Maureen Dowd has an interesting column today about people being mean on the internet. Also, she has apparently always dreamed of being a cocktail waitress? Dowd starts her column, “If I read all the vile stuff about me on the Internet, I’d never come to work. I’d scamper off and live my dream of being a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming.”
Her column talks about some interesting incidents where the mean internet world has crossed over into the real world—once leading to the much-discussed suicide of a young girl and the another time when a supermodel sued Google to reveal the email of a blogger who called her a “skank.” Dowd quotes the court decision (which, btw, would have been hilarious to hear read aloud by a somber judge):
“The words ‘skank,’ ‘skanky’ and ‘ho’ carry a negative implication of sexual promiscuity,” wrote Justice Joan Madden of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, rejecting the Anonymous Blogger’s assertion that blogs are a modern soapbox designed for opinions, rants and invective.
The judge cited a Virginia court decision that the Internet’s “virtually unlimited, inexpensive and almost immediate means of communication” with the masses means “the dangers of its misuse cannot be ignored. The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions.”
There are not a lot of court cases testing the protected anonymity of bloggers and commentors, but the Mercury and WW fought out a similar case in Oregon courts last year. In that case, the court decided in favor of protecting the anonymity of “Ronald”, a commentor who described the subject of the post as a “cantakerous obnoxious dishonest new money pig self proclaimed god.” Because we’re a newspaper and Ronald’s comment was about the topic of the post, the judge decided he was protected under the same shield law that keep anonymous news sources safe.
So it seems like the rules are this:
Starting up hoblog.com just to call people skanks – NO.
Referring to a public figure featured in a news article as a “cantakerous obnoxious dishonest new money pig self proclaimed god… skank.” – CONTINUE AS USUAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rad2pWPaCc4
This going to get overturned on appeal. SCOTUS will pretty much always back up First Amendment rights in regards to anonymity and privacy.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
“”Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960).
Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. [n.4] Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. [n.5]
Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”
Skank is so underused lately. I’m going to make an effort to use it more today.
In print of course, so no one can sue me.
I had the phrase “Why can’t everybody just be nice?!” written on the door of my room in college. Of course, fortunately, there was no space for comments underneath.
I just got around to reading the actual details of this case.
There can’t be an appeal since Google gave in to the court’s demands. But one of these cases will reach the SCOTUS and then finally we’ll have some decent case law holding up anonymity.
And bloggers who want anonymity really shouldn’t sign up for services with their real name. That’s just dumb.
@ Matt
But did you win the Quidditch Cup?
@CC: My recollections of those years are pretty skank.
Opinion is not slander, and truth is a defense to a slander claim….. so …. calling a model a skank seems like a pretty safe move.
Non-skanks would post with their own names.