Post by Racerchaser on Aug 20, 2009 13:35:15 GMT -5
EVERYONE THINKS THEY HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO FALL BACK BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS TRUE AND THEY ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR POSTINGS ACCORDING TO THIS.
updated 8:41 a.m. EDT, Wed August 19, 2009
Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler
NEW YORK (CNN) --
A model who was slammed with derogatory terms by an anonymous blogger has the right to learn the identity of her online heckler, a judge ruled.
In August 2008, a user of Blogger.com, Google's blogging service, created "Skanks in NYC," a site that assailed Liskula Cohen, 37, a Canadian-born onetime cover girl who has appeared in Vogue and other fashion magazines. The blog featured photos of Cohen captioned with terms including "psychotic," "ho," and "skank."
On Monday, New York Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that Google must hand over to Cohen any identifying information it possesses about the blog's creator.
Steven Wagner, Cohen's attorney, said Google complied with the ruling Tuesday evening, submitting to his legal team the creator's IP address and e-mail address. Only a valid e-mail address is required to register for a blog on Blogger.com.
Wagner said that once his legal team tracks the e-mail address to a name, the next step will be to sue Cohen's detractor for defamation. He said he suspected the creator of the blog is an acquaintance of Cohen.
The blog has not been operational for months.
The unidentified creator of the blog was represented in court by an attorney, Anne Salisbury, who said her client voluntarily took the blog down when Cohen initiated legal action against it.
Salisbury suggested that Cohen is more interested in attracting publicity than restoring her reputation. She contended her client's blog would have languished harmlessly in obscurity had Cohen not filed suit. The site had negligible traffic and only five posts on it, all written on a single day, she said.
In her ruling, the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line.
"The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions," the judge said, quoting the Virginia decision.
Cohen's attorney said he was "happy that the court recognizes that the Internet is not a place where people can freely defame people."
But the blogger's attorney strongly disputed the judge's reasoning. Salisbury asserted that her client's invective was not unusual for the Internet, and that hyperbolic online name-calling is so rampant -- "in comments sections, on Twitter, on blogs" as to practically be part of the Web's DNA.
She warned that Monday's ruling has "potentially damaging implications for free speech on the Internet."
After the ruling, a Google spokesman expressed sympathy for targets of Internet insult-slinging, but said the company divulges user information only when ordered to do so by a court.
"We sympathize with anyone who may be the victim of cyberbullying. We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order," Google's Andrew Pederson said.
* Story Highlights
* Judge orders Google to hand over blogger's identifying information to woman
* Blogger had anonymously slammed model Liskula Cohen
* Judge: Anonymous online taunters can be held accountable
* Cohen's legal team intends to sue the blogger
COMMENTS;
Now Google has to hand over the identity of the blogger so that Cohen can identify and sue that person for defamation. Whether she wins that or not, that’s for another judge to decide.
So, what are the lessons here?
First, for defamer. While defamatory laws (especially in the US) provide some means of protection for opinion, it often boils down to whether or not it’s portrayed as fact and if the general public will assume its a fact. If you go on the attack, you have to be sure the claims you are making are legitimate. You can’t just say “in my opinion” then reel off a laundry list of damaging statements.
Also, anonymity is coming to an end on the web. In my opinion, this is a good thing. I’ve seen too many companies have their reputation burned by an anonymous blogger–one that is just as likely to be a competitor fabricating lies, as a real customer. So, if you have plans to attack anyone’s reputation, don’t assume that you can do so in the safety of anonymity.
For the recipient. This could set an important precedent for using the legal system to weed out defamatory detractors. While this ruling is against Google, it is likely to become an important asset when asking any judge to force a web business to hand over the personal details of an anonymous detractor. If the most powerful internet company in the world can be forced to hand over the identity of a detractor, it stands to reason that any company can.
There are few times that I ever advise a client to take legal action, but blatant defamatory comments are certainly one of them. With this ruling–and if other judges follow suit–it will make it easier for businesses battling reputation issues. It’s one thing to stand-up and face legitimate criticisms of your business, but at least now there’s an option for exposing those that have less than genuine intentions.
The bottom line? I’ve spent the last half a decade touting the virtues of being Radically Transparent. It now looks like that transparency is going to be felt on both sides of the fence.
Copyright © Local Race Chat.com: Local Race Chat
__________________
__________________
updated 8:41 a.m. EDT, Wed August 19, 2009
Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler
NEW YORK (CNN) --
A model who was slammed with derogatory terms by an anonymous blogger has the right to learn the identity of her online heckler, a judge ruled.
In August 2008, a user of Blogger.com, Google's blogging service, created "Skanks in NYC," a site that assailed Liskula Cohen, 37, a Canadian-born onetime cover girl who has appeared in Vogue and other fashion magazines. The blog featured photos of Cohen captioned with terms including "psychotic," "ho," and "skank."
On Monday, New York Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that Google must hand over to Cohen any identifying information it possesses about the blog's creator.
Steven Wagner, Cohen's attorney, said Google complied with the ruling Tuesday evening, submitting to his legal team the creator's IP address and e-mail address. Only a valid e-mail address is required to register for a blog on Blogger.com.
Wagner said that once his legal team tracks the e-mail address to a name, the next step will be to sue Cohen's detractor for defamation. He said he suspected the creator of the blog is an acquaintance of Cohen.
The blog has not been operational for months.
The unidentified creator of the blog was represented in court by an attorney, Anne Salisbury, who said her client voluntarily took the blog down when Cohen initiated legal action against it.
Salisbury suggested that Cohen is more interested in attracting publicity than restoring her reputation. She contended her client's blog would have languished harmlessly in obscurity had Cohen not filed suit. The site had negligible traffic and only five posts on it, all written on a single day, she said.
In her ruling, the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line.
"The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions," the judge said, quoting the Virginia decision.
Cohen's attorney said he was "happy that the court recognizes that the Internet is not a place where people can freely defame people."
But the blogger's attorney strongly disputed the judge's reasoning. Salisbury asserted that her client's invective was not unusual for the Internet, and that hyperbolic online name-calling is so rampant -- "in comments sections, on Twitter, on blogs" as to practically be part of the Web's DNA.
She warned that Monday's ruling has "potentially damaging implications for free speech on the Internet."
After the ruling, a Google spokesman expressed sympathy for targets of Internet insult-slinging, but said the company divulges user information only when ordered to do so by a court.
"We sympathize with anyone who may be the victim of cyberbullying. We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order," Google's Andrew Pederson said.
* Story Highlights
* Judge orders Google to hand over blogger's identifying information to woman
* Blogger had anonymously slammed model Liskula Cohen
* Judge: Anonymous online taunters can be held accountable
* Cohen's legal team intends to sue the blogger
COMMENTS;
Now Google has to hand over the identity of the blogger so that Cohen can identify and sue that person for defamation. Whether she wins that or not, that’s for another judge to decide.
So, what are the lessons here?
First, for defamer. While defamatory laws (especially in the US) provide some means of protection for opinion, it often boils down to whether or not it’s portrayed as fact and if the general public will assume its a fact. If you go on the attack, you have to be sure the claims you are making are legitimate. You can’t just say “in my opinion” then reel off a laundry list of damaging statements.
Also, anonymity is coming to an end on the web. In my opinion, this is a good thing. I’ve seen too many companies have their reputation burned by an anonymous blogger–one that is just as likely to be a competitor fabricating lies, as a real customer. So, if you have plans to attack anyone’s reputation, don’t assume that you can do so in the safety of anonymity.
For the recipient. This could set an important precedent for using the legal system to weed out defamatory detractors. While this ruling is against Google, it is likely to become an important asset when asking any judge to force a web business to hand over the personal details of an anonymous detractor. If the most powerful internet company in the world can be forced to hand over the identity of a detractor, it stands to reason that any company can.
There are few times that I ever advise a client to take legal action, but blatant defamatory comments are certainly one of them. With this ruling–and if other judges follow suit–it will make it easier for businesses battling reputation issues. It’s one thing to stand-up and face legitimate criticisms of your business, but at least now there’s an option for exposing those that have less than genuine intentions.
The bottom line? I’ve spent the last half a decade touting the virtues of being Radically Transparent. It now looks like that transparency is going to be felt on both sides of the fence.
Copyright © Local Race Chat.com: Local Race Chat
__________________
__________________
When words fail....Action speaks..When Action fails..Eyes speak....
When Eyes fail....Tears speak....And when everything else fails..
SILENCE IS GOLDEN....
When Eyes fail....Tears speak....And when everything else fails..
SILENCE IS GOLDEN....
