a defamation lawsuit.
The blog in question was set up through Google's blogging platform, Blogger.com, last yar. It included fashion shots of Cohen with disparaging captions using the words "ho", "whoring", and "skank."
The blogger had argued that these remarks were "non-actionable opinion and/or hyperbole" in an attempt to remain anonymous.
Cohen, 27, said yesterday::
"I really hope it's not somebody I know. I'm a human being. I bleed. I have feelings. When I saw that blog, it was awful. All I can say for this person is, I really truly hope that they have more in their life than this."
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden wrote in her decision:
"The thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman. That included references to Cohen as "whoring" and "ready to engage in oral sexual activity."
The judge ruled that as such, she is entitled in insist in a defamation lawsuit that the blogger's statements are false and damaging, and that Google has to provide her with the name of the blogger in order to do so.
Cohen's lawyer, Steven Wagner, hopes the decision sends a message to those who would use the anonymity of the Internet for defamations
"The rules for defamation on the Web -- for actual reality as well as virtual reality -- are the same. The Internet is not a free-for-all."
A lawyer for the blogger warned, however, that a real free-for-all will occur in the court system if everyone who has ever been insulted online decides to take their complaint before a judge:
"The floodgates would be opened if you tried to regulate these very broad, common insults and invective on the Internet. You can be really, really mean to people -- you just can't lie about a set of facts that are provable as lies, and that you knew or recklessly disregarded the truth of," said Anne Salisbury.
Comments
It is vital that the establishment of anonymous free discourse be safeguarded as a fundamental aspect of the checks and balances in our social order to divulge unscrupulous deeds carried out in obscurity to the full light of day. Free speech might also be ill-used for wicked internet defamation attacks. The public's worth from freedom of expression is clearly for the best, especially in in a situation that demands clear civic attention such as sexual predators and other unsavory characters. This price must never be demanded of an impeccant individual or entity, examples such as this demonstrates an unambiguous example of unlawful expression and may be open to civil and just solutions with legal action, & in many jurisdictions, including seventeen states in the USA, criminal prosecution.
But, fallacious rumors and denigratory nasty grams are over and over again distributed by cloaked bad guys. To them, hurting others is fun; they are essentially driven by the pain they inflict; a tortured soul's anguish is their twisted reward, the clinical term is "narcissistic supply". Normal individuals like ninety five percent of those reading this article can't imagine how these individuals think.
This wretched social challenge has demonstrated exponential growth within the preceding decade in the form of anonymous cyber libel. In instances in which authorities have issued orders directing that anonymous blogspot.com users can be revealed for all to see, these orders are regularly followed by protests by a small yet rambunctious cluster of rabid people that think that freedom of expression should be unconditional and that a talker or author is not to be stood to account for his or her words, without consideration as to accuracy or deceptiveness of the speech. Many assume that should these same protesting people were to live through the devastating effects that a cyber bullying attack causes to the vocational, emotional, physical, & social well-being of targets or their loved ones; they wouldn't be as outspoken in their protests.
Imagine if you will a grazier who has had all of his livestock killed, equipment and fields set ablaze by an enemy; the devastating consequence on his or her sustenance is a no brainer. This can be likened to a a consultant, fashion model, psychologist, banker, or board member who depends on his or her reputation to find new customers, and for that matter continue with current clients, could be as totally destroyed as the farmer described above as a result of an effective cyber vilification attack. The distinction being that the the public, law enforcement, the courts and jurors can more easily relate to the significance of the farmer’s catastrophe.
An inherent flaw of anonymous online e-slander is that credibility is reduced if critically considered by clever and objective observers. Nevertheless, there is a newfangled dynamic with the quandary of nasty & anonymous internet authors. Although the assertions could be clearly unfounded, if the victim is to be considered for employment, consulting applications, babysitting work or a prom partner, the person carrying out the references will probably factor in the likely public relations exposure from associating with the victim. While the potential employer can probably see through the vitriol, the decision maker will probably wonder about what their customers and partners will imagine if they are not as clever & open-minded.
Regards, Michael of Rexxfield