# Websites, Forums, and Bloggers Sued super thread



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2009)

This example may be in the US, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't be tried here as well.

Friday, Apr. 10, 2009
*Defamation suit ends in favor of ad agency chief*
By Mike Cherney - mcherney@thesunnews.com



> The head of a local advertising agency has won $1.8 million in damages after suing an author of a blog - known for its harsh and sometimes crass criticism of elected officials, business leaders and local media - for defamation.



More at link.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Apr 2009)

That's sad.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2009)

The idea of free speech does not absolve one of responsibility for what is said, or its potential legal implications.  It's a little attribute that many using online means tend to forget about, or simply ignore.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2009)

Judge orders Web site to give up names




> SAN JOSE, Calif., April 1 (UPI) -- A Texas couple who say Internet posters made their lives "torture" after they were charged with rape are closer to stripping away their tormentors' anonymity.
> 
> A judge in California turned down a motion by Topix.com to quash a subpoena for identifying information on 178 anonymous posters, ABC News reported. The judge ordered the Web site to discuss with the plaintiff couple which documents are relevant to the case.
> 
> ...


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The idea of free speech does not absolve one of responsibility for what is said, or its potential legal implications.  It's a little attribute that many using online means tend to forget about, or simply ignore.



Let's go back 20 years.  Same guy says the same thing to a group of people.  Likely, no one cares and life goes on.  

The problem is that the audience is much larger and virtually anyone has access to what you publish on the web (unlike years ago, where it was much harder for anyone to see what you said or wrote).


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Let's go back 20 years.  Same guy says the same thing to a group of people.  Likely, no one cares and life goes on.
> 
> The problem is that the audience is much larger and virtually anyone has access to what you publish on the web (unlike years ago, where it was much harder for anyone to see what you said or wrote).



The concept of defamation Law is still the same.

Had he published a magazine 20 years ago, and handed them out, he would still be liable if you defamed the image of someone.

I don't get your point, on how that is sad, either.


The fact he was caught, or do you believe it as an attack on free speech?

dileas

tess


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Apr 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I don't get your point, on how that is sad, either.
> 
> The fact he was caught, or do you believe it as an attack on free speech?



My initial "it's sad" comment was more aimed and the american way of dealing with problems :  sue the person/company.  Strangly, it seems to happen (or at least we hear about it) more in tougher economic times...

I fully agree that someone is entirely responsible for what he/she says publicly.


----------



## ballz (11 Apr 2009)

Agreed, I think that the unfortunate part of our new era of incredible communication is that a lot of things that somebody might think is private, suddenly isn't. It's a double-edged sword. New technology has created a grey area between what was once black and white (no pun intended).

Not saying that with regards to an internet blog though, that's basically like a 10 year old like writing in her private diary, and then throwing it down the hall before the kid's get out for recess.

Michael Phelps comes to mind though. Pictures taken in a private setting, with people he trusted, quickly became public.


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Apr 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> Agreed, I think that the unfortunate part of our new era of incredible communication is that a lot of things that somebody might think is private, suddenly isn't. It's a double-edged sword. New technology has created a grey area between what was once black and white (no pun intended).
> 
> Not saying that with regards to an internet blog though, that's basically like a 10 year old like writing in her private diary, and then throwing it down the hall before the kid's get out for recess.
> 
> Michael Phelps comes to mind though. Pictures taken in a private setting, with people he trusted, quickly became public.



Ever hear of National Enquirer....Every super market in North America carried them right at the cash register.  Then the age of Pulp TV came around, _Inside Edition_ was the flavour de Jour.

Always been around folks, this is just a new method of transmitting ones views.  Just make them factual.

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not saying that with regards to an internet blog though, that's basically like a 10 year old like writing in her private diary, and then throwing it down the hall before the kid's get out for recess.



No, a case can be made that a hand-written personal diary is private and was never intended for public view (as long as you can establish that the revealing of it was unintended or even vindictive towards the writer).  An internet blog, on the other hand, is little more than a vanity platform to shout one's views to the world. There's a significant difference between the two.  Posting to the internet is a form of public announcement, for which anyone must be prepare to be held responsible for their views.  If it's OK for those who fight use of the internet in racial hatred issues to be backed up by the courts to have anonymous identities revealed, then it's fair play for individuals to expect the same support when they can demonstrate they have been slandered.


----------



## ballz (11 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> No, a case can be made that a hand-written personal diary is private and was never intended for public view (as long as you can establish that the revealing of it was unintended or even vindictive towards the writer).  An internet blog, on the other hand, is little more than a vanity platform to shout one's views to the world. There's a significant difference between the two.  Posting to the internet is a form of public announcement, for which anyone must be prepare to be held responsible for their views.  If it's OK for those who fight use of the internet in racial hatred issues to be backed up by the courts to have anonymous identities revealed, then it's fair play for individuals to expect the same support when they can demonstrate they have been slandered.



Let me rephrase my analogy:

"Not saying that with regards to an internet blog though, posting in one thinking it's private is as stupid as a 10 year old writing in her private diary, with the intention of throwing it down the hall before the kid's get out for recess, and expecting it to remain private."

I'm in 100% agreement with you. I wasn't trying to say that one should expect an internet blog to be private, I was saying the exact opposite.

EDITed for more clarity


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (12 Apr 2009)

Defamation is largely about damage. The more a plaintiff can prove that their reputation was damaged, the more they can claim as a settlement in court. In the end, this often literally means tabulating the number of times a post was read, trying to determine unique viewers, etc.

20 years ago the damage for making slanderous comments to a group or in a magazine was much lower than the potential reach of an Internet post. This is particularly true of a busy site. So the double edged sword is, the more popular you become, the larger your audience and the deeper the potential damage (which translates to a larger payment in court).

I'm no lawyer, so I likely have the finer points wrong, but I've also been down the road of tracking damages before.


----------



## Yrys (12 Apr 2009)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Defamation is largely about damage.
> ... but I've also been down the road of tracking damages before.



I'm curious. Did you do that for a specific reason, or to inform you ?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (12 Apr 2009)

I was hit with a Notice of Libel by David ******** a few years ago, and had to collect (but not provide) readership information and statistics on the post in question.

Ironically, the post was simply a reproduction of an article by another journalist, and not authored by an Army.ca member. So it's not just what you say, but also what you _propagate_ that matters.


----------



## MARS (24 Aug 2009)

I did not see this posted anywhere - apologize if it has been.  Thought it is in the same vein as this thread.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/the-virtual-end-of-online-anonymity/article1261746/
--------------------------------------------------------
The virtual end of online anonymity 

Susan Krashinsky

Last updated on Monday, Aug. 24, 2009 10:11AM EDT


It was the perfect snapshot of a society enamoured with technology and the promise it held: two mutts in front of a boxy computer, one leaning conspiratorially toward his pal. “On the Internet,” he says, “nobody knows you're a dog.” 

As it turned out, the New Yorker had it wrong. In 1993 when that now-famous cartoon ran, the Web was new to most, often compared to John Wayne's wild stomping grounds. Now, after a judge last week ordered Google to reveal the identity of a bullying blogger who ran a site called “Skanks of NYC,” it has become clear: On the Internet, everybody knows you're a dog. 

Legal precedents are piling up, and online anonymity is becoming a thing of the past. Among bloggers, the consensus seems to be that's good news. 

“When someone's just blogging anonymously because of employment concerns or whatever, it doesn't matter,” said Catherine McMillan, who writes a political blog called Small Dead Animals. Government critics in oppressive regimes have every right to secrecy, she added. “As soon as you use anonymity as a shield, to set up hate sites or write outrageous things, you should expect anything and everything to come back at you.” 

The blogger at the centre of last week's case posted insulting comments about Canadian fashion model Liskula Cohen's “appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct,” according to her statement of claim to the New York State Supreme Court. Before she could launch a defamation suit, she had to know who the blogger was. The court ordered Google, which manages the blog's publishing platform, to produce the information. 

Recent court decisions have seen pseudonyms squashed and identities revealed, but what's changing isn't how strictly courts police our online presence, said Vin Crosbie, a new media consultant and professor at Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. What has changed is how much we live our lives in the virtual sphere. 

“It's not a case where people have already had some sort of right to anonymity on these forums,” he said. “It's never been anonymous. But the majority of the population is now online. That's why it's coming to the forefront.” 

It's not a new fight, Mr. Crosbie said, pointing to a 1995 defamation case against forum manager Prodigy. That was before social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook made it easier to interact on the Web. Broader participation attracted more attention to the issues involved with living life online. 

“Online forums have become the main way for people to express their opinions,” Mr. Crosbie said. “That's what changed.” 

Ms. McMillan wanted to express her opinions too, but didn't feel comfortable doing so under a pseudonym. 

“I figured if my views were worth sharing, it's worth attaching my identity to them,” she said. “It's also a way to self-police. If you know your writing can be attached to you, you make more than a superficial attempt to … manage your content appropriately.” 

But “Schmutzie ,” a blogger living in Regina wanted to separate her intensely personal blog from her professional identity. 

“I've written quite a lot about my teenage years and my 20s, everything from casual drug use to sexual exploration,” she said. “It gets personal. From a professional standpoint, it's worrisome if employers Google you and find out the sins of your past.” 

Schmutzie said she's been able to maintain her anonymity because she behaves online – nostalgic sex talk notwithstanding, she's respectful of others. The pseudonym gave her the courage to say more about herself. 

“I don't think my writing would have come as far as it has, or that I would have been as candid,” she said. “But you're never truly anonymous … these are real human interactions, as virtual as they appear.” 

Other bloggers have struggled to keep their identities secret, and they are often losing the fight. On June 16, the U.K. High Court ruled that the Times newspaper had the right to publish the name of a blogger whose identity they had discovered. Detective Constable Richard Horton, the author of the NightJack blog, had sought an injunction to prevent the Times from revealing his identity. His blog contained detailed accounts of police work, investigations and the role of police in society. 

“As an anonymous blogger, I was just another policing Everyman but if it came out that I worked in Lancashire, I knew that some of my writing on government policy, partner agencies, the underclass and criminal justice would be embarrassing for the Constabulary,” Mr. Horton wrote in the Times, the day after the decision. 

The judge in the case ruled that “blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity,” and Mr. Horton had no reasonable expectation of a right to anonymity. 

For Tanis Miller, author of the Attack of the Redneck Mommy blog, anonymity would be too difficult to maintain online. 

“You spend a lot of energy looking over your shoulder,” said the Albertan mother of three. “Soon, there'll be no place for anonymity on the Internet, just by nature of how quickly it's widening. It's becoming such an active part of everyone's life.” 

----------------------------------------------------


----------



## ruckmarch (24 Aug 2009)

A New York fashion student who called a model a 'psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank' on her blog plans to file an $18 million lawsuit against Google for revealing her identity, according to reports.

Rosemary Port, 29, was sued by 37-year-old model Liskula Cohen over an...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/853479/skank-model-blogger-to-sue-google

What says you....do you think this fashion student has a leg to stand on against Google?


----------



## Monsoon (24 Aug 2009)

I suppose the point of law would be whether or not Google violated its privacy policy in divulging the student's name. If Google held out that it would keep members' personal information private (without reference to the possibility that court orders to the contrary could make this impossible) then she may have a pretty good case.


----------



## dustinm (24 Aug 2009)

I don't understand.

1. Woman makes comments.
2. Court orders her identity revealed for libel
3. Google complies with court order.
4. Woman sues *Google*? ???


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Aug 2009)

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> I don't understand.
> 
> 1. Woman makes comments.
> 2. Court orders her identity revealed for libel
> ...



Only in the USA, where you can file a lawsuit just as easy as you can blow your nose.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Aug 2009)

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> I don't understand.
> 
> 1. Woman makes comments.
> 2. Court orders her identity revealed for libel
> ...



1. Woman under the mistaken impression you can hide behind a pseudonym and publicly say whatever you want on the Internet...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Aug 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only in the USA, where you can file a lawsuit just as easy as you can blow your nose.



Though it may seem that the USA is the most litigious society, (from what I've been told/experienced) Germans make use of the legal system much more often to settle disputes.  We probably don't hear of them because we don't follow the German media and most of their lawsuits are (most likely) more practical.  It is common practice in Germany to have legal insurance.


----------

