Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger

from the someone-should-explain-the-first-amendment dept

Last we checked in on David Coursey, a long-time tech columnist, he was claiming that The Pirate Bay made money selling subscriptions to users and didn't seem to understand the difference between "theft" and "infringement" or the difference between a search engine and a user. So... I guess we shouldn't really be all that surprised that he's about the only person around who seems to think it was a good thing that a court forced an anonymous blogger to be revealed for referring to model Liskula Cohen as a skank. Apparently, Coursey is unfamiliar with the fact that the US has a strong history of protecting anonymous speech as a part of our First Amendment rights, and this ruling seems to go against that entirely. And, yes, you can be unmasked for truly defamatory speech, but calling someone a skank hardly qualifies. And, of course, he doesn't even acknowledge the fact that almost no one would have seen that particular anonymous blogspot blog if Cohen hadn't freaked out and sued.

It's difficult to see how that makes her a "hero." Thin-skinned? Short-sighted? Perhaps. Hero? Please.

Oh yeah, Coursey then goes on to suggest this should be a warning sign for Google to start censoring the blogs it hosts:
It should also make Google take a hard look at the kinds of sites its Blogger service is willing to host. A "Skanks of NYC" blog may give jealous people a chance to vent their frustration, but hardly seems to ennoble the human spirit.
I don't know. I think Coursey's column should make PC World take a long hard look at the kinds of columns it's willing to host (and, one imagines, pay for). A David Coursey column may give a clueless tech columnist a chance to state his opinion with little knowledge of the facts or history, but hardly seems to ennoble the human spirit. (And, yes, I'm joking, but the point is that this is almost, but not quite, as ridiculous as Coursey suggesting Google needs to monitor and censor blogs).

By the way, the Coursey column does reveal that the anonymous blogger was revealed to Cohen, and it was some woman she didn't know (big surprise there). So, I'm curious how this is a good thing for anyone involved or how Cohen is somehow a hero. If she ignored this site, no one would have seen it or cared (and those who saw it wouldn't have thought that it was some sort of NY Times report on the skankiness of Liskula Cohen). They would have dismissed it as a lame venting from someone who didn't like Cohen for whatever reason. But, now with a lawsuit, lots of people aren't just questioning whether or not Cohen is "a skank" but about her rather sensitive reaction to the slightest criticism from a nobody. How does that make Cohen better off?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    steve, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:46am

    Huh

    There goes free speech... All because of some skank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Me, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:56am

    Name calling.

    Just think if some one called her the "C" word :P
    Free speech is never going to go away just like that. It is going to be chipped away bit by bit. That is how you do it. And stretch it over generations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Blargy, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:00am

    Re: Huh

    @ Steve: Shall I link "First Amendment to the United States Constitution" or can you manage to Google that yourself? You really must try reading the whole thing sometime.

    @MM: Maybe Coursey meant that exposing oneself to the added publicity and inevitable blogger cheap shots was heroic. Just sayin'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    JessicaMichaels (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:01am

    free speech

    The "bloggist"....could have been a psycho who was stalking the model, honing more sinister intentions then being a rumor spreader.
    Free speech should be for those who identify themselves. Not the "Wizard of Oz" behind a closed door or some creepo from another country throwing out propaganda under false pretenses.
    People believe what they read. The model is A-OK and did the right thing. She didn't start it, thought hopefully she will finish it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:02am

    How is Google at all involved with this. In fact, by censoring don't they lose a kind of common carrier status and become liable for stuff like this?
    From my understanding isn't in their best interest to do exactly the opposite of what Coursey is recommending?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:02am

    Did you see

    "Cohen said she apologized if she had done anything to the culprit, whom she said she has forgiven--but still plans to sue for defamation, though she hinted that an apology from the woman could change that."

    So, she forgave the person but still is going to sue. That's not forgiveness, that's a grudge.

    "This case reminds us that First Amendment or not, malicious speech is not protected speech."

    I think Coursey is a damn idiot. Probably got picked on too much in school and never got over it.

    I read this yesterday, I don't plan on going back to PCworld.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:03am

    Skank is a nobody

    I searched for her when I got home when TD had the first part of this. 2 large pics and 4 of the same smaller pics. Dont you actually have to have a career to be able to claim damages?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:03am

    Re: Huh

    Imagine how unimportant her life must be to have to sue someone for calling her a "bad name". I guess it must be true, or she wouldn't sue!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:04am

    "And, yes, you can be unmasked for truly defamatory speech, but calling someone a skank hardly qualifies."

    Mike I'm so glad you said that. The mistake the judge made was not to expose an anonymous defamer. If you defame someone anonymously, Courts can and will "unmask" you. There is simply no right to anonymously defame someone in the US.

    The mistake the judge made was in finding that the word "skank" could be defamatory. That was ludicrous. Mere insults and name calling are not defamatory because they're mere opinions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Herbert Humbert, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:06am

    Re: Huh

    She's the skankiest skank ever!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:07am

    At what point, exactly...

    did blogs become the place people went to have their spirit "ennobled"?

    I always thought it went more along the lines of: "Opinions are like assholes. On a related note, all you need is valid email address to create your own blog."

    I believe that phrase is directly from the Wordpress.com welcome screen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Herbert Humbert, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:10am

    Re: Re: Huh

    @Blargy

    Although it's not a statute that is infringing upon the First Amendment, this type of ruling has what is called "a chilling effect," and it does involve Free Speech issues.

    Maybe you should Google "chilling effect" you freaking skank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:13am

    Attention Masses

    It has been a while since you've been blessed by one of my decrees, but here comes #3 like a nut in the eye:

    "Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger"

    It is a little known fact that I, Lord Helmet, happen to believe in the basic concept of karmic energy. By that, I'm not referring necessarily to the whole "good people are rewarded, bad people are punished" concept. No, I just believe that there is a natural balance to things and that, eventually, all things will even out, like the yin and the yang.

    Which brings me to my new policy of the active evening out of hyperbolic language. Today's media and politicians, and to a lesser extent everyday people, have allowed hyperbole to get completely out of control. As a result, it is up to the Spaceballs to even things out.

    So here's the deal, if you publically state something so hyperbolic that a judging panel of 12 monkeys, one elephant, and a goldfish all instantly shit themselves simultaneously in a choruss of poop, then you will be dealt with. How will you be dealt with? Well, with the opposite of hyperbole, of course. We'll over-punish you as severely as you committed hyperbole, and understate it just as much.

    -Overstate the effects of global warming in order to sell newspapers? You get a swift kick to the nuts that we'll refer to as "Lower torso hangitude readjustment".

    -Say that either President Bush or President Clinton were the worst presidents in the history of America? You're going to have to spend six months in solitary listening to ABBA in what I like to refer to as "Auditory attitude adjustment".

    -Actually have the balls to refer to an idiotic woman so devoid of self-esteem that actually spending time searching out and reviewing hate-blogs that no one actually reads as a HERO? When there are service men and women, honest cops and firemen, social workers trying to make a difference, animal rights activists, an entire LEGION of volunteer workers who don't have the time or money to give but still do? Well, you my friend get the chair. Or as we'll be calling it "Bringing CHARGES Against You".

    As Lord Helmet has written it, so shall it be done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Blargy, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Huh

    @HH: oooooooh! Your impotent rage is showing...

    hardly meets the criteria for Brennan's "chilling effect". Again. Just sayin'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Sam, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:14am

    Still a Skank

    The article wasn't about the "skank" herself, but about David Coursey and his characterizing the skank as a "hero". And nothing could be further from the truth.

    BTW. *clears throat*

    David Coursey is a skankier skank than Liskula Cohen.

    Sue me, bitches.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Free Capitalist, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Huh

    @MM: Maybe Coursey meant that exposing oneself to the added publicity and inevitable blogger cheap shots was heroic. Just sayin'.


    Interesting theory. I'm more inclined to think she acted with impulsive self-interest, determined by a solipcistic world-view and a puerile, undeveloped outlook on self-respect and dignity. All this precludes any consideration or knowledge of 'the outside world', any sense of self-awareness, or, least of all, an understanding of the First Amendment and its relevance in society today.



    Or is that how skanks act?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Herbert Humbert, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:15am

    Re: free speech

    @JessicaMichaels

    Anonymous speech is also worth protecting. Anonymity has been an important factor in political speech throughout our history and to quash it would be dangerous.

    You have no concept of the marketplace of ideas. You freaking skank!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Huh

    "Shall I link "First Amendment to the United States Constitution" or can you manage to Google that yourself? You really must try reading the whole thing sometime."

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Yep, Google's fun. This has since been interpreted to protect quite a few freedoms of expression and prevent any government body from infringing on those expressions. This has also been interpreted to extend to anonymous expression. This is the exact reason that GTA, a game that quite a few people find obscenely offensive, cannot be banned despite Rockstar adding things just to piss people off.

    The First Amendment is more than just words, it's the definition behind those words. We cannot let that definition die because people feel offended.

    "Maybe Coursey meant that exposing oneself to the added publicity and inevitable blogger cheap shots was heroic. Just sayin'."

    Only if we take the "Fable" approach to the definition of Hero. Where you could be a tyrannical dictator who kills everyone that looks at you wrong and still be called a hero. Where a hero just has to change the world for better or worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    @freespeech_dumbass, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:16am

    Re: free speech

    Thanks to dipsh*ts like you, we are losing personal freedoms.
    We wouldn't have had this country without anonymous free speech. Idiots like you have no knowledge of why anonymous speech need to be protected, and you insist that free speech only be allowed to those who identify themselves.

    Here is a short list of history changing anonymous documents:
    Pentagon Papers, Federalist Papers, and Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". So if was up to, I guess we would still be under British rule.

    BTW: Cohen and Coursey are skanky whores.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    chuckterzella (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:19am

    Real Names

    This is why I ALWAYS use my real name when I post...I've called George Bush, Dick Cheney and a hundred other Neo-Cons and Evangelicals skanks, cranks and far worse, but always as me. If you're not brave enough to slander under your real name, you have no business slandering at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Herbert Humbert, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh

    @Blargy

    You proved your skankity skankness.

    Chilling effect also applies to libel and civil suits-- the phrase was around before Brennan. We have stringent libel standards in the USA precisely because of the first amendment issues involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    zaven (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:25am

    Re: Re: Huh

    Better be careful, maybe she's an avid Techdirt reader. She could read your comment and sue you too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Free Capitalist, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:27am

    Re: free speech

    Free speech should be for those who identify themselves


    Should we also abandon the anonymous ballot? The principle acting there is the same as anonymous free speech.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:29am

    Re: Real Names

    Please provide your social security and credit card numbers so that we may verify that your name is, in fact, "Chuck Terzella" as opposed to some anonymous alias. Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    yozoo, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:30am

    goin all shakesperian

    me thinks the lady protest too much!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:31am

    Re: free speech

    So what's your first and last name, is it JessicaMichaels? Or not? Please put a youtube video identifying your full name and identifying your nick on techdirt and identifying that you're a registered poster on techdirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: free speech

    and the video (notice I didn't use the word picture) should have your face on it obviously, with you speaking, so we can see exactly who you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Jason Kostempski, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:35am

    I'll do it.

    Assuming this site lets my comment through, I'll call her a cunt right now, and not anonymously. Liskula Cohen is a cunt.

    As a side note, free speech won't need to be taken away by the government if people keep censoring themselves. It's 'cunt', not 'the "C" word'. I've heard this word on TV plenty of times in recent years, I don't think you would find much 15-20 years ago. Free speech is getting better, not worse. Any censoring going on these days is largely enforced by the company that runs the TV station, movie studio, radio show, or website that creates and/or broadcast the content, in addition to what relatively little the government enforces. Cohen may have succeeded in scaring this one person, and maybe a few other bloggers that read this article, into censoring themselves out of irrational fear, but most people will not even flinch at this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:36am

    Re: free speech

    The fact is we live in a state of tyranny where retaliation may very well exist if we exercise our free speech. The whole point of free speech is to be able to exercise our free speech without retaliation, otherwise it defeats the purpose. If retaliation truly doesn't exist for free speech then there should be no reason for us to identify ourselves being that you claim it doesn't make a difference. The only reason an entity should want us to identify ourselves is to give some entity the opportunity to retaliate against us if we disagree with it, which defeats the purpose of having free speech laws. People can have free speech in any country, even without free speech laws, but the point is that retaliation may exist. They may lose their jobs, be thrown in jail, killed, or otherwise. So by that logic everyone has free speech everywhere, even in oppressive tyrant states. But the point of free speech is to give us the opportunity to express our free speech without retaliation. and why else should we have to identify unless the purpose is to give others an opportunity to retaliate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Bad Tim Mahoney, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:44am

    Skanks So Much Beeoch

    Irate bitches everywhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:45am

    Chan Dirt

    Tech Columnist Calls Model 'An Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:46am

    Freedom of speech is a tricky one. In theory you are free to call your boss an asshole but should you automatically be free from the consequences?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:48am

    Re: I'll do it.

    "Assuming this site lets my comment through"

    You must be new here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:50am

    Re:

    The First Amendment protects us from the government censoring speech, not your boss. The courts said this was a bad thing, not, say, Google. If Google said they didn't like it and removed it, then they would be well within their rights, it's their servers after all. The government cannot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:51am

    Re: Real Names

    all righty then, what is your real name and why are you too scared to use it now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:52am

    Re: Chan Dirt

    "Tech Columnist Calls Model 'An Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger"

    Only in England. Around these parts, we pronounce the letters in our words.

    ...except sometimes silent vowels. Oh, and sometimes a "C" sounds like an "S". Uh, and "CH" can sound different as well.

    ...You know what, never mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:54am

    the only thing that Coursey's article does is show that his writing, and PC world itself, is more useless than a marzipan dildo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re: free speech

    Or better yet I'll make you do what myspace does. Get a piece of paper, write your full name and your registered nick on techdirt below your name and that you're a registered user on techdirt below that, hold it up and have someone take a high quality picture with your face in it from straight ahead so everyone can see your face. Post it here. Then we can verify who you are, at least with a picture. Also, put your drivers license or State ID in the picture as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    A Dan, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:01am

    Re:

    Your company can do whatever your contract with them allows, including firing you. But, they won't successfully sue you in court over it. That's where freedom of speech comes in; not at the "any consequences" level, but at the government level.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:07am

    You all are damn idiots!

    Entertainingly so.
    ;)

    On topic:
    I read the "apology" statement this morning and was a little stunned at her final words as describing this poster's life as "sad" for having nothing better to do.

    Granted, I'm going from what was presented to me in "news", but this is now a cat fight.

    Both these girls have thin skins. One can't take an insult and laugh it off while the other hides behind the anonymity of the internet to make said insults.

    The internet is wonderful.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re:

    But then doesn't the "boss" act like a sort of government? Then what becomes the difference between your boss and the government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Stupiduser (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:10am

    maybe it is 6th amendment

    The 6th amendment - "The right to confront your accuser in court of law" has been recently reinterpreted to mean that is you are accused (slandered) outside of a court then you can sue that person to have them appear in court. This interpretation is being used to make reporters provide their 'confidential government" sources in some instances.

    But also it is being used to have annonymous writers 'outed' because of their writting. In most cases the "victim" doesn't have to prove the writting is inaccurate/liable/slander. They just imply that it could be inaccurante (and thus not protected speech) so the writer must show themselves to prove 'she is a skank'.

    Maybe bringing down the first amendment makes you a skank!

    I think the blogger, a person she knows, has an easy defense since Skank has many definitions. So so the inference fould have been misinterpreted by the "victim". Maybe the blogger was suggesting that she was a rythmic reggae dance. But even if the term was used as otherwise defined, who better than someone who knows the person to define them as a Skank.

    If an unknown writer said that then I might agree, but when a former friend says something abd about you, maybe they know the truth. And truth is protected by the first amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Huh

    FYI, Coursey is allegedly a man.

    A skanky, skany man.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Pangolin (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:13am

    Something inconsistent at Techdirt

    Techdirt posts continually tout safe harbors and indicate - on more than one occasions - that persons suing should sue the INDIVIDUAL USING the services and NOT the service providers.

    This Cohen DID.

    Why are you complaining that the bloggers ID was revealed - NOT PUBLICLY - but to COHEN? She can't sue if she can't find out who posted the allegedly offending post. She followed the rules - even the rules that Techdirt advocates - yet now is the product of derision over that choice.

    Free speech isn't affected. Anonymous posting has been used as a SHIELD against SLANDER and LIBEL. One could argue that the postings WERE Slanderous and the lawsuit justified and the methods used PROPER.

    Why all the fuss?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:15am

    Just wondering...

    The case wasn't about if "Skank" is too offensive or not. The case was that someone made a remark that this model took as a serious offense. And I do think people have a right to know who is insulting them. You can't sue an anonymous person so to take further steps, you need to know who did the insulting.
    I can imagine the judge to force Google to provide the identity of the person who did the insults so another judge can decide if the remarks are defamatory or not.

    Free speech doesn't allow people to freely insult others without further consequences. Free speech is mostly so people can tell their opinions freely to others without any fear. But insults aren't opinions and that makes a big difference.

    But Liskula Cohen is no hero.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    CStrube (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:18am

    Re: Name calling.

    Holy chilling effect batman, now we're censoring the word cunt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Free Capitalist, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:19am

    Re: Just wondering...

    And I do think people have a right to know who is insulting them


    Wrong. Insults are not automatically defamation. They are opinion, contrary to your opinion.

    Free speech doesn't allow people to freely insult others without further consequences


    Wrong again. See above.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Peregrine, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:25am

    Re: free speech

    The problem with that is that there are some circumstances where you would be fired or possibly killed if it was known that you were the one who said something, yet it was important that people knew about it.


    Sure the internet is full of trolls and name callers blah blah blah..... But that is really the price you have to pay.

    What we should be doing is gathering up the IP's of everyone who take this kind of shit seriously blocking their access to blogs or any kind of open forum.


    Problem solved no more offended people, no slandering.


    Every Blog is not an official news cast many are simply diaries or journals. They can be left open to the public because they are anonymous.

    If you find one where someones calls you a mean name don't panic. Don't call your lawyer. Don't call your mommy(unless you are a kid). Maybe try being a grown up and remembering the old sticks and stones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:25am

    Mike, the first amendment is a two way street - you have freedom of speech, this is true, but you also have responsibility that comes with it.

    Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to hide. Even as an anonymous coward, I know that you are carefully tracking IP addresses. When I say something, it isn't just lobbing a word bomb into a crowded room and running. I have liablity that comes with what I say.

    Nobody should ever feel that they can say the type of crap this guy (or girl) said online and expect to not be liable. Unmasking the individual is a huge step in establishing the other half of the game required for internet bloggers to be taken seriously: responsibility for your words.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Scaper (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:27am

    Re: free speech

    @JessicaMichaels

    Our American Revolution would not have happened if not for the ubiquity of anonymous pamphlets being distributed throughout the colonies, uniting the people and bringing to light the injustices of taxation without representation (among other things). Without the freedom to speak anonymously, half of journalist's sources disappear. There is no Watergate. Nixon uses his corrupt tactics to hang onto power, and we get a different future.

    Etc., etc. Protected anonymous free speech is a vital part of free speech in the US. Not to understand this fact is a dangerous ignorance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    CStrube (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The government can kill you (at least in the US) if it doesn't like you or what you do, and publicly give itself a pat on the back for doing so. Your boss hopefully can't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:28am

    What a hardcore fucking skankorella, and I'm talking about the judge. Serious cunt-biscuit right there!

    I call people all sorts of stuff all the time. Their usual response is to come back with an equally witty retort, like 'your mum!' or 'Suck my big fat and hairy labia!'

    That's how freedom of speech really works, you speak about shit freely, with eachother.

    Run off to a judge you dirty bitch, but be prepared for the whole world to start calling you twat-muncher and get on with it.

    I love free speech!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Free Capitalist, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The relationship between you and your boss is a private agreement, and in most cases these days, legally defined as 'at-will'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    you are an idiot jessicamichaels, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:29am

    Re: free speech - Are you a skank?

    It has become quite clear that free speech isnt free. In some countries you get killed for attempting to voice your opinion especially if it is not one that goes with the party line. The model is a nobody and is most likely using this to bring attention to herself. I will go as far as to say she is now an attention whore. Its OK TD, you can give me up. I have lawyers in the family that would love to tear this whore apart.

    "could have been a psycho"
    You "could" be psycho
    You "could" be a pedophile
    You "could" be a stalker
    You "could" be an ass
    You "could" be a nice person that has a gripe with an individual and needs to FREELY EXPRESS YOUR DISLIKE in a healthy way by posting your frustration on a blog.
    Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
    Asses like you accept treating someone like they are guilty before proven innocent. That's not the way it works in this country. Go somewhere else, you do not deserve to be here.

    "Free speech should be for those who identify themselves."
    Why? Because YOU say so. Privacy is an important part of free speech. Would whistle blowers come out if they had to identify themselves? You just don't get it, and never will.

    "People believe what they read"
    No, dumb asses like yourself believe everything they read. Most intelligent rational thinking people would realize it was a rant for whatever reason and see it for that. The "model" in question is looking for publicity. Se really has no career, not one worth mentioning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Shienen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:29am

    Also, America would be better off it was still under our rule. You did yourselves in there!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Scaper (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:29am

    Re:

    Anonymous Coward is wise, indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:31am

    Re:

    mmm... marzipan dildo.....

    ahhhhlglglglggglglglglwww.......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:34am

    "The case was that someone made a remark that this model took as a serious offense"

    I'm taking it the courts should next wipe her ass, hold her hand as she crosses the street and give her little self-esteem constant encouragement.

    The skank was not defamed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:34am

    This is so much bullshit......

    Lets see....
    Blogger anonomously calls Model skank, un-acceptable.
    Papparazzi flys helicopter over house for 168/week, acceptable.

    WTF? are we exchanging the constitution/ bill of rights for....toilet paper?

    it seems like the Jerky Boys are runnin' the courts, while Bill and Ted run the congress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Shel10 (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:35am

    Free Speech Is Not Free

    The constitution says that we may speak freely with out fear of reprisal from our government. However, it does not say that we have the right to do so anonymously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:37am

    Anonymity is important. For example, when some company or group of people or the government or people work for the government do something wrong people should have the right to report it without having to face retaliation. For example see

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/225240253.shtml
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2 0090429/0244064692.shtml
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/1608505257.shtml
    http://www.tec hdirt.com/articles/20081217/0233353149.shtml

    Also there is the case that was posted on Techdirt (can't find it right now) about a cop blogger revealing somethings about his department and someone figured out who they were and told everyone. I can't find it right now but Mike even said he thought it was OK if someone finds out who you are via other means (ie: deduction) and exposes you because that's just part of the Internet.

    Also take things like wikileaks should have anonymity. and there is the issue of journalists not revealing their sources as well, there is good reason for anonymity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Scaper (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:38am

    Re: Just wondering...

    An insult is an opinion. Period.

    Besides, in a court case of libel or slander, it has to be proven that the insult has harmed the victim in a meaningful, quantifiable way. That means sales have dropped, medications have been administered, etc. -- there has to be proof that the insults were truly harmful in reality to that person. NOT just that "her feelings were hurt". Defaming someone has to hurt them somehow in a way that can be shown by evidence. How did Cohen prove that this level was reached for her? She didn't.

    The fact that a judge (or group of judges) allowed this case to even be heard stuns me, because such a case cannot deliver the aforementioned proof of real harm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    minijedimaster (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Huh

    he could read your comment and sue you too.

    What would be the point, he didn't post as "Anonymous Coward".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:41am

    Got a point up there. If she'd sleuthed around about and cunningly discovered the bloggers identity then I'd have given her a fucking great high-five!

    But she went crawling to mummy government bitching about it like some prissy little skank!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    minijedimaster (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Huh

    he could read your comment and sue you too.

    What would be the point, he didn't post as "Anonymous Coward".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Name calling.

    Holy chilling effect batman, now we're censoring the word cunt

    i am offended and i am going to sue everyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Just wondering...

    Even if there was real harm, big deal. If I disagree with someone and I tell everyone why I disagree with them and everyone agrees with me so they stop buying merchandise from that person/entity or not hire them that's no big deal. Say I bought a product and it turned out to be defected. I call techsupport and they're useless. I blog about it. The company loses millions. TOUGH. The company should have acted responsibly instead of ripping off its customers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:47am

    If she plans to sue for slander then she better make sure that is not in fact a Shank.

    skank (skāngk) n.
    1. A rhythmic dance performed to reggae or ska music, characterized by bending forward, raising the knees, and extending the hands.
    2. Disgusting or vulgar matter; filth.
    3. One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.


    Hummmmmm.... might be true if the anonymous commentators have high moral standards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Just wondering...

    So are you saying that if the blogger had called Liskula Cohen and asked her to stop being a skank before she blogged then it'd be ok?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:56am

    Re:

    The blogger in question didn't just call her a skank, he referred to her as (if I remember correctly) "the biggest skank in new york". So even if she is somewhat of a skank, it is very unlikely that she is the biggest skank in new york.

    Further, he stated as a fact she was in her mid 40s, when she is in fact in her mid 30s. If any potential employer might have seen the post and decides not to use an "old lady" for their campaigns, harm may have been done.

    In the end, the information this blogger published was incorrect, a lie, and appears to have been done to be hurtful and to cause harm. The same words in a newspaper would cost millions, why should a blogger be held to a lower standard? After all, Mike has assured us that bloggers can replace journalists. Well, then, they can eat the consequences as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Paul Hobbs (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:56am

    Re:

    Marzipan dildo. I love it! That is truly funny. I'd like to use that term to describe truly useless people/organisations/policies, etc. Would I be guilty of copyright infringement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    zellamayzao, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:57am

    Re:

    Yeah all she really did is open the door to a whole slew of new insults and people calling her worse names than before from the actions she took.

    I work in a body shop and we had this high school kid working part time who was a pretty boy so he got the nickname "sunshine". He hated it and made the mistake of letting us know he hated it and wanted us to stop because he didnt like it. Guess what....he got it worse and a few others on top of it. He probably should have just kept his mouth shut and acted like a big boy or maybe made fun back at us?

    They started calling me "Cindy" my first day there and I said if thats what you guys are gonna call me then so be it. They saw it didnt hurt my feelings and lost interest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re:

    "The blogger in question didn't just call her a skank, he referred to her as (if I remember correctly) "the biggest skank in new york". So even if she is somewhat of a skank, it is very unlikely that she is the biggest skank in new york."

    In other words, by the context, it's clear that it was just an expression, not to be taken literally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, actually, it was part of a blog called "Skanks of New York". Already, this is a pretty marginal concept. So to crown her as the "biggest skank in new york" pretty much excludes it from being "just an expression". It was entirely in context.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:07am

    Re:

    BTW, can someone find me a link to the cop case I'm referring to, maybe Mike knows who I'm talking about. About the cop who posted a comment revealing information about his police department and someone figure out who they were and made it public, it wasn't through a court injunction or anything like that, and Mike said he was OK with that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:08am

    Re:

    Here's the difference: If the information is not true, they are liable. It's always that way. So you can by anonymous as you like as long as you are telling the truth. Make stuff up and drag down someone's character and image in the public eye, and you don't deserve to be anonymous.

    It's pretty simple stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re:

    wait, n/m, I already posted it. It was this one

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/1608505257.shtml

    Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:09am

    I still think that its a publicity stunt on her part. She is getting her name out there when previously most (if not all) of us would never have heard of her.

    I think it is very important to keep this story rolling indefinitely so that everyone remembers why we know her name. If we forget the story but remember the name then she wins as it will likely aid her career.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:10am

    Who is the biggest Skank in New York?

    Maybe they have a case for slander having their title so wrecklessly given to another person?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re:

    Not only must the information be not true, the person must know it's not true. If they thought it was true it's not defamation.

    Secondly, in this case, the person wasn't making things up. The person didn't mean the word literally. I can say a politician is stupid and that's my opinion. If I said the politician broke into my house and stole something and I saw them do it and I know better that's defamation. There is a difference. Stating something about someone, like calling them stupid or some other word, is fine. In this situation it's clear the person didn't mean the word literally so it's not defamation in the sense that they were making up false facts. They were coming to a conclusion based on the same facts that everyone else knew. A politician might make a publicly known decision and based on that I may say he's stupid, you might say he's brilliant. Same data, different interpretation. That's fine, it's not defamation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, it was not in context, being that you're ignoring the context of the blog itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It was entirely in context."

    People use these sorts of terms all the time figuratively, not literally. You have provided zero evidence that the term was meant to be used literally and even you admit that "it is very unlikely that she is the biggest skank in new york" in other words it is very unlikely that the phrase was to be taken literally. So even you provided evidence that the phrase was to be taken figuratively with zero that it should be taken literally. So given the context it's not defamation being that it was not to be taken literally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Free Capitalist, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Already, this is a pretty marginal concept.

    Exactly what is a "marginal concept", and where can I buy more?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    technomage (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:40am

    Re: Just wondering...

    can't sue an anonymous person? ROFL. Must be new here too, if you want tips on how to sue anonymous people, just follow the RIAA threads here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    taoareyou (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:42am

    Want to know how this could be "chilling"?

    So, now if you publish a negative opinion, there is precedent for not only publicly identifying you, but taking legal action because you made your opinion known.

    It seems trivial. A model and a blogger.

    But what happens when you publish your opinion of a business? If it is negative, but and opinion (and by opinion, I mean something subjective, like "skank". You cannot prove a subjective opinion is untrue, especially when the person who makes it claims it is true to them. Actual untruths are obviously not protected), any entity can take you to court (although if they make any statements of opinion about you, such as you are a "sad" person who has nothing better to do, you should certainly take offense and sue them for publicly expressing their negative opinion of you).

    Negative movie review? Court. Bad restaurant review? Court. You didn't like my plumbing service and posted it on Angie's List? COURT! When individuals and companies can use the courts (aka. Government) to stifle if not actually penalize publicly expressed negative opinions, that is definitely a "chilling effect" on our rights to express how we feel.

    On some other notes. Stating an negative opinion is not an "accusation" in any legal sense and does not give you the right to force a person to identify themselves (opening themselves up to all sorts of retribution).

    Freedom of speech allows you to make any negative opinions you want ("Lady X is a Skank" is opinion. "Lady X is a child rapist" is not. One cannot be disproved because there is not a set legal definition for "skank", while there certainly is legal definition for the latter) and not be prosecuted by the government.

    Anonymous speech is not singled out as prohibited so by default it remains under the blanket of "speech". You cannot arbitrarily select certain types of speech and declare them unprotected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Shienen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:46am

    Would I get sued if I called Victoria Beckham a talentless pratt?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Howard, Cowering, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: (#70 - AC)

    References?

    You state as fact that she is in her mid 30s. Link to her birth certificate? A "professional" model, in a youth-hungry business, isn't likely to be tempted to shave a few years off her publicized age. Riiiiight.

    It's nice to know that potential employers in New York make a habit of checking the "Biggest Skanks of NYC" blog before offering work. Perhaps you can offer verification of this statement?

    Where has Mike assured us that bloggers can replace journalists? I can recall a number of instances where he has averred that journalism and/or investigative reporting is not going to die simply because traditional newspapers are on their way out, but not one where he said bloggers would "replace journalists."

    In the end, the information you published is incorrect, unverifiable; in short, a lie. Newspapers publish opinions, both popular and unpopular, all the time. It's called an editorial. In fact, even in news articles, there are often direct quotes attributed to "unnamed sources," which may do economic damage to someone else. They still get published.

    If you are afraid of being called a skank, don't do skanky things.

    Duh!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Chris, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:01am

    Lincoln's "Skanks of Springfield"

    Many people don't know that Abraham Lincoln anonymously wrote something similar to "Skanks of Springfield" under the pseudonym "Rebecca."

    Lincoln quoted an adversary as having made this skanky remark to the women of Springfield;

    "Dear girls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all. Too well I know how much you suffer; but do, do remember, it is not my fault that I am so handsome and so interesting."


    Of course, during much of our history, the offended person's only defense would be to challenge their suspected tormentor to a duel. And both might then 'suffer' the ensuing publicity.

    If there had been YouTube back on September 22, 1842, we might have video of Abraham Lincoln fighting a hilarious duel with cavalry broadswords.

    Can we hope that Ms. Cohen, and Mr. STNBAB will entertain us with a duel, maybe cream pies at 50 paces, instead of a boring lawsuit?

    http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-prepares-to-fight-a-saber-duel.htm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:21am

    Re: free speech

    Jessica, you're a fucking skank

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:35am

    Re: Attention Masses

    I don't care. Jessica is still a fucking skank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:35am

    Liskula Cohen is a SKANK!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Real Names

    you got his name wrong.

    its Chuckter Zella

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:38am

    Re: Skanks So Much Beeoch

    I rate Skanks everwhere, especially here.

    I rate Jessica a class-A skank

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re:

    please use it freely, one thing I don't like about America is that people just use a string of swear-words to hurl insults. I believe that people nee to be creative with their insults.

    so, feel free to use it, but also try to come up with your own and encourage other people to do so as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    iNtrigued (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:43am

    Re: Something inconsistent at Techdirt

    "Techdirt posts continually tout safe harbors and indicate - on more than one occasions - that persons suing should sue the INDIVIDUAL USING the services and NOT the service providers."

    Hence why nobody has brought that argument up. They aren't faulting her in that regard. The whole argument is on the first amendment, value of anonymity, and Cohen's actions.

    "Why are you complaining that the bloggers ID was revealed - NOT PUBLICLY - but to COHEN? She can't sue if she can't find out who posted the allegedly offending post. She followed the rules - even the rules that Techdirt advocates - yet now is the product of derision over that choice."

    First, its a slipper-slope argument. Second, the problem is she shouldn't be suing in the first place. She has most definitely brought this to many more people's attention by doing so. If anything she should be suing herself, since she is the one spreading the rumor. I doubt more than a dozen people would have even read the blog, let alone took it to mean Cohen really was a skank. After her actions though, she will forever be tied to the word "Skank" regardless of whether she is one or not. Its a prime example of a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY if you ask me. Third, I would like to know which "rules" you are referring to.

    "Free speech isn't affected. Anonymous posting has been used as a SHIELD against SLANDER and LIBEL. One could argue that the postings WERE Slanderous and the lawsuit justified and the methods used PROPER."

    Many people are missing the point, it is not about free speech, as a re:free speech from an AC pointed out, but the retaliation for that speech. In that case, the judge's ruling most certainly has an affect. Don't get me wrong, both Cohen and the blogger/"supposed ex-friend" are at fault, but that does not mean the courts need to get involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Re: Free Speech Is Not Free

    The constitution says that we may speak freely with out fear of reprisal from our government. However, it does not say that we have the right to do so anonymously.

    This is so wrong on so many levels that it would take an entire semester of Constitutional Law to sort it out. Sadly, yours is probably the majority opinion in this country now - that we have no rights unless those rights have been expressly granted by the government.

    Of course, this is good news for those in power, as it blinds you and just about everybody else to the rampant abuse of your natural rights. Why would you overthrow a government if you believe that government is the source of your rights, rather than an infringement against those rights?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Chan Dirt

    Sorry, I can't let this go. Sorry Dark, but you brought up one of my pet peeves. So here we go:

    People, there is a rule for using "a" or "an" in cases like these. The rule is: Use "a" if the following word starts with a consonant, use "an" if the following word starts with a vowel (or vowel sound).

    Vowel sound? What's that?

    Glad you asked. The word "Hour" starts with an "H" which is a consonant. But we don't say "a hour", do we? No, we say "an hour". Why? Because the "H" is *silent*, giving way to the "o" which follows it. Therefore, we are using the "o" for our rule.

    Now, some people have gotten confused by this. They somehow think all "H"s are silent. How, I can't imagine, but it has happened nonetheless. These people say things like "An Historic Moment"

    FAIL!

    "A Historic Moment" is the correct pronunciation. Why?

    Because the "H" isn't silent, you skank!

    Class dismissed.

    CBMHB

    P.S. - The only people I let off easy on this rule are those silly little cockney boys who say shit like:

    "'Ello, mate - Crikey, that was an 'istoric moment, wunnit?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    Hey Liskula, is that almond paste?...

    Ewwwww! You ARE a skank!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Chan Dirt

    ""'Ello, mate - Crikey, that was an 'istoric moment, wunnit?""

    Wot wot, Gov-nah, let's jigger a spot of tea, wot?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, based on some of the quotes I read from this link, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/skanks-in-nyc-blog-post-leads-to-lawsuit-against-goo gle.ars , I'm beginning to think the term might have been meant to be literal. Still doesn't mean I necessarily support the judges decision though, just a bit confused now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    iNtrigued (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:39am

    Re: ...the first amendment is a two way street

    Nobody should ever feel that they can say the type of crap this guy (or girl) said online and expect to not be liable.

    Actually, its a free country, at least in the US, and you are free to feel however you want regardless of how wrong it is. Just don't expect people to take you seriously, but Cohen apparently took them very seriously and in there lies the problem. She should have realized that this blogger was just a ranting, raving troll and gone on with her life, like any other grown adult would have done. But instead, brought it to the attention of a much bigger audience forever linking her name to the word "Skank". As brought up many times on TD, this is a clear example of the Streisand Effect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Philippa McKee, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:57am

    Absolution from "Feeling Offended" is in the Bill of Rights for Canadians?

    I laughed when I read that representing counsel stated "her client's defense is based on the Bill of Rights." Source

    So I read the Bill of rights, and was unable to find anything that applies.

    In fact, I believe she's a Canadian. Do rights cross borders and Canadians get transferable "Rights" under the Bill of Rights?

    Perhaps this is offense she feels.

    Offense is often considered an emotion. I'm also pretty sure it's not written in the Bill of rights or Constitiution that you are granted life, liberty, freedom, and absolution from offense.

    The judge was obviously very wrong in his ruling. Does ignorance feed this "offense" sensation? Or was it the desire to hold this woman's body?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Absolution from "Feeling Offended" is in the Bill of Rights for Canadians?

    Yes, she's canadaian.

    Can we send her back? I want a refund.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Free Capitalist, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh

    FYI, Coursey is allegedly a man.

    A skanky, skany man.


    Oh you're good. I like you. And not in a sarcastic or biblical way.

    Skanky is as skanky does. Which about sums up Cohen's legal standing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    MrPlain, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 12:19pm

    Turned off coments

    I just noticed that the comments on that blog article and the retarded follow up that he wrote have been disable a few moments ago. Apparently, Coursey doesn't like the feedback he's getting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Absolution from "Feeling Offended" is in the Bill of Rights for Canadians?

    I think that we do afford foreign citizens most if not all of the protections of our constitution. I also think that the judge was a female.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Just wondering...

    The RIAA actually can't sue either. They first have to find the identity of the persons whom they want to sue, but no one gets convicted anonimously, because people have the right to defend themselves in court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Pangolin (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Just wondering...

    Get a grip. When RIAA sues "John Doe" they eventually get their name. Same story here. Nothing new. Move along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:25pm

    Re:

    You ignore the beautiful functionality of encrypted proxies. If you comment/run your blog carefully through such a service, anonymity is preserved and the tracked ip means *nothing*.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Jeff, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:52pm

    Welcom too...

    the Streisand effect!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:53pm

    Re:

    Unfortunately I think the opposite is true. I have forgotten her name five minutes after reading it every single time, since I'm really not interested in her but in the legalities surrounding the story. In the future, if someone mentions her name to me in another context, I am unlikely to even recognize it, and if I do, I will probably say "oh was that the skank that sued Google?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Just wondering...

    Yes, and no! For a criminal court, an insult is just free speech. You won't get convicted over it. However, persons can still decide to sue the person who insulted them and demand damages. This is a bit similar to the O.J. Simpson trial. O.J. was cleared in a criminal court, yet found guilty and forced to pay in a Civil court.
    Look at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18508 for example. It's more about profanity but it does say that insults can be considered criminal, if they were meant to be hurtful. (It's called "Fighting words".) The case "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire" confirms that insults can be punishable by law, though.

    So technically, the person insulting Liskula Cohen could be tried by the Criminal system for breaking the peace with her insults, which were used as fighting words. And she could be tried in Civil Court for defamation and damages to the reputation of Liskula Cohen.

    Another case at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//commentary.aspx?id=2213 shows that insulting someone doesn't automatically make it criminal. "Criminal Libel" barely exists anymore because the law that supports it is a bit outdated. It's still there, though. But insults can still result in civil cases and the case the article links to mentions that the case failed in Criminal court but it was settled before it got in Civil court, resulting in the insulting party being forced to pay damages and costs.

    Don't overestimate the things Free Speech will allow you to say.

    Finally, http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/map/?dataSet=defamation_legislation provides a good map of countries where certain kinds of defamation are a criminal offense and how insulted parties can deal with these.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Just wondering...

    Yes, but then they're not anonimous, right? This case is just similar to what the RIAA did to unmask those John Doe's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    identicon
    Bruce, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Absolution from "Feeling Offended" is in the Bill of Rights for Canadians?

    Yep, your right. Maybe we can get a photo of her. Put Cohen and the judge on a T-Shirt with the words "Skanks, IMHO"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    identicon
    Bruce, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Absolution from "Feeling Offended" is in the Bill of Rights for Canadians?

    More t-shirt ideas:

    Put them both on a T-Shirt that says:
    "These ladies know Skanks better than I." or just simply "These Ladies know Skanks" or
    "Define the word 'skank'" or

    Just Cohen's picture, with the words "Use the word 'skank' in a sentence."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    BobinBaltimore (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 3:24pm

    Re: free speech

    Damn good thing the Founding Fathers (sorry...but they were all men) were able to use pseudonyms and operate the Committees of Correspondence using false names else we wouldn't have that-there Constitution. Anon posting can be crap, I agree, but protected crap unless it is defamatory, incites a riot, threatens the life of the President and a very few other patently illegal cases.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    identicon
    Sirk, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 4:04pm

    I just think of her

    as that stupid bitch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:09pm

    baaaad

    I don't like this at all. It seems like now if you have a problem with someone, say, the RIAA. they can now talk to your hosts and get your personal information. At what point is this a good thing? I think the judge in this case should be beaten into being smart. and the skank. she is such a skank (whoever the hell 'she' is)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Clueby4, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:19pm

    Factual statements are a defense, right?

    Can't wait to see the hostile wittiness testimonies. The phrase can of worms seems appropriate.

    A simple google image search will confirm the diagnosed skankiness.

    The more likely situation, Cohen is using the blogger as a target of her displacement for her issues with aging. Sad really.

    @Jessica thankfully your perception of what free speech should be isn't how it is written or interpreted. Also, intelligent and reasonable people don't believe what they read, most actually seek out other independent sources to obtain a more balanced understanding of what they read. There's a saying; "Believe nothing that you read, and half of what you see"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    BobinBaltimore (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:40pm

    Re:

    A sense of responsibility (which I applaud) is different than legal culpability. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that free speech can only be curbed under a very limited set of circumstances in the US. Defamation, incitement, public threats in some cases, etc. The question ultimately here is whether the Writer of Skank's comment is defamatory. Since the plantiff is probably considered a private person not a public figure, the standard for proving defamation is much lower than if she were, say, Madonna or other high-profile skanks. Even with that, I seriously doubt this speech will be considered defamatory.

    Anonymous speech has a deep history in the US and plaid a material role in our founding. Though it is, perhaps, used too often for stupid or annoying purposes today, it should not be tossed out in a caviler fashion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:43pm

    Can we counter sue someone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    BobinBaltimore (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:52pm

    Re:

    Well, it isn't defamatory if it's true, so.... :-) God save the Queen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Trust The Gordon's Fishermen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Re:

    Correct. But I get a bad feeling when the press (if you can call CRN "the press) comes out and showcases talking heads who take a very interesting view of the internet, reducing "Google, Facebook, and Twitter, they've actually enhanced what I call the 'electronic sewer'"

    Follow the money.

    If you see Ms. Cohen, ask her to send some panties to me. I want to verify that her farts smell like roses on a mid spring's day, her cooch can remind me of sugar cookies being served on the Cornelia Marie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Trust The Gordon's Fishermen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:10pm

    Re: Huh

    damn skanks and retarded judges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    Morisato (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:25pm

    Hah

    Any coward cowardly enough to hide obviously should be brought out. Those folks are usually the ones having something mischief to hide thereof. In any case the whole case was mishandled and now she may get sued even with an apology. Case closed. Anonymity imo should only be used to actually protect you from harm/government but the need to hide yourself just so you can defame others... well you get the idea. Not that I care myself since sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. This is the internet after all. Too many low lifes online needing to prove a point or prove themselves. Just let them be and do what you do best in the real world :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 12:14am

    Re: Hah

    "Any coward cowardly enough to hide obviously should be brought out."

    So what's your first and last name. Tell me your IP address too and I want Mike to confirm it since you claim you should obviously be brought out. Furthermore, I want a high quality picture of you with a note that says your IP address and with a drivers license or state ID in the picture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Hah

    when one of the ACs posts something that defames you and creates liable, it will happen. In the mean time, you can just call me Mike. Does it matter?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2009 @ 8:55am

    Driving Traffic

    The David Coursey blog is not there to be factual, good journalism, or anything of the sort. It's called the Tech Inciter for a reason. He just says stupid, ill-informed, and often completely false things (which he may or may not believe, I don't know). That said, he serves a purpose for PC World. He says stupid stuff, people get angry about it, and it drives traffic to PC World's site. He's not a good journalist, nor a good writer, but he gets them money, and that's what matters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This