August 20, 2009

NY- Google Forced to Reveal Identity of Offensive Blogger

223 Comments when I read this!

8-20-2009 New York:

Liskula Cohen is a Canadian-born model, best known for her appearances in fashion magazines such as Vogue, Elle, and Cleo. When she discovered that a blog called Skanks in NYC, hosted on Google’s Blogger, had been referring to her as “skank” and “old hag,” she decided to press Google (Google) to reveal the identity of the blogger through court, and the court has now decided in her favor.

One quote is enough to show the nature of the blog: “How old is this skank? 40 something? She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.” However, the blogger’s lawyer argued that these comments are his opinions and hyperbole – trash talk, if you will – but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden decided that “the thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman,” and that Cohen is entitled to sue the blogger for defamation.

This also means that Google will have to reveal the identity of the blogger in question; an important move that will set a precedent for future cases such as this one. The blogger in question has, without a doubt, been very offensive towards Cohen, as can be seen in the above quote. However, as we all know, the internet is full of offensive comments and broad negative statements of all kinds.

On the upside, this decision will make people think twice about posting offensive posts and comments about someone, as they’re no longer protected by a shroud of anonymity. On the other hand, it might trigger a flood of similar lawsuits, perhaps for trivial reasons, which can in turn have serious implications on everyone’s online privacy.

What do you think? Was Judge Madden’s decision the right one? Please voice your opinion in the comments. ..Source.. by Stan Schroeder

1 comment:

Legal Eagle said...

This also means that Google will have to reveal the identity of the blogger in question

This is actually not news and has happened before in other cases. The news writer simply didn't research the precedent. When you're online, you're not anonymous, and a subpoena can find its way to you if you engage in the wrong kind of behavior. By referring to the woman as "lying" and "whoring," the blogger went beyond the realm of opinion and was alleging facts. That's defamation territory if the facts are false.