Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler

Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler

edition.cnn.com

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."

Google must ha

(visit the link for the full news article)

Holy precedences Batman!

WHAT??????

So do you know how many of us here on ATS could be sued too?

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.

Well this can't be good
The freedom of the web is about to go down.

Wouldn't it rather be better of google had mods of some sort?

She warned that Monday's ruling has "potentially damaging implications for free speech on the Internet."

Ya you could say that again!

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

See the issue is, if a newspaper printed it , it would be defamation of character. Its most certainly a slippery slope. and to be honest, I do not think there is a fair solution.

Click here for more information.

By the way, I think she is a skank! Quote me on that.

reply to post by Roadblockx


More people read blogs than read newspapers. It;sone of the reasons so many pop culture magazine are in danger of going bankrupt. If the government wasn't trying to reign in and regulate blogs and internet content then I would agree with you. But this is plainly an assault on this woman's character with no proof and with malice of forethought on the part of this blogger. It is scary though that with this case and the others, it's going to be chilling to some when they post opinions online.

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

More people read blogs than read newspapers. It;sone of the reasons so many pop culture magazine are in danger of going bankrupt. If the government wasn't trying to reign in and regulate blogs and internet content then I would agree with you. But this is plainly an assault on this woman's character with no proof and with malice of forethought on the part of this blogger. It is scary though that with this case and the others, it's going to be chilling to some when they post opinions online.

Zindo

So we have to punish a "blogger" who is having a discussion and stating his/her opinion because no one reads newspapers or magazines? Seriously?? That is the defense you are comfortable with? Come on, you are much smarter then that.



Sorry. I don't buy it. I'm stating for a fact that I don't even know this idiot chick. I don't have to. I have the RIGHT to my opinion and as long as you and everyone else know it is MY opinion, I am allowed to say it. When did we get the opinion police? Before or after the newspaper/magazine crash/failure? This blogger had no responsibility to prove his claims because he was using an online, opinion forum to express his opinions. He never stated them as fact, as seeing them firsthand, as a second hand witness, as having evidence, etc, etc, etc... His opinion.

Definition of a "blog" before you say anything else silly.

A blog (a contraction of the term "weblog")[1] is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

Definition of a "commentary".

1. A series of explanations or interpretations.
2. An expository treatise or series of annotations; an exegesis. Often used in the plural.
3. An apt explanation or illustration: a scandal that is a sad commentary on national politics.
4. A personal narrative; a memoir. Often used in the plural.

#4 pretty much proves my point. It is that guy's opinion of her and he is allowed to say it. He can't say that it is "FACTUAL" but he can express his opinion in his blog.

Understand this could apply if I could you a moron. You could then sue me. Think of the implications of this before you defend it. Before too long, you won't be able to say anything about der Leader without being disciplined. Sites like this will become non-existent. If you believe otherwise, you should modify your signature line.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply to post by Roadblockx


According to the law and not opinion, what this blogger did falls into the category of slander and defamation. You and I agree that this is a slippery slope and that she is not a hottie but, there is precedent and since this blogger has shown no proof of the opinions he may have about this ex-model he could be prosecuted and sued.

Defamation and slander

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

According to the law and not opinion, what this blogger did falls into the category of slander and defamation. You and I agree that this is a slippery slope and that she is not a hottie but, there is precedent and since this blogger has shown no proof of the opinions he may have about this ex-model he could be prosecuted and sued.

Defamation and slander

Zindo

You published exactly what I was looking for. Using your link, scroll down to the bottom as a defense:

Opinion: It is said that a person's mere opinion, as opposed to an allegation of fact, cannot give rise to an action for defamation. It is important to note, though, that a statement which superficially appears to be an opinion may nonetheless contain a sufficient factual element to support a defamation action. The content and context of the statement will typically be considered in determining if the statement is actionable. A statement by an employer to the effect of, "Joe Smith is a pathological liar" is far less likely to be regarded as a mere opinion than a statement by a casual acquaintance. A statement by Joe Smith's psychotherapist to that effect, while possibly also violating duties of confidentiality, appears to be a medical diagnosis and thus, if false, may also support an action for defamation. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation actions, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

You and I agree but not WHY he can say it. I believe he can and I will continue to prove that he can. It is his GD opinion mate. Opinion. He isn't her boss, employer, anyone that can alter her status as a model, impeed her ability to get a job, etc. Opinion. Not sure you can provide any proof otherwise. I'm not attacking you (I don't want to get sued, ) but your point. Again, this is only my opinion.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Click here for more information.

And it begins.

How/why is this article not getting any more views or posts? It goes back to my theory that if a thread doesn't come from a select few people or doesn't relate to 9/11, UFO's or BHO, no one gives it a second thought.

I appreciate you publishing this article and welcome more discussion on it.

Also, if anyone finds her email address or website, please let me know as I would like to send her a nice, caring, unhateful email.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Roadblockx]