You cell phones are no longer necessary. Because someone invented the conversation.
Using this conversation, you say your ideas. They travel through the air to the intended recipient and others nearby allowing for "texting" like transference, but to multiple people at once. Let's see the iPhone do that.
It is harder for these conversations to be held against you by anyone not there at the time, unlike those text messages and blog entries, that seem to haunt you forever.
You should not be scared of conversations because they do reduce the issue of copyright infringement that MultiMedia Messaging Services will have in the near future.
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.