Web Not Anonymous-New Court Decision
In New York, a model who had been labelled a “skank” in a Google blog has been told her coming defamation case can go forward. The Judge ordered Google this week, against its strenuous objections, to identify the anonymous blogger who allegedly posted the comments. Liskula Cohen, the model, was actually labelled a “psychotic, lying, whoring … skank.” But the free speech expansionsists are publicizing this decision as a debate about whether calling one a “skank” is a statement of fact and therefore even defamatory.
Three things crossed my mind when I saw this decision.
The first is that the Courts are beginning to view the definition of “statement of fact” more liberally, finally recognizing the need to revisit some seeminly settled pre-Google principles. But I don’t think it is much of a stretch to the typical observer (or juror to be) to view calling one a psychotic, a liar and a whore a statement of fact. In fact, the New York law regards comments about the chaste character of a female the most egregious type of defamation…defamation per se. One need not even prove damages to win. The issue of fact vs. opinion is one that is only debatable in the minds of the most jaded free speech fanatics.
The second is the remarkable effort Google has put into fighting this. Does this not offer some insight into Google’s mindset of ignoring personal and property rights in order to be able to make sure all of information is free flowing? That’s a pillar upon which Google’s search engine is built and thrives.
The third is my warning in Google Bomb that the web is not anonymous, and I explained exactly how anonymity can be pierced. This case is an excellent example of a Judge who, instead of throwing up roadblocks to unmasking an attacker, understands the landscape and the realities of living in a world in which a perfect stranger can destroy a person’s reputation in seconds. The victims need the protection. Not these scofflaw bloggers. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Here’s my 5th Proposed E-Bill of Rights (p. 224):
5. Anonymity of speakers shall not preclude meaningful access to the courts to seek redress.
Anonymous speech is one of the single biggest problems causing mobospheric attacks. And yet recent court decisions make it more expensive and arduous to sue those who resort to cowardly anonymity to hide their misdeeds. The courts must begin to view anonymous speech as a privilege, not a right.
