At last. Someone is standing up to the anonymous web trolls

Article here

A law suit filed last week in New York has threatened to hold some of the internet's more unpleasant denizens to account: a rare example of old media rules starting to be applied online.

The heroine of the tale is Carla Franklin, a former model and graduate of Columbia Business School. She is taking Google to court over anonymous comments that called her a "whore" on the firm's YouTube website.

Good night. Another blatant media push for the destruction of net anonymity. For some 'model' who someone called a whore. I would allow net anonymity for anyone. Freedom of speech forever, for me, for my enemies, for everyone. If this lady can set the precedent to sue over bad mouthing online, I'd wager about 2/3rds of the online community could start creating lawsuits. Get real...!



IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

[edit on Sat Aug 21 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by againuntodust]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by againuntodust]

Unless that loop hole is fixed that little gash is going to turn into a flood of lawsuits.
I'm actually a little surprised about the fact that the model felt upset being called a 'whore'. Aren't models supposed to have or grow a thick skin considering their line of work? I mean, dang.

I mean, Youtube comment section is the worst collection of scum and villainy in the galaxy. And I don't mean that in the good way Star Wars does.

Also, if Paris Hilton needed the money, she'd be getting so much money with this little trick.

On a sober note, I really hope this is not another building block in the removal of net neutrality.

my thoughts...

she is a model, shes used to being called beautiful every 30 seconds of the day. shes used to having everyone look at her when she enters the room. she is a princess and this lawsuit proves she has that mindset.

if i get called a fag, or a #, or an asshole, or anything else online...who cares? hell i dont even care if someone says that on xboxlive when its a real person saying it to you.

shes just a prissy little princess, this should be thrown out.

teacher! teacher! so and so called me a bad name.... pout pout pout.

reply to post by againuntodust


I laughed when I read the whore part lol..

I wonder who it was

Where'd the link go? Guardian perhaps?


Do copyright laws apply to Internet writings? If so, so should others that apply to written text.
If the comments are untrue, she has a potential libel case.

Another nail in the coffin of freedom of speech.

If you say anything that offends anyone that is not in public
office they can sue you into oblivion.

If you can prove what you said thou then the case should be dropped.

I hope the person calling her that has evidence and manages
to prove the case, then she would look pretty bad.

He can prolly use Lexispy which is a weaker version of what
our government uses to listen to all our phones.

www.flexispy.com...

I don't agree with it, but it is there.

reply to post by abecedarian


Thanks. I think I malformed the HTML by including apostrophes or something. The link should work now... Sorry about that.

Oh Noes! Your online avatar said something mean to my online avatar! Bwaaaa!

Grow up. Grow a hangnail. Grow a pair. Grow a brain.

Hmmm I'm in two minds about this, I think the case mentioned is clearly silly, and getting upset that some random person called you a whore on the Internet is just silly and a waste of court time.

However I do think that some kind of law has to be applied to what can be published on the Internet.

Let me present an example and see what you guys think.

You start a small business that is trying to manufacture a new Diet Soda (lets for the sake of it call it Super Cola). Your new brand really starts to take off, people love the taste and can't get enough of it. Sales start to rocket and for the first time in your life you have some money in your pocket and things are going great..

The established brand in the market then starts to notice your presence, your once insignificant brand is now starting to make a dent in their profit margin so they decide to start an Internet campaign against you, hiring a dozen or so people to post on every forum, newsgroup, youtube etc etc that Super Cola contains dangerous amount of carcinogenic ingredients and will give you cancer.

Eventually the rumor takes hold in the public consciousness and people really start to believe it, suddenly no one is buying Super Cole anymore, you end up broke and living on a Park Bench.

Do you not think that Super Cola should have some legal recourse (like they do in any other form of media) to stop someone spreading lies about them?

These laws already exist in traditional media i.e slander and defamation, what makes you think that they shouldn't apply to the Internet?


[edit on 21-8-2010 by davespanners]

Originally posted by davespanners ... The established brand in the market then starts to notice your presence, your once insignificant brand is now starting to make a dent in their profit margin so they decide to start an Internet campaign against you, hiring a dozen or so people to post on every forum, newsgroup, youtube etc etc that Super Cola contains dangerous amount of carcinogenic ingredients and will give you cancer. ...

I can think of two ways your example is different -- a total of three ways existing law could protect you already in this case:

(1) It's libel. They don't have evidence that what you say is correct, and it's commercially damaging.

(2) It's a conspiracy.

(3) It's a combination in restraint of trade.

#1 could apply here. Is she a whore? Does being called a whore damage her career? If she's not a whore, then maybe she can collect on that basis.

If she's a public person, then truth is a defense, i.e. you can call her a whore if she actually is one. If she's not considered a public person, I don't even think that is necessarily true. I'm not a lawyer but an organization I'm associated with was recently sued (wrongly) for defamation for big bucks, so I have some recollection of this stuff.

reply to post by oniongrass


I agree absolutely with your post, however there is also a law that prohibits someone from calling someone else a whore in traditional media called defamation of character, so why shouldn't that existing law be applied just because the comment was on the Internet rather then in a newspaper?

Also if you have true net anonymity as the OP seems to want then how could you possible prove something is a conspiracy if you can never find out who posted something?

Edited to add that I am working from my understanding of UK law and have no idea if it applies in the USA

[edit on 21-8-2010 by davespanners]

If I did something illegal online, laws already exist to make it possible to find out who I am and where I live.

What I find disturbing is that the media keeps pushing to dissolve net anonymity. They want you to log on as your real life name, and everything you do online will be linked to your real life self. No anonymity. Google wants this.

I know Google will give this woman 'justice' because Google wants to dissolve net anonymity. I wonder if Google is even paying her to file the lawsuit, to establish some kind of precedent in the courts.

I'm all for someone doing something illegal being held accountable, but I don't think media laws should apply to the internet unless the website in question is a media website like NYTIMES or WASHINGTON POST or something. I liken forums, comments and blogs more to conversation than I do to media. If I call someone a whore in conversation, that's my right, it's my opinion.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by againuntodust]

"It's hard not to cheer Franklin's cause" ~ Paul Harris for The Guardian

"I hope the court laughs in her face, flips her the bird, calls her fat, and makes her pay the court costs" ~ Fellow BBC journalist whom shall remain, you guessed it, anonymous

I seriously cannot tell which is funnier, the fact that this former-model filed this obviously frivolous lawsuit or the Guardian for such a backside-kissing article that makes me wonder how much Mr. Harris got made fun of as a child.

What a joke.