Best laugh I've had in ages!
"I would think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate would protect the rights of all its users."
Paris - possibly the only other person that stupid.
The woman behind the "Skanks in NYC" blog dedicated to putting the boot into model Liskula Cohen is suing Google for $15m after the search monolith bowed to court pressure to reveal her identity. Student Rosemary Port, 29, apparently knew Cohen from the NY fashion scene and the pair "reportedly quarreled after Cohen badmouthed …
This post has been deleted by its author
... is it just me or does Rosemary Port look like the kind of girl that would get into a real bitchy argument...
i know its a sweeping statement but the general look on her face says "I'm a bitch and i will fight like one"...
.. and before today i had heard nothing of the story, so no previous allegiance!
What did she expect Google to do, do time in the slammer for contempt of court?????
How can she poossibly sue Google for complying with the courts?? Sure, if they gave it up because the model asked for it, sue 'em, but it's a whole 'nother matter when it's a big bad court demanding it.
Can any lawyers among us shed some light on the technical deets?
Normally i would be with the blogger, the right to privacy is important but in this case the site was made purely to bash someone and had no real merit and besides "psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank", sounds like jealousy to me.
Paris, coz the whole thing is stupid, the website, the amount demanded and thinking that you are anonymous on the net.
"How can she poossibly sue Google for complying with the courts??"
Right and wrong go out the window when there's a mega-corporation to be sued. The hope is that it will be cheaper and quicker for Google to settle out of court than be dragged through rounds and rounds of hearings to defend themselves, regardless of the merits of the case.
"When I was being defended by attorneys for Google, I thought my right to privacy was being protected."
Even the dumbest person would know that Google's lawyers work for Google to protect Google's interests, which may or may not coincide with a third party's interests some of the time.
Paris would pay for her own lawyers.
Quoting from the New York Post's article :
"In her suit, she'll charge Google "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity," said her high-powered attorney Salvatore Strazzullo."
I ain't no lawyer but it would seem to my interpretation of that is that she intends to sue Google for inadequately defending against the case put forward by Ms Cohen and that by failing to do so the company acted negligently, thus making Google liable for compensation.
As the end result of possible decision for Ms Port in this case would seem to be that Google's lawyers had acted negligently I expect the lawyers themselves would strongly defend the matter as if nothing else a guilty verdict would open them up to a mlapractice suit from Google themselves!
FAIL - cos that's what i expect will happen to Ms Port's suit.
"I feel my right to privacy has been violated."
First off, I find it hilarious that she expects *her* privacy (or more correctly her *anonymity*) to be respected whilst she is clearly disregarding her intended victim's very same "rights".
Second, there is no established "right to privacy" in US law. While there have been a smattering of decisions that have established certain expectations of privacy (such as the government not listening in on your phone calls or pointing infrared cameras at your house without a warrant) there is no established "right to privacy" at the federal level (state laws may vary).
Since Google has to comply with a court order, the first court the suit hits will throw it out with prejudice. Google will not have to spend enough money on lawyers to make it worth settling. All that will happen is that she will end up being stuck with a bill for court costs. Sometimes you can make yourself a nuisance to a mega-corporation, but sometimes it just doesn't work. I think this is one of the latter times.
Funny how this blogger thinks she can say anything she wants but when her words come back to haunt her, she cries fowl. This is another example of people not taking responsibility for their actions. If I call a girl a slut and her boyfriend kicks my ass, its MY fault.
Quote: "By going to the press, she defamed herself."
Right. Its HER fault that you posted all those mean things? I understand that it was made more of an issue by her going to the press but PORT is the one that posted the content. And now she's wanting to move the blame over to Google.
Salvatore Strazzullo: "Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously."
Oh really? And where does it say that?
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "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."
The flip side of that coin: You are held accountable for your utterances (and writings). If you commit slander or libel, be prepared for the repercussions.
Where else can you see grown adults behaving like emotionally stunted six-year-olds on crystal meth? If it's not adult women getting involved in lovesick teenage angst, it's this. The nice thing about mass communication is that it lets us vicariously trawl the sewers of other folks' emotional instability from a safe distance.
Be up the pair of 'em like a rat up a drainpipe? No thanks.
If Google were to settle out of court with Port, they would have set a precident for similar future cases. I'd be surprised if there were "rounds of hearings" - I'm pretty sure Google AUPs will have made it clear that users will be held responsible for what they write and that Google would comply with the law of the jurisdiction(s) in which they operate.
Personally, I think it is funny that this cow got found out. It is hilarious that she is now so worried about her own privacy and reputation but was quite prepared to trash someone else's reputation with all kinds of scurrilous gossip.
1) If you are a 'celebrity', you have to have a thick enough skin to put up with comments that are not too flattering.
2) I cannot see why a person would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is a blog not like an editorial column?
3) Yes I know I said 2, sue me (I don't think the reg will give my real name). I think they should kiss and make up. Real slow, with maybe a little tongue...
You don't have the "right" to speak anonymously. You have the right to speak freely. The Supreme Court, on more than one occasion has affirmed that freedom of speech is not absolute. For example, you do NOT have the right to yell "fire!" in a theater. You do not have the right to speak threats against the President. You do not have the right to make bomb jokes at an airport.
Actually, you DO have those rights. The right to speak is not the same as the right to speak without consequence. The founding fathers wrote under pseudonyms, because what they were doing was treason, and they'd be executed for it. Hardly comparable to this lady's comments.
All in all however, good luck making the case for defamation. Unless her comments were adequately presented as factual, rather than statements of opinion, there's no defamation.
Hum...no WONDER she is squalling like a cat with its tail under the rocker! In America, it seems that in the game of "female perfection", not only is 29 over the hill, but, there are distinct smells of putrefaction in the immediate area.
While it is IMPORTANT to be able to speak anonymously, and I reluctantly support this chick's right to do so, it is only while holding my nose. That is one of the drawbacks to that "First Amendment thing". It protects both pleasant and unpleasant speech. So...thanks to a cat fight between immature, pampered wenches with an overblown sense of self worth, another chunk is taken out of the freedoms we enjoy in America.
What a world.
I can't help but think that the world would be a much nicer place if peope stopped thinking about the *`Rights* they expect FROM other people, and considered the *Duties* they have TOWARDS other people.
Two sides of the same coin, but one is so much shinier than the other.
Ah, I'm feeling naïve today...
Well since comments like "skank" are highly subjective... I don't know of any "factual" definition of skank, I mean how do you objectively categorise someone as being or not being a skank?
While the term "whore" could have some factual connotations, it is quite evident that in this kind of case it is metaphorical whoring which is again subjective. Unless of course the blogger said outright that the "victim" exchanged money for sexual favours.
...how in some peoples' minds the words 'rights' seems to translate into 'to be how I want them to be'?
Of course, putting ANY information into Google and expecting it to stay private is just laughably stupid. It's the biggest data-collection agency in the world, and it will give out whatever data it has. Only a real fool would think any of their private details are private the moment the electrical signal reaches the wall socket.
"The founding fathers wrote under pseudonyms, because what they were doing was treason, and they'd be executed for it."
Well, yes and no. The Federalist Papers troika were under no such threat. Both sides of the argument did a lot of anonymous columnizing before the rebellion got to the point of shooting.
It is fair to say, though, that the founders' generation expected matters of this sort to be worked out by the male protectors of the principals--husbands or brothers--whether by horsewhips on the steps of the club or pistols at 10 paces.
What idiot posts on the internet and then tries to claim breach of privacy?
And once again I find myself reading that a term (in this instance "skank", last week it was "Tw*t") is subjective with no real definitive meaning when the context it was used in is clear from the surrounding blither. I can only assume the ACs saying this are employed by the Rebel Without A Blog (Anymore)'s legal team.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021