Judge Sides With Model Taking On Blogger

(CBS)  A Manhattan court ruling could change the way people blog on the Internet.

A judge ordered Google to release the identity of a blogger who trashed Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen on an anonymous blog called "Skanks in NYC," so Cohen can file a defamatory lawsuit against the author.

CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports the ruling is raising questions about how free speech will be on the Web.

Anne Salisbury, the blogger's attorney, is challenging Cohen's claims that she was unfairly trashed by her client last year on Google's Blogger.com site. But, Salisbury says, her client's defense is based on the Bill of Rights.

"These words are not actionable," Salisbury said. "They were not nice, they were insulting, offensive to some. That does not mean that the law provides redress for these insults. So the defense is really, this is free speech."

But Cohen insists the remarks damaged her reputation.

Steven Wagner, Cohen's attorney, released a statement saying, "It is our hope that this ruling will send a message that the Internet is not a safe haven for defamatory speech."

But will it discourage free speech on the web?

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said the ruling should be a "wake-up call" to bloggers.

"There's no anonymity. If you defame someone online, the Web company can be forced to turn over the information attached to your identity, your address, so that you can be sued individually."

Google told CBS News it releases user information only after a subpoena or court order, and did not release when they will turn over the blogger's name in this case.

Miller pointed out the ruling may make those on Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere on social networking sites think twice about what they post online.

[GoogleBombBook]

Change is coming - and this is a great start. Free speech does not condone defamation - and more people are being harmed with a few clicks of a mouse, and taps of a keypad - a 20 year reputation is destroyed in 20 mins. The other issue is unless you have deep pocket or a celebrity - you can be stuck. As a victim of Internet Defamation - I second mortgaged my home - spent $150K on legal fees to fight for my good name back - and won over $11M jury verdict for damages! Read my newly released untold story - and more important, practical guidance to prevent this from happening to you! www.googlebombbook.com - It is a don't miss - and timely book that could literally save your virtual image... Remember, when revenge turns to e-venge, you could become powerless to defend yourself in cyberspace!

[rccmaize1]

"Cybertribualism" -my word

I have spoke of "cybertribualism" -my word and this seems to prove that we have come to the level of "Cro-Magnon man" again as reason and the use of gray mater to stop, look, listen and reason to find solutions for direction for problem solving has reverted back to "grunting and clubs".

We now have groups of electronic tribes that float mindless in cyberspace leaching to
The emotional trash and garbage of the public relations and marketing gang of "if you have the price we will create professional lie's for you to prove what ever you desire" you provide the animal passion and meat eating hunger for the blood lust.

It always benefits those that want money , power, and control.

It seems we are still in the caves grunting and procreating like animals.

There is hope as always that the gray matter and calm can see the light of truth AND will over power the screaming and bloodlettings of those that can only see fear and are afraid to step out into the knowledge of light and the ever changing truth of living,

It is a walkabout we all take in this journey called life and it waits for no one
This is what ?freedom is all about? it is always your choice..

All I have to say watching the actions of what I would call the lost souls it the ugly anger and hate trying to hide fear screaming and if they had a gun killing
Some poor soul there looking for answers about their child dying or a senior there wondering if they should buy a pill or cat food to live or someone trying to just live there life in this walkabout we each take every sun rise.

The animal in **** sapiens is truly ugly.

Of course this is just an observation of the great armadillo,
Barrow A. Dillo

[mnbrant]

bleh, I don't think any model has the ability to change anything. They basically are not known for their brains after all. There was a lot bigger case involving alot more people that the government tried to go after that was an embarrassing failure for the government. This happened in the last few months. Hmm about the rest.

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said the ruling should be a "wake-up call" to bloggers.

"There's no anonymity. If you defame someone online, the Web company can be forced to turn over the information attached to your identity, your address, so that you can be sued individually."

yeah I am done with CBS news I guess. Have to find a news site that is more willing to protect first amendment rights. Seems like CBS news is only willing to protect the rights of the rich and powerful and b i t c h about uppity bloggers having opinions about things. I have news for you CBS. Nobody will read this site without interesting blogs to read. Bye forever.

Brant

[spiritwalk]

Bloggers wish to be considered journalists and have all the rights and privileges as journalists. In order to have the rights and privileages of jornalist one must accept the responsiblities of journalists which includes being held responsible for the truth and accuaracy of what they post and the liability when what they post is untruthful or inaccurate.

The New York Times and the Washington Post do not have the right to withold the names of those who write for them and the internet blogs do not either.

[mnbrant]

Blog not found
Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name skanksnyc is available to register!

REGISTER SKANKSNYC

Home | Features | About | Buzz | Help | Discuss | Language | Developers | Gear

Heh SKANKSNYC does not exist. CBS I really don't care about some vogue model as I don't read vogue and don't really think anybody who is not in it does. I think the least you can do it reprint the blog. I mean this article is just not entertaining enough.

[Oregon_State_OSU]

Then I guess that everybody and anybody who Bashes Obama & Palin & The Clinton's and the Bush's and Cheney & Ann Coulter & Rush or Glen Beck & calls them names and compairs anybody to the Nazi's or to Hitler is on the chopping block also.

[nojoy01]

Yup. If they threaten them physically. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some tired, overworked, and VERY junior Secret Service agent somewhere keeping track of the IP's, accounts, and account owners, of those who threaten physical harm to members of the executive branch of our government. Or maybe a lot of tired, overworked, and VERY junior Secret Service agents. :) But name calling, etc.? Nope. Can't you just see the headlines? "Former President George W. Bush today filed a total of 47 million lawsuits in Federal Court claiming that the respondents had unfairly compared him to Adolph Hitler." "Court watchers say this is the first civil lawsuit in the history of jurisprudence to qualify as a "reverse class action" lawsuit." "In Federal District Court today the decendants of relatives of Adolph Hitler, who normally are extremely reticent about being identified, have filed 47 million lawsuits claiming that the respondents have "damaged the reputation and legacy of Adolph Hitler" by comparing him to former President George W. Bush." "Court watchers say that this is the second civil action in the history of jurisprudence to qualify as a "reverse class action" lawsuit." Nah, I don't see the people you named being able to file lawsuits because they are "public" persons and the rules are different for them.

[crags-n-chalk]

This really isn't about free speech. The blogger can raise that issue when he gets sued for defamation. The issue here is Cohen's right to even make a claim of defamation in court. If the blogger is allowed to hide his identity then the issue will never be decided where it should be... in a court of law considering a fully argued claim of and defense against defamation, not some spurious claim that freedom of speech protects the identity of the speaker.

[jennifer-marie]

"Miller pointed out the ruling may make those on Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere on social networking sites think twice about what they post online."

-----

No, it will just make people think twice before putting accurate contact and account information in those empty registration fields.

What needed to be determined BEFORE a judge ordered the blogger's identity be revealed was the statements made by the blogger in conjunction with existing Libel laws. If the statements made by the blogger fit the legal definition of Libel, then order the blogger's identity revealed and appearance in court. If the statements do NOT fit the legal definition of Libel, then leave the person alone!

[Uncle_Eccoli]

Jennifer-Marie is right.

Anonymity frightens the state.

[SugarMtn]

great points!

[rocketjl]

Free speech???

Free speech is more to the order that the blogger should go up to the young lady and say what she wants to say. The blogger should be free to say her free speech, but how do we know she is covered by 'our' Constitution if she will not identify herself???? She could be someone not covered by the US Constitution. At least give us the chance to ask the blogger's mother, her friends, and her employer (in this case).

[OldProfessor]

This really has nothing to do with "free speech". It has to do with accountability. You are still free to say what you wish on the internet, but you must be prepared to be accountable for what you say. It is about time!!!