8-23-2009 New York:
VICTIMS EYEING REVENGE AFTER 'SKANK' RULING
Slammers, prepare to get dunked.
After a Manhattan judge ordered Google to identify the anonymous blogger who called a model a "skank" and a "ho," other victims of 'Net slurs now hope to see their tormenters exposed.
"The attention that has been given to this case will allow other people who are the victims of anonymous online attacks to fight back," said Evan Brown, a Chicago intellectual-property lawyer.
Steven Wagner, the lawyer for model Liskula Cohen, said his office has been overwhelmed by angry calls since Manhattan State Court Justice Joan Madden ruled that Google had to disclose the registration information for the blogger, Rosemary Port, because she was writing defamatory material about his client.
One man who called Wagner claimed he had lost his job because he had been labeled a sex offender. Another said he had been forced out of a business deal because a Web commenter accused him of unsavory business practices.
George Spodak, the former mayor of Manalapan, NJ, was elated at the judge's decision.
"She's telling it like it is," he said.
Spodak, 69, has been labeled a pedophile, an alcoholic, a wife beater and a criminal by a group of unknown online enemies.
"I have proof that you're a pedophile, I have proof that you stole the recreation funds. I have proof that you beat both of your wives," an anonymous commenter wrote of him on a message board on NJ.com.
Spodak isn't taking it lying down. "They're not going to do this to me in the town that I love," he said. "You can't call someone a pedophile and then run and hide behind the First Amendment."
He sued a year ago and has subpoenaed NJ.com for the attackers' identities. NJ.com gave up the e-mail addresses but did not know their names. So Spodak is going after Google, AOL and Yahoo! for the IP address that corresponds to the e-mails.
If the Internet service providers don't voluntarily hand over the anonymous posters' IP addresses, Spodak's lawyer, Lawrence Kleiner, will request a court order, urging a judge to demand the names be made public.
A lawyer for Google said the company would provide information about a user only in response to a subpoena or court order.
"People seem to think there is a different morality on the Internet than in the real world," said San Francisco intellectual-property attorney Karl Kronenberger. "It's becoming less that way with decisions like these." ..Source.. by STEFANIE COHEN
August 23, 2009
NY- CYBER-SLIMERS BEWARE
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
