Woman Who Took Google to Court: Safety the Issue

(CBS)  A woman who's taken legal action against Google, seeking the identity of the person she says trashed her online with a false statement, says it all comes down to her safety.

And an expert in Internet matters says the case could help force many tricky legal issues to the forefront.

YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and similar social networking websites enable people to stay in constant contact, but they also make it easy for cyber-bullies to torment people anonymously.

"It's more often now," notes Cnet.com Senior Editor Dan Ackerman, "that we're seeing claims where people feel they've been maligned online, or maybe even cyber-stalked, and they want to try to find the identity of who either posted a comment about them they didn't like, or posted "some of their personal information."

Businesswoman and Ivy League grad Carla Franklin, 34, says she's been defamed online, and she's determined to find out who did it. She says someone posted unauthorized videos of her on YouTube and assaulted her character by calling her a "whore" in the comments section alongside a clip.

"As a general matter," says Internet legal expert Joseph DeMarco, "where you call into question someone's sexual morays, the odds probably are that you're gonna fall into the side of the line where you are dealing with defamation."

Offended and outraged, Franklin promptly reported the post to Google, which owns YouTube, and the remark was removed.

Now, Franklin is demanding to know who posted the comment, and has taken Google to court to try to force the company to release that person's identity.

"The issue in this case," says DeMarco, "is under what circumstances an Internet service provider should be required to unmask an anonymous subscriber."

Google wouldn't comment on Franklin's case in particular, but in an e-mail to CBS News, a spokesperson wrote, "When we receive a subpoena or court order, we check to see if it meets the letter and spirit of the law before complying. We have a track record of advocating on behalf of our users."

Franklin hasn't sought monetary damages from Google -- just the information to build a case against a person she believes abused the anonymity of the Internet.

"There really is a delicate balance," observes Ackerman, "between the rights of people to be anonymous online and the rights of people to not be harassed and stalked online, and to keep the Internet free and useful for everybody."

Last year, a Canadian model forced Google to reveal the name of a blogger the model said had defamed her online.

On "The Early Show" Monday, Franklin said, "Google has been very ... communicative. I'm very hopeful that it works out. I want to say for the record I'm not suing Google. I like them as a company. I think, just through the whole process, which has been -- in terms of the online portion, been ongoing for eight months, they've been fine. You know, it's the process itself that needs to be changed.

"Had any of this been done to me over the phone or through the mail or, you know, just posting up stuff around the city, I would have been able to go to the police and ask for help. But online ... the legislation just isn't there. And so, I had to pursue a different angle in order to find this person who's been, you know, harassing me both online and offline."

Michael Roberts, a digital forensic analyst, pointed out to co-anchor Erica Hill it's very easy to hide online. "The Internet is everywhere at once," he said. "Google is in Santa Clara, Calif., so there's all sort of legal problems. I'm not an attorney, but I help attorneys find this information. The antagonists themselves can hide behind proxy servers and use disposable e-mail addresses to set up the accounts.al e-mail accounts."

Franklin told Hill she's been harassed for years by someone. "I have a thick skin," Franklin remarked. "I want to set the record straight about a lot of things. It's not about a 'whore' comment. That doesn't bother me. I've had worst things said to me. This is about the fact that I've endured obsessive behavior and harassing behavior offline for about four years now. And it escalated last year online. And when it got to that point, I just thought -- I've ignored it. I've changed my number. This person shows up to events that, you know, they know I'm going to attend. It got to the point where I sent my friends and family an e-mail saying, 'If anything ever happens to me, check here. '

"It was a safety issue. I don't care about being called names. It was a safety issue. But then I realized, 'You know what? This is -- this is not Carla. I'm pretty fearless. You know, why am I looking over my shoulders all the time?"

Franklin said she feels she's "been harassed in general. The harassment went online. All I wanted was a restraining order. I want to connect the dots. If I can show that the online behavior matches the offline behavior of the person, then I can move forward."

[goodpasture]

Sounds like she is famed more than defamed because until I read about her ridiculous lawsuit on CBS news no doubt, I never knew who she was (along with millions of others) - things that make you go HMMM Anyways what if she is a *****? I don't know her that way personally but maybe some do. Maybe we should have an in-debt study on this perhaps and see what comes up. After all it's not slander if it's the truth! :o) You want a perfect world (or darn close); end all lawsuits right now and put lawyers out on the streets!

[skepticalJM]

These so-called social web sites should be fined out of existence. Every time they permit the publishing of hurtful material they should be considered as contributory to the crime and fined and thrown off the networks. They are destroying our society, and all trust between people. We have let this stupid technology take us hostage, just so a few gluttons can use gimmicks to make them rich. This is the new American dream and its legacy. Soon buying on the internet, won't even be useful, because the gluttons will have raised the oil prices so high we won't be able to afford the postage. Nice going, you stupid greedy Americans.

[UKWill]

It's ludicrous that CBS is reporting on this. This is not news.

The woman has an easy legal remedy, which people use all the time to expose someone who has defamed them online. You sue in what's called a "John Doe action" then use a subpoena to obtain the person's identity. You then amend your suit to identify the defendant.

It happens every day, countless times. Again, this is not news.

[PatDaddy67]

It's news because she is suing Google

[stinger1z]

"That's what the internet if for, slandering people anonymously!" Banke Edwards-Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

[I2HARASSED]

I am one of thousands that are being harassed by individuals we know thru anonymous email services and disposable emails. Unless you have $600.00 available to hire someone to I.D. this person or persons, you will continue to be harassed. I hope the legislaton does get changed thru this young women's attempts. She is representing a huge group of harassed individuals. The public has heard of suicides over this kind of thing.

[triptechb]

did we not all lear the ol' "sticks and stones..."
oh no! someone posted stuff about me on the internet. boo F-in hoo. if you have an actual stalker/someone harassing you on the internet AND in the real world then you should know roughly who that person is. if the big bad internet freaks you out so much stop using it.
if you are that worried about people destroying your character with simple online posts then perhaps your doing things you ought not do.
people like you are why our court systems are clogged, next time it takes an extra year to get a child molester into court just tell the family it was because you were more important.

[bundye]

You know people, we don't have toooo use all that's offered online...we put out too much information online. Sooooo, expect things like this to happen. I hope and pray this young lady can resolve this issue.

[RonCz]

I agree with Franklin, people need to be responsible for what they say online. It's no different then going down the street and harassing people in homes or sitting at home making obscen phones calls, people have to be accountable for their actions.

[smitvict]

Are you willing to put your full name (NOT RonCz), phone number and address here, now, so if someone is offended, they can seek legal retribution more easily?

[jacy3]

Editor alert:

"Morays" are a kind of eel. "Mores" are "folkways of central importance accepted without question and embodying the fundamental moral views of a group."

I think the latter is what you meant.

[taxchurches]

LOL. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[PatDaddy67]

This is another example of reliance on spell checker for proper editing.

[formerMIgirl]

I watched this woman this morning on the Early show and feel the need to tell her that there is no help out there..I was stalked for 2 1/2 years. The only thing I had strength to do after he tormented me was give him a plea bargain of malicious destruction. No matter what I did he found ways around it..A PPO just angers the individual and even when he had the no contact order to stay away from me he used others vehicles to drive past my home and work place. He did unthinkable things to me..his most recent was not directly to me but another ex whom he shot...murdered...and then took his own life after being on the run for 12 hrs. I have since moved from that community. I recieved a phone call to my old work place from a woman stating that she wished he had shot me instead..and the mother of this young woman who was killed recieved a horrible call too from a woman also..not sure if it was the same woman..but it is terrifying and the police told me that my work place shouldn't have bothered me with the phone call. WHAT!!!!! they told me that htere needs to be consecutive calls...there is no justice for victims...the criminal has all the rights...my heart goes out to this woman and my prayers because this is a scary thing to endure...obsessive behavior is no joke...it needs to be taken more seriously by the justice system.

[rwsmith29456]

The law only applies to people who will abide by it.