Now This Could Be Worrying

Google has been ordered to reveal the identity of a blogger who made disparaging remarks about Liskula Cohen (no, I haven’t a clue who she is either).

Liskula Cohen, a Vogue covergirl, has won a court ruling asking Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who called the former model a ‘skank’ .

Oh, right, a D list celeb, then. No one important.

Miss Cohen, 37, went to the Manhattan supreme court to discover who had attacked her so she could sue for defamation.

The Skanks in NYC blog featured photos of Miss Cohen and described her in a series of unflattering terms.

Under the pseudonym “Anonymous”, her critic wrote: “I would have to say that first place award for ‘Skankiest in NYC’ would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen.”

Miss Cohen, a former Australians Vogue covergirl, was a “40-something” who “may have been hot 10 years ago”, said the blogger.

That looks a lot like common abuse to me – which is not defamation, nor is it libellous. The court however, overruled the defence that this was merely opinion.

In what may prove a far-reaching ruling, Joan Madden, a New York supreme court judge, rejected the blogger’s claim that the blogs were a “modern day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting” and should not be treated as factual assertions.

Whereas, in fact, that is precisely what they are. Sure, blogs are bound by the same laws of libel as any other written medium and it behoves the authors to get their facts straight. But, and this is the rub, for the most part, they are opinion spiced with invective and ranting (rather a lot of the latter, I suspect). Therefore, calling Miss Cohen a “skank” (whatever that is) is nothing more than silly name-calling. It is hardly defamation and Miss Cohen has a wafer thin skin, it would appear. Just how damaging to Miss Cohen’s reputation is it, being called a skank by an anonymous blogger anyway?

The judge quoted a ruling by a Virginia court in a similar case that said that anonymous online taunters should be held accountable when their derision goes too far.

And where, precisely, is that line drawn and who is to draw it?

Steven Wagner, a lawyer for Miss Cohen, said he was “happy that the court recognises that the internet is not a place where people can freely defame people”.

Yes, but going by the evidence seen here, it isn’t defamation, it’s common abuse. It’s a bit like saying “your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries” and should be taken with as much gravitas, as no one in their right mind is going to take it seriously. Insulting someone is not grounds for legal action. What should have happened is that the judge should have kicked the case out while advising Miss Cohen to grow up. Instead, she gets the go-ahead to sue someone who, in all probability doesn’t have any money to speak of anyway.

Mr Wagner said the blogger would now be sued for defamation.

What a childish, spiteful and pathetic woman Liskula Cohen is. Not to mention the little matter of confirming the soon to be un-anonymous blogger’s stated opinion of her.

However, Anne Salisbury, a lawyer who represented the blogger in court, had accused Miss Cohen of bringing the case to attract publicity rather than restore her reputation.

She pointed out that the blog had attracted little notice and would have languished in obscurity if Miss Cohen had not sued.

This has a ring of truth about it. Would we be discussing it now if she had not taken this action? And, perhaps pointedly, I now know who Liskula Cohen is, whereas before, I had never heard of her. Although it may be worth pointing out that my erstwhile ignorance was bliss…

The lawyer warned that the ruling on Monday has “potentially damaging implications for free speech on the internet”.

This, of course, is the nub of the matter. Do we have the right to speak our minds or not? As an absolutist on free speech, I say “yes”. After all, Miss Cohen always has the option of replying to her critics, does she not?

Google said it sympathised with the victims of “cyberbullying” but also respected privacy concerns. As a result, it only divulged user information when ordered by a court to do so.

They had no choice in this case, more’s the pity. Frankly, claiming that this is cyberbullying is so much tosh. We have all experienced unpleasant people invading our virtual spaces and making disparaging remarks – indeed, I have experienced it again only this week. However, unlike real life bullying, it is relatively easily resolved. The simplest option is to disconnect by switching off the computer. If you own a blog or forum, these people can be locked out. If it is someone else’s blog, then don’t go there or leave your reply, whichever seems the most suitable. Worst comes to worst and the bully breaks the law, then take the relevant action.

But suing over a few insulting remarks, for Christ’s sake! Talk about a sledgehammer to open a cashew.

——————————————————

Update: I see that Kate Harding has written a very stupid article about this case in the groan. Given that she is unable to discern the difference between libel and slander, and libel and common abuse, there’s not much point dissecting it. Suffice to say, dear Kate thinks people should be sued if they call other people naughty names. So does Conor Foley in the comments to the risible piece. He thinks Harry’s Place should be shut down because the commenters say naughty things he doesn’t like. It doesn’t occur to this simpleton to simply not read it. We are surrounded by a bunch of witless pricks – and they all seem to write for the Guardian. JohnB meanwhile tries valiantly to inject some common sense in the comments. A Quixotic effort, I suspect.