Be Careful What You Say. Ruling against online heckler

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/18/new.york.model.blog.lawsuit/index.html

"...Monday's ruling has "potentially damaging implications for free speech on the Internet."

"In her ruling, the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line."

Thanks Trino. I think this especially important when it is a minor that is being taunted.

There is no reason why the internet can not be civilized. BUT it should still have those places where you "enter at your own risk." I'm not a fan of restricted free speech but I do think there has to be a way to deal with cyberbulling, especially against minors.

Okay - and now that I'm taking that initial thought a step further, why couldn't the taunter be blocked by the tauntee? Why subject yourself to such abuse when all you have to do is block the user's address from sending you stuff, or as in this forum, put them on ignore?

Hmmmmm - I need to think about this one some more. Where does individual responsibility end and government responsibility begin????

Salem

It would be interesting to find out who set up the blog, a scorned admirerer or maybe a jealous friend? It sounds like they quit blogging after she started legal action, Imo a lot of things people post on the internet would not be done if the poster felt their name or face could be shown. This sounds like someone who wanted to hurt her but only if they could do it in a sneaky way. I really dislike sneaks so I'm glad they're getting found out. Since the woman is a model, having this hateful blog could affect jobs etc.

VB

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/19/canadian-model-google-blogger-lawsuit.html

A Canadian model has finally confronted an anonymous female blogger who called her offensive names on a Google website.


:clap::clap::clap:


I think that if you abuse someone on the internet then you should be outed, and your name made public. Just because you are hidden in your home or office does not mean that you have the right to be abusive.

I think this woman had every right to know who was defaming her on the internet.

And I find it so amusing that the blogger wants to remain anonymous as long as possible. That just cracks me up. And after the model confronted her on the telephone, this chick STILL hasn't apologized or expressed any remorse. Unbelievable.

Salem said:

Thanks Trino. I think this especially important when it is a minor that is being taunted.

There is no reason why the internet can not be civilized. BUT it should still have those places where you "enter at your own risk." I'm not a fan of restricted free speech but I do think there has to be a way to deal with cyberbulling, especially against minors.

Okay - and now that I'm taking that initial thought a step further, why couldn't the taunter be blocked by the tauntee? Why subject yourself to such abuse when all you have to do is block the user's address from sending you stuff, or as in this forum, put them on ignore?

Hmmmmm - I need to think about this one some more. Where does individual responsibility end and government responsibility begin????

Salem

Click to expand...

You do make an excellent point of cyberbullying and a minor. I see where this should not be tolerated and should be able to be punished legally.

Tabloid mags make their money off spreading horrid lies about people every day. I am still uncertain how they legally get away with it (and in some cases they do not), but I guess freedom of speech must come into it somewhere. I wondered about this the entire time that S. was spewing out his BS and why people weren't suing him.

However, if what a person is saying about people online is true then I don't see how they can legally sue that person.

In the case of the model, I guess you could say the line was crossed if it diminished her ability to continue her career and make money. Her reputation being damaged was key to her ability to work, imo.

SleuthyMama said:

I think this woman had every right to know who was defaming her on the internet.

And I find it so amusing that the blogger wants to remain anonymous as long as possible. That just cracks me up. And after the model confronted her on the telephone, this chick STILL hasn't apologized or expressed any remorse. Unbelievable.

Click to expand...

While I don't agree with intentionally slandering anyone, via internet or otherwise, this ruling does concern me. Look at all that has been said right here on WS about many, many players in certain cases we explore on here. If you have had a negative opinion about anyone involved in a case do you want them to have the right to identify you? How about Casey Anthony, Cindy Anthony, Drew Peterson, to name a few...we would probably all be in trouble. We all have an opinion but apparently our freedom to express it and remain anonymous has just been squashed.
I'm not saying what the blogger did was right, it certainly was not but I think the ruling is a little far reaching and all bloggers with an opinion could be affected by it.

momtective, I do understand where you are coming from. I can only speak for myself. I know that I have expressed negative opinions regarding several of the people you mentioned but I don't think I've ever taken to the level that the blogger in question did.

I think that cases should be evaluated individually to see if what was said really was defamatory. I also think there is a difference (and maybe it's hypocritical of me, I don't know) between airing your opinion of someone who has done something to put themselves in the public spotlight (such as Casey Anthony, Drew Petersen etc) versus maligning someone that you have a personal vendetta against, as it has been indicated this blogger did.

I can say for sure that if someone was talking trash about my minor child you can bet I'd want to know who it was.