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

[Thurin]

Good Lord almighty.

The way I feel about it, the fact that she put a blog up without her name on it and later on somehow her nickname or blogname or whatever it was gets linked to her real name is not google's fault.

Think about it, it could have been a friend, foe or even just been pure guesswork.

I honestly don't know where all these privacy claims and such are coming from, YOU CHOOSE to go on the web, and YOU CHOOSE to post your personal info, followed by another of YOUR CHOICES to put your opinion on the web.

The fact that she is pissed off is understandable in a way, however seriously.... to sue google?

If she get's away with it, my respect for the American judicial system drops by another few notches.

My two cents.

 

[OldDirtyGamer]

I have to laugh at this one. So this young lady jumps on the internet and basically rips someone, defaming and possibly defrauding them of their good word and standing in their given industry. Anonymously. Then, when she is found out and basically uncovered, she wants to see the people she was hiding behind? Ridiculous and utterly stupid... Everyone has the legal right to protect themselves when they are slandered and freedom of speech laws do not extend to anonymous blog postings as it is not press media and even so, if it is requested via subpeona, the agency can then choose to violate the court order or give in. Since Google likes their relationship with the government not to be antagonistic, they gave up the blogger.

If anything, I think Cohen should sue the pants off of the blogger just to make a point that you can't just say whatever you want on the internet without paying a price for it. If anything, certain people should be made an example of just to close the door on the wannabe PerezHiltons out there who like destroying people's lives for their own entertainment...

 

[dreamphantom_1977]

[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]

OK, this may only obvious to me, but how can you sue somebody for something that there is no law against?? Just curious, when you say "It does NOTHING to prevent ME from shutting YOU up" How are you gonna shut them up? If they can't make laws to stop freedom of speech, then you can't be sued for it, because there is no law to say you can't do it. So what exactly do you mean?

 

[orionite]

Freedom of speech != Freedom to personally insult