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

[tayb]

So... I guess you don't have the right to call someone a skank? Since when? In order to defame someone you have to "harm someone's reputation through slander or libel." Nothing this woman said was slander or libel and I seriously doubt it harmed Cohen's reputation. Calling Cohen a skank, while rude, is not defaming her.

Having said that, I'm not sure what the point of this lawsuit is or how she came up with the $15 million number. Is it just an automatic response in America to file a lawsuit when anything happens? While we are out fucking up the health care industry with 1,000 page bills that half of Congress isn't reading before voting can we pass some sort of overhaul to the law industry to put a damper on the lawsuits?

 

[Niva]

[citation][nom]gmcboot[/nom]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. [/citation]

She has the right to call her whatever, but she has no right to post her photos w/o permission. How would you feel if someone anonymously posted your photos online along with text indicating exactly who you are, what social circles you move in, and say private stuff about you? I'm all about freedom of speech but this lady needs a serious slap, I'm surprised the actress dismissed it so easily once her identity was known. She violated the other person's privacy, the posting of the photos is a threat in itself, and now she's suing? Arguably this woman (the one now attempting to take Google to court) is one of the dumbest people I've seen online. Talk about an epic fail on her part in every regard.

 

[Guest]

Hi every1.

I really don´t care about these 2, but In my country (Portugal) we have free speach but also that you have to prove you´re claims, well if she claims the other woman was a Skank (whata hell is a skank??, i´m gonna google it, hope i don´t get sued) well she´ll have to prove it (LOL), that is why that you are responsible for what you say

 

[RogueKitsune]

I has to suck to be Google. They get in trouble with the justice system for upholding their privacy policy, then when they give up the information because they had to, they get sued for breaking the contract thing.

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

No, it's not Google's fault! The judge ordered them to reveal her identity. Google went to court to protect her identity already!

She's an idiot!

 

[Guest]

To all the loonies bringing up the first amendment:

- Stop listening to Sarah Palin. The first amendment of the US constitution prohibits Congress (and based on Supreme courting rulings the judiciary and executive branch) from passing any laws that stifle/quash the citizen's right to speech, religion, etc. It does NOTHING to prevent ME from shutting YOU up when you start saying things about me that are not true, may be defamatory in any way shape or form, etc.

That being said, this idiot will have her 5 minutes of fame (not 15) and she'll find out that on the Internet nothing is private.

 

[tayb]

[citation][nom]SteveTravis[/nom]To all the loonies bringing up the first amendment: - Stop listening to Sarah Palin. The first amendment of the US constitution prohibits Congress (and based on Supreme courting rulings the judiciary and executive branch) from passing any laws that stifle/quash the citizen's right to speech, religion, etc. It does NOTHING to prevent ME from shutting YOU up when you start saying things about me that are not true, may be defamatory in any way shape or form, etc. That being said, this idiot will have her 5 minutes of fame (not 15) and she'll find out that on the Internet nothing is private.[/citation]

Nothing she said was defamatory. Calling someone a skank is not defamatory. It's rude but it is not defamatory. Telling lies is defamatory.

 

[gmcboot]

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.

Sure it does. I can send in a message to The Chicago Tribune stating the Sarah Palin is a red pump wearing moron and sign it "A REAL AMERICAN". Sarah Palin may not like it, but she should have no redress through the courts to sue me because I called her a moron (although I could prove it in court in about 15.7 seconds). The Chicago Tribune is not under any obligation to tell Sarah Palin who I am even if her red pump wearing a$$ is offended that I told the world she was a moron. Google should have been under no obligation to tell the Skank model either. Other than her feelings, she was not injured in any way. Hell if this was true then our President should be able to sue the other morons Glen Beck and that big fat idiot Rush Limbaugh for calling him a racist and a Nazi.

As to whether or not she could use the the skank models picture, the woman is a MODEL. M O D E L. Her picture is in the public domain. The only people who MIGHT be able to sue her is the fashion magazines she scanned the picture from for copyright infringement.

This isn't about someone being called a whore or skanked or a big fat idiot (although Rush Limbaugh is one.. to the 10th power), it about having the right to say it as long as it is not injurious. It didn't hurt the model, Sarah "Red Pumps" Palin, Glen "my IQ is smaller than my shoe size" Beck and finally Rush "where's my hillbilly heroin" Limbaugh.

In closing, did anyone think that maybe she could prove the model was a skank. Maybe she stole her boyfriend or something. That would be Skankish and or Skank like.

 

[Maxor127]

I don't know. I'm conflicted on this one. I'm leaning towards she's right to sue Google. Google should protect the personal information of its users, and I don't think a crime was committed by talking shit about someone in a blog. That's what 90% of blogs are used for.

 

[mowston]

According to this: http/www.eff.org/issues/anonymity the US Supreme Court has upheld anonymity. However, there are also laws against libel. The problem with this case is that the original woman sued against libel, and the judge apparently ordered Google to give up the person's name. It seems like the judge was the one in the wrong.

On a side note, anonymity may protect you from being sued for libel, but it also seems less likely that people will believe you if you aren't willing to admit who you are.

 

[mdillenbeck]

What is at the heart of this debate is one little word.

libel
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
b (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
b (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures
b (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

When presented in the context of a blog.

Blog
: a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site

When presenting an opinion as fact in print, you need to have evidence it is true else it is libelous. Having not read the blog posts about the "skank", I cannot comment on the nature of the post.

However, to say it is not libelous because it is in a blog is not true - how many blogs contain a "news" section that implies factual reporting? (*cough* *Tom's* *cough*) Conversely, to say that just because the post contains negative untrue opinions of a person does not mean it is libelous.

In the end, it is in the presentation. In this particular case, I can only assume that the courts had decided the presentation of the blog presented itself more as "fact" and less as "opinion" and thus was libelous.

In my opinion, this makes the blogger's suit is thus frivolous and I believe she should be fined. I am also glad that the US court system is starting to hold the various amateur journalists legally responsible for their statements made online. We all should own up to what we say and write, recognize that we need to separate fact from opinion, and be sure that our readers and listeners clearly understand when we are writing something that is "just an opinion". (Context is not always enough to establish that.)

 

[mowston]

This is interesting, from Wikipedia: alleging that a person has an STD or is unchaste is enough to be defamation automatically regardless of whether it was true. So saying someone is a whore is automatically defamation. (I have to admit I am surprised.)

[edit] Defamation per se
All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [5][6]

 

[Greg_77]

She should be sued for making a blog that waste peoples time...

 

[gorehound]

gross !!! look at her pic ..she is the skankiest girl i would never sleep with that thing

not meaning this but who cares about insults
ever hear the sticks and stones thing

 

[kingssman]

I hate to say it but I really do feel bad for Google. Talk about being in the crossfire
Google gets sued to reveal the identity of one of their bloggers
Google gets sued again for revealing the identity of one of their bloggers

 

[dingumf]

I'd sue someone who sold me out to a freaking bitch.

 

[plasmastorm]

It's a personal opinion, why can't she, google, the american court, the 'skanks' involved just realise that, get over thier own f***ing ego and move on. For the love of god is it so hard to realise what one person thinks is something you will never change/control. This is 2009 FFS, not George Orwell 1984, get a goddamn grip. No wonder the world hates the USA. Wake up......
Further more it's no suprise there is a sueing culture in america which is slowly infiltrating the rest of thw world, people these days are nothing but mindless sheep.
When the last time anyone in the media or indeed the the blogging community in general came up with their own f***ing opinion instead of regurjitating what some other 3rd rate retard said 1st.

 

[anamaniac]

It's only slander if it isn't true...

 

[MrHorspwer]

She's sueing for defamation? Isn't a key part of defamation that the statement in question actually be fasle? Is she saying that she is not actually the blog author, but Google is pointing her out as the author? How does that work, considering she's already acknowledged it was, in fact, her blog.

I'm no lawyer, nor am I a judge, but isn't a true statement about somebody just... news?

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]B-Unit[/nom]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.[/citation]
My problem with this is there should have been no defamation suit to begin with. If calling someone a whore or the "skankiest in NYC" that was grounds for defamation, then Sarah Palin would be suing almost every single person in the media. The problem with her suing Google, though, is that they were only following the subpoena it doesnt make sense to sue Google, I think she would be better off suing the skank for harassment.