Author of 'Skank' Blog to Sue Google for $15 M

[belardo]

The skank should have gotten over herself. Whoopie... someone called her a name on the internet. She shouldn't even walk out of her house if she's so sensitive.

What about the Perez Hiltons blog? He makes money and doesn't get sued by making parody and downright insulting remarks to everyone in Hollywood.

If people are going to be suing each other for comments on blogs... thats the end blogs, comments, feedback etc.

The whole thing is BS. A nobody with a tiny page and another has-been never-heard of model are both wasting the the court system.

The court had no merit to bother with this and FORCE Google to locate this girl.

And the model... cry baby... snif snif... and she caaaaaaaalled me a name, mommy!

 

[vertigo_2000]

People have got to realize that just because you HAVE an opinion does not mean you should VOICE your opinion. I'm not an expert, but anonymity and the internet do not go hand-in-hand unless you know how to route your blog through different ISP's. If your IP address is static, someone can find you.

I would think any judge in his right mind would throw this one out as being frivolous (sp?).

Besides, the article specifically says, "Cohen has since said she will not go ahead with her planned defamation suit against Port."

 

[mowston]

As much as I dislike it, it seems smart for her to sue Google. Why? Because the first "skank" post and subsequent exposure brought her stupid blog numerous hits, and suing Google will get her even more. She is just doing this for more publicity. If Google had a court order to give over the info, then she has no case.

Her skanky friend and her may have just cooked this whole thing to draw publicity to themselves...

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]winterlord[/nom]Skank[/citation]

LOL! +1

 

[bison88]

This girl is retarded, if she was smart its called surf the internet with a proxy or the half dozen tools out there to conceal your identity better then hiding behind some websites EULA. I hope that actor in return sues her again. This is why this country is going down the crapper.

 

[gmcboot]

Sorry folks. As childish and silly as this all is, she does have a right to call the woman a Skank. She can do so anonymously. You do realize that our freedom of speech is based upon being able to says something ANONYMOUSLY without the government forcing the a media outlet to release your name. Without it we would still be a colony of England. It was the only way information at that time to could distributed without your head being chopped off.. or did they hang you.

She called the woman a skank. Ok. Childish yes. But it did not hurt her career. No one saw this blog and said, She's a Skank, you cannot put here in my dress! Yeah she called her a whore. Well that too is childish, but no one thought she was really a "whore" whore. So there is no damage for a libel suit. That's the reason her lawyer dropped it. He had no chance of winning.

The issue here isn't this stupid blog, but the ability to speak out anonymously. So many of us think that this is about someone saying something bad about you on facebook, when in truth it is about the ability to speak your opinions without the government or SKANK models being able to sue you for calling them a Skank. Forget about the Skank model, think about this in political or religous terms. Shouldn't we be able to call a politician an flaming idiot without worrying about Sarah Palin suing us.

Should she sue Google, no. Google was forced by the LAW to release the name. What Google should have done is appeal that ruling. It wouldn't have cost them that much AND it would have gotten them better publicity. Both parties in this are idiots. The issue isn't about the idiot or skank, but about the repercussions for this stupid little fight.

 

[nonxcarbonx]

On one hand, the blogger should have the right to post inflammatory comments, but I don't think that is what the case is about. If I understand correctly, it seems the blogger is mad because she set up a blog and then people actually started viewing it.

 

[Guest]

This is probably my 3rd or 4th post ever but this must be said.
Whether google or the courts or what/whoever is liable, remember, when you post a comment or picture or whatever, it will always be on a server somewhere where some government/media agency can get it. This also includes facebook, twitter, and cell phone text messages. It will be on a server forever. Just look at the Detroit Mayor getting nailed using text messages, or how Ben Roethlisberger (Steelers QB) will be cleared because they were able to get the alleged victims 2 year old text messages last week. The point is, do not post,text,etc unless it is generic, because any negative thing will be found out and if needed used against you. The internet is a big area, and posting something will find an audience bigger than most newspaper circulations, this in itself lends to outing the poster, as a newspaper will be held liable for its content since it is not anonymous, and a slanderous posting is not like writing on a bathroom wall but like buying a personal ad in the NY Times.

 

[a-nano-moose]

she probably has sex in her front yard and then anyone who sees her she claims is a peeping tom.

 

[lowguppy]

Google has an obligation to protect her "expectation of anonymity"? Is that seriously how they're wording it?

 

[eyemaster]

[citation][nom]Cloned[/nom]Google only revealed her identity becaused they were forced to by a court ordered subpeona. She has no case against Google since they were following the court order and she can't sue the court. This will take google's lawyers 30sec to get dismissed.[/citation]

All this time making her blog more popular... ugh!

 

[B-Unit]

No, no, and no gmcboot. Free speech makes no provisions for anonymity, and only applies to the government controlling what is said. There is no protection from an individual suing you.

 

[homerhellboy223]

[citation][nom]a-nano-moose[/nom]she probably has sex in her front yard and then anyone who sees her she claims is a peeping tom.[/citation]

Rofl a-nano-moose for president!

 

[harlequin6791]

[citation][nom]ssalim[/nom]15 Mil? what a comedy.You (Port) posted a defamatory comment -ONLINE BLOG- (does not matter if it's a second or a nano second). Hello? Blog = privacy? Online = privacy? ...Um, do you have a problem with 1+1=2?Imo, there is a special place in hell for lawyers.[/citation]

I'm sorry but cyber bullying one of the stupidest concepts and restrictive laws that's ever been conceived. People are such whiney wusses these days. Yes I know why it was created in the aftermath of a girls death. However no offense to the girl or the family people need to learn how to react to criticism and hurtful comments in other ways than violence and suicide.

It is in a sense a reduction of your freedom of speech to say someone is a "skank" or what not. However I think it's insane to sue them in retaliation to mere words. Grow a spine, get some self confidence. Does it really matter what this insecure blogger had to say, not to mention what if her target truly was a skank. She may have saved countless men and women std tests.

Basically I agree that the although what the blogger wrote was hurtful and spiteful, the target was the one that escalated it to a media frenzy. It was the target that cried poor me and drew more attention to it than it would have ever deserved. As if she was the singled out from the entire population of the world as being called a 'skank." In return she's trying to stifle someones sole freedom of speech because the bottom line is, she doesn't agree with it.

God help us all if this becomes the norm where you are sued merely because someone doesn't agree with you or your opinions. Hell I should sue the person I quoted if that was the case.

 

[chuckdalton]

I'm all about freedom of speech, but you should have the balls to say who you are. Hiding behind the internet to say nasty things about people is not very brave. If you don't have the guts to say something in someone's face then you shouldn't say it period. Google shouldn't be sued over that, there was a court order for them to reveal the identity.

 

[harlequin6791]

However apparently I quote the wrong person LOL..

 

[harlequin6791]

I agree google shouldn't be sued, they were doing what was requested of them. But the whole incident that lead to that moment was insanely stupid on both of the women's part.

 

[deltatux]

doesn't the US have a law that states that yes, opinions are free as long as they aren't a harassment or slander?

 

[dreamphantom_1977]

It's all in the word blog.

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

A blog is basically an online diary that people can read. It's your personal thoughts being written online for people to see.

You should be able to say or write whatever you want, hence freedom of speech, and it's meant for others to see.

You have the right to say whatever you want, i might not believe in it, but i'll stand by your right to say it...

I understand the law they created to protect children from cyber bullying. I understand why they created it. TO PROTECT CHILDREN.
(which by the way shouldn't be on the internet anyways without parents supervision).

What I don't understand is why anyone could be sued for calling someone a skank on there own blog. Anyone ever read the enquirer? I've never heard of this chick before, but being called a "skank" is part of being in the public eye. Im sure there are a million people out there who already called her a "Skank" before he did. As with anything on the internet, it's up to the person reading it to form there own opinions. If you don't want to see that $#!+ then stay off the internet. It's in human nature to judge other people. If your not mature enough to handle it then you shouldn't be in the public eye let alone on the internet.

Thats just my opinion though...

 

[bunz_of_steel]

You ppl that think she is wasting time or that THG is erroneous with this article are STUPID! How naive can someone be? If you can get sued for a "blog" ?? what do you think that implies with the rest of our free world? Ever hear of the first amendment? It does protect others from the harm of untruths or slander but in a blog? wow. Judge should have thrown this out and would have if it was me or you bad mouthing our neighbors or ex...