Google forced to reveal identity of blogger

[Recovering_Cynic]

Actually, that's both right and wrong.  Because the supermodel is all rich and famous, she has a much harder time of proving defamation.  If the comments had been made about joe-schmoe citizen, well, proving defamation would be easy, and the case would be a slam dunk.  The defendant (the person who made the crap comments) would probably settle with the attorney without too much hassle.

[darxbane]

I really like this discussion, and I have two comments.  First, I think we should separate Free Speech with Anonymity.  The blogger, at the time Google revealed his/her identity, was not found at fault for her words.  However, if your saying something about another person, negative or otherwise, you should have the right to know who it is.

StriderA,
As for Colbert and The Daily Show Vs Fox News; editing is a wonderful thing (R. Lee Irmy had an entire conversation with John Wayne in a beer commercial, despite Mr. Wayne being quite dead for many years).  These shows are supposed to be for entertainment; they are not designed to be entirely factual, to say the least.  Therefore, before passing judgement on FoxNews, I would strongly suggest learning the context of the statements made.  I would also recommend keeping track of the number of times Colbert and Stewart defame others in the name of comedy(which doesn't seem to bother you).  Ironically,  your post proves that there are people who harbor animosity towards FoxNews based on the "parody" of the stories told on these shows.  Does that mean that FoxNews can sue Viacomm for slander?  Or is it OK to defame people so long as it is supposed to be funny? 

[Recovering_Cynic]

Legally speaking, its legit.  Morally speaking, well, generally people will judge that one depending on the lense they use to view the world around them.  People draw the line in some funny places.

[Recovering_Cynic]

Apparently she was not considered a public figure.  Read the following:

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_outted_blogger_rosemary_port_blames_model_liskula_cohen_for_skank_stink.html

[stridera]

She's already slated to go on Good Morning America.  I guess all publicity is good publicity for models.  Know the media, she'll probably be signed up for a model shoot by the end of the week.  Ahh, god bless America.

[Recovering_Cynic]

Indeed.

[Eerongal]

"A Manhattan Supreme Court judge forced Google to unmask Port, rejecting Port's claim that blogs "serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and shouldn't be regarded as fact."

Someone has obviously never seen a blog.

[Recovering_Cynic]

Basically Port was arguing that she didn't make any factual allegations.  She was trying to make the point that it was just a place where people spout off opinions, and that nothing said by her could be construed as fact.

I agree with your point that much of blogging is just that--spouting opinions; however, just by calling it a blog, you do not get an automatic pass.  If you mix some facts in there, well, then it's still defamation.

[Eerongal]

Basically Port was arguing that she didn't make any factual allegations.  She was trying to make the point that it was just a place where people spout off opinions, and that nothing said by her could be construed as fact.

I agree with your point that much of blogging is just that--spouting opinions; however, just by calling it a blog, you do not get an automatic pass.  If you mix some facts in there, well, then it's still defamation.

well, unless i'm misreading the quote, to me it's saying that the judge is saying that her claim"serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" should not be regarded as a fact. Though I could see it also meaning that she was saying it should not be regarded as fact, but it's no longer in quotes, so I'm assuming it's going back to the judge's decision saying that her statement shouldnt be regarded as fact

[Recovering_Cynic]

Wow.  That got really convoluted really quick.  I'd have to read the judge's opinion to know for sure because the press is only paraphrasing what the judge actually said, and they are so hot on getting the legal bits down perfect.

[stridera]

So, legally, if she had small print saying "All comments made in this blog are purely opinion and should not be taken as fact" she would have been ok?  I need to know if I should add that to my blog

[sortitus]

well, unless i'm misreading the quote, to me it's saying that the judge is saying that her claim"serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" should not be regarded as a fact. Though I could see it also meaning that she was saying it should not be regarded as fact, but it's no longer in quotes, so I'm assuming it's going back to the judge's decision saying that her statement shouldnt be regarded as fact

I think that it's the reporter paraphrasing the end of her quote, as if you look at the sentence it doesn't make any grammatical sense if you read that all (except for the stuff in double quotes) as the judge's quote.

What probably happened is that the "should not be regarded as fact" part was in a different part of the lady's statement, so to make a nice and tidy quote the reporter couldn't put it all in quotation marks. Of course the reporter could have put it all in quotes and just gotten the approval of the lady to publish that as exactly what she said.

I would like to hit that judge in the face with the emo half of Livejournal. Then he will realize that the problem with the internet is stupidity and taking yourself too seriously. You can't ban stupid people; there are too many of them.

[Recovering_Cynic]

Well... I"m not sure a general disclaimer would save your blog.  I mean, that's like parking a truck in your front yard, and putting a disclaimer sign on it that says, "This is not a truck."  If you say everything on your blog is opinion, well, it had better be opinion, not facts in disguise.

[Eerongal]

that's like parking a truck in your front yard, and putting a disclaimer sign on it that says, "This is not a truck." 

I wanna do this now. If only i had a truck.....

[mtlhddoc2]

the real kicker on this whole thing is that when this suit was filed, the blog had been inactive for over 6 months.

Defamation has to actually harm a person, which is why unknown people dont sue each other for it. You have to actually have a modicum of fame before you can be defamed.

there have been LOTS of defamtio suits over blogs,. See the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog