Name-Calling Blogger Sues Google For Revealing Her Identity
Posted by: Nikki Dowling
Filed in:
news
1:20PM, Tuesday August 25th 2009
Rosemary Port, the blogger behind “Skanks in NYC,” is suing Google for $15 million for revealing her identity to model Liskula Cohen, whom Port called a “psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank” on the blog. Initially, Cohen was going to sue Port for defamation, but then she realized she knew this angry blogger and decided to call her up and sort things out without clogging up the legal system. We thought the whole saga was over. Until Port said, “I’m ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.”
She believes that Google effed her, legally and ethically, by revealing her name and putting her on a “silver platter” for the press to attack. She said blogs “serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting.” Initially, Google seemed to agree because they refused to give up the blogger’s name. When they did, we were all pretty surprised. But wait—Port is upset about what the press is saying about her? Isn’t this the most circular argument you’ve ever heard?
What do you think?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
lea322
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 12:37 pm: [report]
Sounds like someone didn’t learn the Golden Rule…
Humble Bee
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 01:06 pm: [report]
Its called Karma bitch, deal with it!
Ginger
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 01:37 pm: [report]
This blogger is right. I mean, what sort of world is it where someone can lampoon another person like that? She’s right to blame the press for being mean to her. It’s not like she did anything. After all, what’s said on the internet and the blogosphere totally don’t count (because it’s not like people see the comments). But the press, why, they’ve got ethics to stand by! Bloggers don’t.
If they did, they wouldn’t be cowards and badmouth someone behind anonymity.
Kiki T
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 01:39 pm: [report]
I believe she should of allowed to be anon and has the right to say whatever she wants. Blogs are like op-ed pieces and while she chooses to write a trashy blog, it is her right to do it from any point of view she wants.
While I would never do what either one of them are doing, as in starting a slam book blog or partake in being an annoying tattletale, if I had to side with one of them it would be Port’s right to privacy.
Riley
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 01:45 pm: [report]
Someone didn’t read the “Terms of Agreement”. Google attempts to protect privacy, but reserves the right to decided when that privacy is no longer honored. Google owns the blog and she was using it free of charge. They can do as they please.
joyy
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 01:46 pm: [report]
@Kiki T - so right to privacy includes the right to be libelous and use the anonymity to avoid actually taking responsibility for one’s actions? Please. And as I said last time this story came up - the court didn’t rule that she had to take the blog down, just that Google had to turn over her name. She’s still free to write whatever she wants on her blog.
If it was in Google’s terms that they can turn over the info, then Port needs to STFU and learn to read before clicking “accept”.
@Ginger - spot on.
Pamela
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 02:17 pm: [report]
seriously?? she’s a bully in all the meaning of the word
so i can trash someone as long as i do it behind a mask? would that make it ok?? i think nooot
Oliveira
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 02:24 pm: [report]
Kiki, so you would be totally OK if someone started a blog called “Kiki The Skank” and wrote lies about you using your real name, but wanted themselves to remain anonymous and keep the right to post anything they want about you?
resullins
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 03:21 pm: [report]
I think this is on the same page as stalking or harrasment. If someone was an anonymous blogger talking trashing gays, or blacks, and calling them <insert word I’m not allowed to say here>, or fags, or whatever, people would be pissed and DEMAND the name released. This is no different.
Also, the courts ordered Google to give up the name… not their fault, they didn’t act of their own accord. There’s no basis for a suit here.
Squidtermz
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 03:31 pm: [report]
Yeah blogger is right. Just because said model is semi famous and has some money / clout / doesnt mean she has the right to infiltrate the system. Doesnt make her privy to private information. What if that girl wrote about you… or ME! for that matter! would google give me her real name! I THINK NOT! unless I was a quasi-celeb, and had some quick talking lawyer, and alot of back handed friends. So shame on google for bowing to the mercy of a “psychotic, lying, whoring, skank” Yes I called her that! ONLINE EVEN! Come find me! I will tell you my name, just email me : ) no need for google to get involved. Wait… no ask tehm… and if they tell you,... Then I’ll sure for 16 Million!
MissChaotic
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 04:00 pm: [report]
Isn’t libel/slander a crime? (yes)
And being that it is indeed a crime, doesn’t that make Google responsible for turning over information on the suspect (because if they don’t, its like they’re harboring her).
Also, don’t most TOS contain a clause saying that any criminal action (granted, this would be a civil case, but is still punishable by law) gives the said entity the right to turn your name over to authorities when requested?
...Right. The blogger needs to read up on the constitution and her TOS.
Riley
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 04:27 pm: [report]
@MissChaotic - The fact that she is in the public eye makes for an almost impossible case of libel. Hence tabloids. She would need to prove that it actually caused her harm, monetary or otherwise. Which is why she did not pursue the case further than finding out who it was.
I am guessing TOS means Terms of Service? Not sure how the Constitution would apply to this unless you were going the route of free speech, which wasn’t impeded or right to privacy, which wasn’t broken since she likely agreed to a lengthy document before being able to use the service. What do you mean by reading up on the Constitution?
skywalk
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 06:58 pm: [report]
who’s the “psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank” She’s not being sued, but I say if you can’t stand behind or front your words STFU!!!!
CaleeKay
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 07:05 pm: [report]
lol, anonymous and internet in the same sentence? Thats like bombing for peace or effing for virginity. funny.
skywalk
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 08:36 pm: [report]
I thought Tom Cruise sued a tabloid saying he was gay and won doesn’t anyone remember that?
Ginger
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 08:40 pm: [report]
@skywalk Yeah but that was Tom Cruise. The legal system tends to work a little differently for celebrities. Especially well known ones.
skywalk
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 05:39 am: [report]
@Ginger: Riley insinuated the opposite, stating that
“The fact that she is in the public eye makes for an almost impossible case of libel. Hence tabloids. She would need to prove that it actually caused her harm, monetary or otherwise.”
That is why I’m confused! She may not have the resources to fight her or the blogger may not have any money worth fighting for, so that is why she may not have sued?
BlueVibe
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 08:08 am: [report]
She can say whatever she wants on her blog, but she can also take the backlash when it catches up with her. Fair is fair. If you don’t want to get called on it, don’t say it.
travis
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 10:12 pm: [report]
Port name has already been revealed. Her rights were violated. Now her name appears on newspapers and tabloids. Rosemary Port is mad as heck, and she isn’t going to take it any more. So, in the face of defamation and the invasion of privacy, Rosemary Port got herself a lawyer and told Google that their deal was about to go DOWN. Here’s where it began – Port maintained a Blogger account, anonymously, on the Google blog network Blogger. It was called Skanks in NYC, and the tone and substance was the vicious rending of self important New York socialites, one of which, Liskula Cohen, a model, sued Google, who revealed Port’s identity, which she maintains is a violation of her privacy. Perhaps Google should do some credit repair with Rosemary Port, and compensate her for treading on her privacy.