Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler

[Heidi]

Source: CNN

updated 1 hour, 12 minutes ago

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."

On Monday, New York Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that Google must hand over to Cohen any identifying information it possesses about the blog's creator.

Steven Wagner, Cohen's attorney, said Google complied with the ruling Tuesday evening, submitting to his legal team the creator's IP address and e-mail address. Only a valid e-mail address is required to register for a blog on Blogger.com.

Wagner said that once his legal team tracks the e-mail address to a name, the next step will be to sue Cohen's detractor for defamation. He said he suspected the creator of the blog is an acquaintance of Cohen.


Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/18/new.york.model.blog.lawsuit/index.html

[pnwmom]

1. People online shouldn't be exempt from defamation laws. Makes sense to me. n/t

[provis99]

2. well then everyone on DU would be sued

Defamation of character is our stock in trade!:-)

[pnwmom]

3. Not really. The law is very different with regard to public figures.

And what we do here is different from, say, setting up a website to publicly humiliate an ex-girlfriend.

[katkat]

4. not DU, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libelor slander n/t.

[LisaL]

5. The lawyer has a point. A lot of people call each other names

on the internet.

[rfranklin]

6. She is a public figure...no case here....

You can't have it both ways when you're selling your image to magazines.

[katkat]

7. Not open season on public figures.

You can't trash a public figure at will. All the public figure adds is that it has to be proved that the accused acted knowing the statements to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Any number of celebrities have won such cases.

I'm not even sure she qualifies as a public figure, I mean raise your hand anyone who's heard her name before.

[rhett o rick]

13. Then how do Beck, Savage, oReilly, etc. get away with it? nm

[Javaman]

14. Well it works like this: famous people are special.

some animals are more equal than others.

[Hugabear]

28. If that was true, then tabloids would have been run out of business long ago

Tabloids have been slamming public figures for quite some time, and getting away with it. Are they given a layer of protection that ordinary citizens and bloggers do not enjoy?

[whopis01]

83. No, not at all

When the case involves a public figure suing for defamation, in addition to meeting the five basic requirements (1: A false statement was made, 2: This statement was published to a third party, 3: This statement was damaging to the plaintiff, 4: This statement was published, and 5: The defendant is at fault) the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew the statement was false or published it with reckless disregard to its truth.

Basically - for a non public figure, it does not matter if you know the statement is false. You may whole-heartedly believe it is true, but if the plaintiff can show that it is not true, they can win their lawsuit. When it comes to a public figure, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant knew the statement was false, but published it anyway.

The same laws apply to everyone - whether they are a tabloid or a blogger.

Keep in mind, this ruling didn't decide a defamation case - it merely allows the plaintiff to get the information necessary to bring a lawsuit forth.

[Wizard777]

8. Also "Skank" and "Ho" are opinions that people have a right to form and express.

Even if he said she sells her body for money. As a model, oh yes she does. Photographers don't hire them because they like the way their mind come across on the film. Maybe I'm the stupid one. because I can't deduce a womans understanding of Quantum Physics from her thong. If he says she's selling sex for money. He might even be on safe ground with that. Because the first thing you learn in advertising is that sex sells. That's why you're gonna get laid if you buy the right cola, body wash, or car. I don't see where she really has a case. It seems more like an abuse of process. I would fight that all the way to SCOTUS.

[CBGLuthier]

9. srupid and clueless are also opinions one is free to have

[Wizard777]

10. Yep! As I said I might be the stupid one. But I'm not entirely sure of that.

[rhett o rick]

19. Is "srupid" similar to "moran"? nm

[customerserviceguy]

11. "I can't deduce a womans understanding of Quantum Physics from her thong. "

Obviously, you don't understand string theory.

[Blandocyte]

53. Booyah!

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

60. You Have Done A DUzy, Sir....

[customerserviceguy]

67. Thank you (bows)

It would have been so lame to have done a Big Bang joke.

[Wizard777]

61. Okay, I don't care who you are. That thar is just funny.

:spray:

But in my defense I have to say the black hole near by didn't appear to be distorting space & time in the string.

[customerserviceguy]

66. That's just because

of the heavenly body nearby. Being anorexic, all it could exert was the weak force.

[Wizard777]

75. So basically what your saying is

That it was more of a brown hole than a black hole? Mmmmmmcoooouldbe. You might be onto something there.

[Regret My New Name]

62. lol...

I actually laughed... *high-five*

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. However, 'psychotic' is the kind of thing that can damage someone's career

it implies they could be physically dangerous to work with, or at least unreasonable.

[LisaL]

15. Do you seriously think anyone believed she was actually

psychotic based on whatever this person posted on the internet? What is the actual damage to the reputation?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. No, but they will think she's unreasonable, has tantrums, and is generally difficult to work with

and other things that could cause a model to lose work.

[treestar]

59. Anyone who would consider that proven by an anonymous internet post

Is not worth working for, ever.

[LisaL]

70. Anonymous poster called her names on the net.

I doubt there is anybody out there who would take those names at face value.

[rhett o rick]

20. We are walking a tight rope here. How many thousands have said Cheney is a sociopath?

If we can't call someone a psychotic or sociopath on a blog, we are lost. How far can that be taken?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. But Cheney isn't self-employed, and constantly dependent on people's good opinion

for extra work. A model is.

[rhett o rick]

26. Yes but they both have the same rights. We have laws that cover libel, but it is

difficult to win. You must prove intent to harm. I do not think people should be harmed but just sayin this is a slippery slope.

[whopis01]

84. as long as it can not be proven that you know for a fact that he isn't a sociopath, you are fine.

He is a public figure, so he would have to prove actual malice.

[Wizard777]

64. But she is a person that voluntarily entered the public eye.

So she's still going to have to prove that the person knew the statements were false when they made them. She will also have to prove actual malice to receive an award. I'm not entirely sure the Judge understood the different burdens on Private Citizens and Public Figures.

[zonkers]

This is press she could not buy. If I were her, I'd start a "skank" clothing line and make

a bazillion dollars. At which point the blogger would sue her for a piece of the profits.

[IDFbunny]

74. Cohen could be, in fact, a ho and a skank.

I haven't seen her yet so will withhold judgement.

[NashVegas]

54. Wrong, If It's Decided To Be Defamation

A DC district court ruled just a day or two ago on this, in another matter, and it's a good start for precedent. The question is, do all five criteria apply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6335539

D.C.'s new standard most closely resembles those set out in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), and Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App. 4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). It requires D.C. courts to follow five steps before ordering the disclosure of an anonymous speaker's identity:

1. ensure that the plaintiff has adequately pleaded the elements of a defamation claim;
2. require reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous defendant that the complaint has been filed and the subpoena has been served;
3. delay further action for a reasonable time to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a motion to quash;
4. require the plaintiff to proffer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the claim that is within its control; and
5. determine that the information sought is important to enable the plaintiff to proceed with his/her lawsuit.

[Wizard777]

63. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 is still relevant.

That was a SCOTUS decision involving Public Figures. She will have to prove actual Malice to recover damages. She will also have to prove the person knew the statement were false when the person made them.

[Hugin]

16. Well, so much for the Internet Tubes...

They're on to us. May as well roll up the carpet and turn off the lights now.

Hmm... Maybe we should have a Garage Sale first, Y'know... To clear out some stuff.


Yup, it started with the RIAA and now it's progressed to this anti-defamation crap... It's the long sought chink in the armor the Corporatists have been looking for...

[rhett o rick]

22. You knew it was too good to be true. nm

[tomm2thumbs]

17. she won't win, she just wants to bleed some money outta the person in court

any good lawyer would say this is simple opinionizing and not saying 'she murders puppies' or 'she cheated on taxes' - but even posting facts about someone can be dragged into court. The court is all about deciding a case not about preventing the argument in the first place.

hope the satisfaction of setting up a blog to attack someone's persona was worth the anguish and annoyance it is going to cause in the aftermath

i bet not

[architect359]

18. Interesting case

I can see Cohen's case from the point of view of our right to face our accusers. It is a first amendment, freedom of speech, issue in the sense that we can all say (to some degree, I suppose) whatever we please. However, at the same time, to go on a public medium and state those remarks against Cohen seems to be declaratory - it is an accusation, it seems, no? Wouldn't that allow Cohen to exercise her 6th amendment right to face her accuser? Doesn't matter if she was a nobody or a somebody - at least, not in this country, right?

I'll be the first to admit that (and I'm *not* proud to admit) that my knowledge of the amendments doesn't go beyond a surface understanding. I'd like to see what others can say about this. Actually, it would be great to get some clarity on the 6th amendment issue, as well as the 1st. Thanks!

[rhett o rick]

21. The danger here is the loss of anonymity. nm

[The Wizard]

23. Fox News won a suit

that essentially said it was OK for them to lie. Fox likes to qualify its lies by either framing their lies as a question or prefacing them with "Some people are saying."
If it looks like propaganda and sounds like propaganda and uses weasel words, it's propaganda.
The blogosphere, in may cases, serves as an electronic graffiti wall. The person being attacked has the right to face his/her accuser.

[zonkers]

27. love chicks with moxy, a word I do not use often enough.

[Deja Q]

29. The price of fame. Like the song "Noticable Ones" (1982), only it's the reverse effect

(celebs getting heckled rather than setting trends... unless celebs set the trends and now can't handle it because they're getting the same treatment... as a group entity, of course, I'm not selecting the make-up model set the trend... I wouldn't heckle her until I saw any pictures or ads anyway and thought they were unflattering...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vnpP0qxwEM

[Renew Deal]

30. Google must identify 'anonymous' blogger

Source: InfoWorld

Yesterday a U.S. Federal judge ruled that Google must turn over the name of an anonymous blogger who took a severe disliking to aging supermodel Liskula Cohen. The ripples emanating from the ruling could potentially wash over every member of the blogosphere (including those who delight in anonymously depositing nasty comments on blogs -- you know who you are).

The backstory: In August 2008, some soon-to-not-be-anonymous blogger (STNBAB) created a Google blog called "Skanks in NYC" (no longer available, but archived at Mahalo). The sole topic of this short-lived blog: Liskula Cohen, a zygomatically-gifted Canuck who has graced the covers of Vogue, Elle, and other magazines probably not in the bathrooms of most InfoWorld readers.

Among other things, the STNBAB called Cohen "a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank." He (she?) also called Cohen "an old hag." I bet that's the one that really stung.
<snip>

"Cohen's attorneys sent a nastygram to the blogger, who immediately removed "Skanks in NYC" from Blogger.com. But it didn't end there. Last January Cohen sued Google, demanding it reveal the blogger's identity. Yesterday, the court ruled that Google had to hand over the only information it had -- the blogger's IP and e-mail addresses."

Read more: http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/skanks-nothing-google-must-identify-anonymous-blogger-177

---

Here is a comment from the article I found interesting:

"This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is way too much nastiness on the Net hiding under the shield of anonymity. "Skanks in NYC" is a good example of this, but virtually every blog with any traffic suffers from the Anonymous D------ Commenter syndrome (fill in the blanks yourself). A lot of that would go away if people had to staple their own identities to what they actually said."

[FLAprogressive]

31. this is a threat to free speech.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Much as I think the blogger is a gaping asshole, I don't approve of this.

Anonymity allows people to be assholes but it allows for a freedom of expression that would be squelched if you knew you could be identified.

Shit, DU would never be the same!

[Drunken Irishman]

33. Freedom of speech doesn't say anything about not being held accountable for your words.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. I shouldn't be required by law to identify myself on the internet.

If someone wants to find out who I am badly enough, there are ways to do it but I think it's reasonable to have the expectation that I can choose not to identify myself if I want. In the case of the OP it should have been a simple matter of the blog being reported as abusive and getting pulled by the hosting site. Most of them have standards of use.

[bettyellen]

51. i think if you blog and profit off of it, full disclosure is essential.

becasue if you givre someone a chance to personally attack people and pretend it;s objective- they will.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. I don't think anyone would interpret the blog described in the OP as 'objective'.

And generally speaking, I think it's pretty well understood by readers of blogs that they are opinion. I'm concerned about giving powerful people the ability to "out" anyone who dares to criticize them anonymously on the internet. People on DU say some pretty incendiary things about various people and institutions, mostly under anonymous monikers. What if, say, a health insurance company went to court to demand that Skinner provide the names and ip addresses of DUers?

[bettyellen]

76. posters and bloggers are not the same thing at all... and if you're blogging and accpeting ad money

you shouldn't expect to remain anonymous. not from your consumers, no. other businesses can;t hide, why should bloggers?

[Hello_Kitty]

81. They shouldn't. Hosts of blog sites should remove them, as the host of this one did.

The problem was solved. Forcing Google and other internet platforms to expose people who wish to remain anonymous is a slippery slope I don't want to go down. I don't want Skinner to have to give my information to someone who is pissed about something I wrote here. That person could in turn use it to get me fired from my job, for example. If I wanted people to know who I am here, I'd post under my legal name, not Hello_Kitty.

[bettyellen]

85. well if you need to equate running a blog and posting- than have at it. but they are not the same.

and i do think a blogger ought to take responsibilty for what they put out there. Posters on sites like this, not.
A distinction can be made.

[Eric J in MN]

44. Would it be OK for Bush to demand the names of all DU-ers,

to hold us accountable?

[Drunken Irishman]

79. He already could!

I don't feel the need to hide, though. I'll give my name out to anyone who wants it.

If you only post through anonymity, you're a coward.

Are you a coward, Eric J from Minnesota?

[LisaL]

71. If you have to pay for your speech then it certainly isn't free.

[Drunken Irishman]

80. Oh LisaL.

No one is asking anyone to pay for it. Just man up and accept responsibility for it.

[lonestarnot]

36. Gaping asshole. LOL Dat's funny.

:rofl:

[polichick]

34. I hope the creep ends up doing time - how cowardly to remain anonymous! nt

[Eric J in MN]

43. You're going to be disappointed, then.

It's a lawsuit, not a prosecution.

Fortunately, we can't get prosecuted in the US for name-calling.

[polichick]

46. Harassment and defamation isn't name-calling. Creeps like this are usually...

...involved in other activites for which they can be prosecuted.

[FLAprogressive]

48. So if I were to call some random person on the street a skank.....that would be harassment????

[polichick]

49. If you did it over and over - yep. I know an FBI agent who's very involved...

...with internet harassment cases ~ they're cracking down, and it's about time.

[LisaL]

69. WTF are you talking about?

She might pursue this person civilly. No one is talking about criminal charges.

[texastoast]

35. Oh no. Having to take responsibility for what you say

Novel in cyberspace.

[Deja Q]

57. Or magazines. Or newspapers. Or TV adverts. The very case is wrong.

If companies can stretch the truth beyond recognition or slam competitors or their products, why can't everyone else?

[barbtries]

37. i have no idea why the model person

would feel the need to pursue it this far. i never heard of her until i read your post. i doubt the anonymous blogger could have garnered the publicity her attempt to make him/her pay for her/his words will.

[Dogtown]

40. She could suspect someone she knows.

maybe an old bf looking for revenge. This forces the person to unmask.

[bettyellen]

86. it was someone she knew, but not very well. im glad she found out, because it's creepy shit.

[WoodyD]

38. Let's take the internet out of the equation

I usually come down on the side of free speech, no matter how much I disagree with it. But I guess the legal question would be if the speech is defamatory, libelous or threatening. The idiot teabaggers have every right to disagree with any elected official, but that right stops when they start threatening congressmen, the president or anyone else they disagree with.

What if the blogger had instead published the same remarks in a newspaper? The same standards should apply, regardless of the medium.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Was he threatening her? It looks like he just called her a bunch of ugly names.

And the remarks would never be published in most newspapers because editors exercise their discretion. It's a little harder to do beforehand on the blogosphere but the same applies. The blog was removed by the host when it was reported as being offensive.

[Eric J in MN]

42. It isn't libelous or defamatory whether it's on a blog or a newspaper.

No one reading that blog would think she's literally "whoring."

The judge was wrong to take away the blogger's anonymity for such a weak case.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. cases like this are a mess and the information obtained is often useless

One of our clients is likely to be sued after one of their 280,000 customers leaked something online, they are being forced to divulge the subscriber who had a given dynamic IP address. The problem is they don't have a clue exactly who had that IP address more than a year ago other than a rough geographic area and nor can they be expected to. It is unlikely the person who had that IP address at the time of the leak is still using it today. Thus setting up the plaintiff to litigate against some random customer.

This type of information is not retained for any significant length of time as it simply has no value, and even if it is available Ms. Skank may get a laundry list of random institutional IP addresses and no further data and an anonymous email address where she might begin the story again.

[dustbunnie]

87. In this case the model did find out who was behind it.

Latest update has it that she was given the info, and the blogger turned out to be a woman she knew... paraphrasing her words - someone who was always around in the backround at every party I've been at.

It's one of those Mean Girls things. At any rate, she's forgiven the envious, spiteful hanger-on, the hateful blog is gone, and everyone's happy. On to the next...

[Iowa]

47. Nonsense...

"...This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is way too much nastiness on the Net hiding under the shield of anonymity..."

Bullshit. The power elites would love the type of internet you propose... a slippery slope that leads to an internet where people who issue strong condemnations risk being sued into oblivion. Bad corps like Wal-Mart, and sleazy organizations like the RIAA, would hire teams of lawyers devoted solely to harassing their detractors. It would have a chilling effect on discourse and remove the only means we have to obtain a wide range of unfiltered information - ugly though it may be at times.

What you are proposing is absolute nonsense, and something every progressive should stand against. If you are offended by "nastiness on the net", stay off the internet or ask someone to filter what you see. But don't ask the government to filter what I see.

[bettyellen]

50. Omigod, I used to work with her and she is a lovely person, smart, funny a real pro....

i'm glads she did this. if you are going to profit or game fame for being a nasty person, you should do so out in the open. full disclosure...1/2 of these attacks are solely personally motivated, some sort of sour grapes... and people would love to hide that. same as they do at town halls. it;s bullshit.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. I just love how this article refers to her as an 'aging supermodel'

Nice. Stay classy, infoworld.

[LisaL]

68. She is listed at 37 years old.

For most models, I imagine, their modeling career is pretty much over at that age.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. You stay classy too, Lisa. eom

[LisaL]

73. What does it have to do with classy?

Have you seen America's Next Top Model? Some of these girls are 25, and they get comments like "the photos don't look fresh, etc."
A lot of girls start in modeling in their teens.

[Hello_Kitty]

82. The standards of modeling agencies don't necessarily need to be applied universally. eom

[LanternWaste]

56. Guess the author of the blog was dumped recently...

"Skanks in NYC"

Guess the author of that particular blog was recently dumped... either that or he's thirteen.

[treestar]

58. Is having the email address or IP address even going to lead to proof

of who posted it? Anyone could have the password. It's likely, but not proven. Who actually posted the words is not provable.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[juno jones]

77. Whether or not they find the culprit depends

On how many Boxxys he's behind.

[Gman]

78. As one famous person said...

Jay: All these assholes on the internet are calling us names because of this stupid fucking movie.
Banky: That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously. Stopping the flick isn't gonna stop that.