Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.
OK, it’s not without its humor. The blogger in question called the plaintiff a “skank.”
http://www.mediabistro.com/bay…
Cohen had asked Google for the information, so she could sue the author for defamation. Google had refused, citing the company’s privacy policy (though it did take down the blog). Cohen’s attorney’s brought the matter to court. On Monday, a New York Supreme Court justice batted down the anonymous blogger’s contention that the bons mot were mere opinion and instead, according to the Guardian (UK), “found Cohen may insist in a suit that the statements are factually inaccurate.”
But the legal issue is damn serious.
As Cohen’s attorney Steve Wagner told Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America today, the judge “balanced the first amendment rights with the rights of people to be protected from harmful, defamatory speech. It’s sending out a message that the Internet is no longer a safe harbor for defamatory language.”
Wrong! The First Amendment does NOT create protection from any form of speech. This ruling is completely, ludicrously wrong, and shame on Google for not appealing and fighting to protect Internet posters everywhere.
REPEAT: SHAME ON GOOGLE. I’d be mad too, and any judge can make a mistake, but Google has an army of lawyers at its disposal. Surely someone saw the risks involved here.
Or at least I don’t think it’s as simple as you make it sound. I read nothing in the first amendment to absolutely guarantee anonymity and I think libel/slander laws should apply. If I were being defamed I’d want to know whom to sue, or at least the law should provide that if Internet platforms insist on privacy then they take on the legal burden of the speech themselves. In other words, if Google doesn’t want to release the name of the defamer then Google itself should be the defendant in a defamation suit.
Not a public figure. The standards are different.
This is a model, not an elected official (and I’m not convinced there should be a difference anyway). I do believe that truth is a defense, but this still sounds like defamation, unless the blogger has evidence that this woman has loose morals. Sorry, but I agree with the judge here – hand it over!
To have it noticed that she was insulted. She’s described at the link as a “Vogue cover model.”
<
p>The principle is simple: Public figures have more means to respond to such criticism. In this case, she had the money to sue.
<
p>Should David, Bob, and Charley reveal your last name to a politician who asks? I think not.
You says she has resources, citing the money to sue, but if that is going to do any good she has to know whom to sue, unless again, the host site is willing to take on the role of defendant. As for the last point it probably wouldn’t bother me. I’m not in the business of defaming people and if I were I should be man enough to take the consequences.
The blogger called the woman a “skank.” Vogue put her on the cover. In the marketplace of ideas, who has the power here? In other words, what possible harm could the blog do?
<
p>Rights are supposed to protect the powerless from the powerful, and Google — once it entered the publishing business with Blogger — is supposed to uphold those rights.
The same harm any medium could do in terms of reputation, which people (even the most powerful, talented, famous, wealthy, etc.) have a right to protect. Truth, or at least a reasonable and good faith pursuit thereof, is certainly a defense. Also, I’m not convinced this particular case necessarily has merit, but we can’t know without litigating. If Google insists on having that policy, then the model can sue them since Google is basically taking responsibility. Same goes for media using anonymous sources; either reveal the source or the responsibility falls on you since by granting anonymity you’re basically substituting your own credibility for that of the unnamed source. Guess we just philosophically disagree; we’ll have to wait for SCOTUS to sort this out, but at the moment the decision of record appears to be on my side.
cannot sue Google. I suppose she could try.
<
p>Do I like what she did? Of course not — but it’s always the jerks that have to be defended in cases like this.
<
p>Incidentally, I wouldn’t get too comfortable with one decision by a lower court. Even Justice Sotomayor had a couple of cases overturned.
<
p>
I’m saying the model should preferably be able to sue her slanderer and if Google won’t turn over the information, then she should sue Google, since by protecting the blogger they are substituting their credibility for his.
<
p>Point taken about the lower court ruling, but until overturned that’s how it stands.
My understanding of the story is that this anonymous blogger set up the site specifically to disparage the model and didn’t just call her a “skank,” but repeatedly captioned pictures with all kinds of nastiness.
<
p>It wasn’t like it was one or two comments on a political blog.
<
p>I don’t see how she can prove defamation, but I also don’t see the instigator as being entitled to anonymity. His/her identity is not the free-speech issue. Once you log on to and agree to the terms of someone else’s server (in this case Google) you are giving up any presumption of anonymity.
MichaelMooreWatch or whatever it’s called?
<
p>Shouldn’t that site enjoy First Amendment protection?
I’m not familiar with MichaelMooreWatch, so I’m not sure how it is relevant, but I guess I’m missing your overall point. Are you saying this is an issue of Freedom of Speech or an issue of Freedom of the Press?
<
p>Either way, I don’t think this person’s identity is or ought to be protected. His comments could be construed as Free Spech, I don’t know what he said, but there is no guarantee to anonymity, especially when you’re logged on to someone else’s website.
I am not arguing that Google is legally bound. However, once they start a site called Blogger, they are its publisher. So, as a publisher, they should feel an obligation to support free speech. Once they allow the anonymity, they cannot then disallow it on a whim.
<
p>All our rights as writers/bloggers/whatever are in jeopardy.
The Blogger Terms-of-Service are clear in what kind of content is not allowed and it seems to me this person’s site would violate the prohibition of “Hateful Speech.” Likewise the terms of service note that Google may “disclose personal information” in order to comply with a legal request.
<
p>In agreeing to the Terms of Service, he relinquishes any expectation of anonymity. I don’t see this as a free press issue.
<
p>I’ll say it again- his words may very well be protected as free speech, but I don’t believe his identity should be.
… can read lawyers Kathy Sullivan and Paul Twomey (good Democratic warriors both) schooling me here.
<
p>You’ll also note at the bottom that I’m unconvinced and unrepentant. Shame on Google!
..but the decision was right.
<
p>There is no ‘balancing’ as implied, and free speech is a right. And truth is a defense against slander (IS she a skank?).
<
p>That said – the model DOES have a right to sue and defend herself, and needs to know where to deliver the subpoena. A jury can decide if the statements are libel.
But I still think Google let us down. As described, it sounds like they barely thought about it at all.