If it's crap... We'll tell you
Do you have the LEGAL RIGHT to anonymity? This lady thinks so!
Here's an important issue that will most assuredly be breathing down the neck of the legal system over the next few years: do you have the LEGAL RIGHT to be anonymous? That is to say, are you protected by law to keep your identity hidden, as long as your speech doesn't break the law? Well, that's the issue this blogger is addressing now in a lawsuit against Google, who revealed her identity to lawyers for a model who claims this woman defamed her.
This is cropping up more and more now in the news - people are being fired, having a hard time getting jobs or being shut down and sued like this woman.
And I've got to ask: so what? The right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press do not grant any special protections to protect you from personal reprisals to your speech - especially if that speech is in any way harmful to someone else's reputation or character. The problem with this particular case is that the anonymous blogger in question, Rosemary Port, is a complete douche who called a model a "skank" and "ho", among other things, in her blog, which she didn't have the stones to sign with her own name. Her argument is based upon "the expectation of anonymity,", some bullshit idea that she somehow misunderstood the terms and conditions to mean that she would be protected from any fallout that her words might have caused.
The expectation of anonymity, however, doesn't actually exist anywhere. Quite the contrary, while the notion of anonymity exists, many lawmakers have been working in the opposite direction, attempting to require EVERYONE who writes anything online - from blogs to comments - to sign it with their legal name...or else. Thus far this effort has been squashed - but knuckleheads like Rosemary Port, who desperately try to hold someone else responsible so they have a reason to be mad rather than mortified (at their juvenile and childish posting habits), will only serve for law to be passed down further stripping anonymity rather than protecting it.
After all, how are we supposed to protect citizens from slander and libel if anyone at all can sling it without reprisal - legal or otherwise?
What say you on this issue?
This is cropping up more and more now in the news - people are being fired, having a hard time getting jobs or being shut down and sued like this woman.
And I've got to ask: so what? The right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press do not grant any special protections to protect you from personal reprisals to your speech - especially if that speech is in any way harmful to someone else's reputation or character. The problem with this particular case is that the anonymous blogger in question, Rosemary Port, is a complete douche who called a model a "skank" and "ho", among other things, in her blog, which she didn't have the stones to sign with her own name. Her argument is based upon "the expectation of anonymity,", some bullshit idea that she somehow misunderstood the terms and conditions to mean that she would be protected from any fallout that her words might have caused.
The expectation of anonymity, however, doesn't actually exist anywhere. Quite the contrary, while the notion of anonymity exists, many lawmakers have been working in the opposite direction, attempting to require EVERYONE who writes anything online - from blogs to comments - to sign it with their legal name...or else. Thus far this effort has been squashed - but knuckleheads like Rosemary Port, who desperately try to hold someone else responsible so they have a reason to be mad rather than mortified (at their juvenile and childish posting habits), will only serve for law to be passed down further stripping anonymity rather than protecting it.
After all, how are we supposed to protect citizens from slander and libel if anyone at all can sling it without reprisal - legal or otherwise?
What say you on this issue?
Comment
-
Comment by Punkout16 on September 22, 2009 at 10:16pm - BULLSHIT complete bullshit the why I see it if you're gonna publicly call someone out then be man enough or woman enough to take whatever consequences that comes along with it. Now I do however think some things is ok to be anonymous, like making donations etc. But this issue is not a matter of being anonymous, it's about a woman talking smack and when someone took offense and said something this woman went hiding behind a "so-called" law she can remain anonymous. Posting on a blog about personal business about yourself is one thing but when you start talking about another person's reputation to me you give up your whole anonymous rule.
-
Comment by iggy456 on September 22, 2009 at 9:01pm - Also this reminds me of this incident http://www.friendsoffoamy.com/videos/sponsored-language-what-i-learned-from-don-imus-topical-rant-005
-
Comment by iggy456 on September 22, 2009 at 8:56pm
- The sad thing is that you can't express your opinion any more with out being out attacked by some asshole lawyer and their client .
-
Comment by Jordan on September 5, 2009 at 12:44am -
Well Mr. C, if it's ok if I call you that, I believe that you are right. Pretty much, all, if not anything, put up on a blog post, or the internet can be called public knowledge. I don't think we have the right to be anons because it is her own fault she got pulled into this. And if she persues legal action because of her stupidity of looking at the terms and contracts blindly, then that just shows she is a Bigger Douche than she lets on. I think she has no right to blog derogatory remarks about someone. Plus, WE do not have the right of Privacy on the internet. Like I said before, what is the Internet if not a Giant Public Forum?
If anyone thinks they have the right to privacy to write what ever you want to write, then you will be sorely mistaken. If you think your assanation plot of the president you posted on your blog will be private, then you don't seem to understand the Internet.
The conclusion of this is that this woman Fails at the internet. I really believe we should be entitled to some sort of privacy, but you have to remember. In America, when we recieve something, we usually end up screwing it up for everyone else because of how stupid we act. Plain...and...Simple
-
Comment by Palladiamorsdeus on September 3, 2009 at 7:16pm
-
This is a tricky situation. Should it depend on the severity of the crime at hand? Eh, it's hard to say. A sin is a sin, after all. I think a lot of it should depend on how damaging the 'crime' was, personally. If the douche had a big enough following, if a lot of people read her blog, if it could have seriously impacted this models job or potential future jobs then yes, she had every right to know who was libeling her and why. If it's just some whiny little bitch with a bad attitude, then why bother?
This is still in court, right? If it really is stupid, then she has nothing to worry about. We'll have to see how the case goes.
There are some situations where anonymity needs to be maintained, in order to protect the people doing the talking. The internet? Wrong place to try to remain anonymous. If you want some kind of witness ((Or would that be witless?)) protection, take it offline to the police or something. But don't expect to be safe from reprisal just because you didn't use your real name online. The very thought of being pissed because some one caught 'me' talking shit online and got me into trouble over it just seems very childish and churlish. If you can't take the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen.
-
Comment by Patrick on September 2, 2009 at 9:55pm - Man, if you can get sued for calling someone a word online, 4chan.org's /b/ is a lawyer's wet dream.
-
Comment by ColinZero on August 28, 2009 at 12:11am -
The whole situation just seems outright odd to me. While I definitely feel google was within their rights to release her information, I don't know if I consider calling someone a "skank" or "ho" should be classified as libel.
If for any other reason than this frankly just seems outright silly, by that standard you could sue someone who calls you an asshole in a public forum. I mean, by this logic, shouldn't like...half the internet be allowed to sue Encyclopedia Dramatica?
By all means, I do agree that this right to anonymity defense she's putting up seems like utter nonsense. If you put something up that is legitimately wrong and get caught, standing back and using the defense of "I didn't think anyone would know it's me" is just stupid.
Granted, I haven't seen this woman's blog and for all I know she did go out of her way to make this woman look bad and bring her down publicly. But something about being sued for what is essentially name calling just feels really strange.
-
Comment by Theamazingrapist on August 27, 2009 at 6:31pm -
YOU THINK YOU ARE FANCY WITH YOUR LOGIC AND FACTS! They will only take you so far in life mr. Carlyle eventually you will have to be like me and just respond with poorly thoughtout knee jerk reactions to (what you consider to be) attacks on your privacy.
I am sorry it was just you said quoting a troll be damned then you quoted me... I just assumed it was in reference to me, yes my ego is that massive.
As I stated before I don't use blogspot (now I have a legitimate reason) and just skimmed the freakishly long terms of agreement they have, so this all seemed odd to me. I thought they gave up her identity just because she called her a Skank....I stand corrected and probably should have read the actual story.
I admit in this case you are right, but doesn't this just FEEL wrong to you? It feels wrong to me, I love making fun of people online this just seems like on of those slippery slope scenarios where I end up saying "they sued Rosemary Port and we did nothing, They sued Perez Hilton and we did nothing, then they sued me and there was no one left to stand with me". So what are the limitations? Her attacks seem pretty small and and more ugly and jealous than outright lies.
-
Comment by MisterKeitel on August 27, 2009 at 6:11pm -
Mr. C. I've just been to Wikipedia (which I would admit is not always the best source of info). It talked about a Federal Whistleblower's Protection Act. But it just covers federal employees who rat to Congress about wrongdoing they have found out about in thier govermental department. But-alas-under "W" this law has been rendered fangless.
I work at a major company and they are constantly trying to put the fear of God in us about personal blogging about what goes on at work. It seems to me, and I could be very wrong here, that there are no laws that would protect me if I blogged about wrongdoing at my company. If I had a blog that spilled the beans about say wrongdoing when it comes to outsourcing, they could just use their formidable army of lawyers and demand that Google turn over my name. And, then they could fire me. Ouch! I'm sorry to say I don't know of any law that would protect my identity or my job. Effectivly, Corporate Big Brother wins this round.
-
Comment by Carlyle on August 27, 2009 at 5:50pm
- To be honest MisterKeitel, I'm not certain how they protect people who publish said materials - but I do know that they exist for those who go to others to have the material published.
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
for those of you who can't wait for the sequel to iron man
ENTER HERE
best soma online
Buy soma shipped cod, soma cod delivery, buy soma online without prescription, soma online overnight.
buy soma drug
cheap soma cod free fedex
soma without prescription cod
soma no prescription
soma sale
next day soma
s…
wedding dj glendora
The second outage in as many weeks for Research In Motion's BlackBerry e-mail service has prompted a mini-revolt among users.
The Crackberry blog, which tracks all things related to the addictive device, on Thursday was flooded w…
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
You need to be a member of The Spill.com Movie Community to add comments!
Join this Ning Network