Google, NY skanks and the right to libel
Model Liskula Cohen recently filed a lawsuit against Google because the company initially refused to reveal the name of the anonymous blogger who described her in defamatory terms on a Google-hosted blog, Skanks in NYC. Cohen then turned to the New York Supreme Court, which ordered Google to reveal Port’s identity.
Now the blog author – Rosemary Port – has hit back with a $15m lawsuit. Her argument is that Google “breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity”. In plain English, this means she thought she was legally protected from having her identity revealed, regardless of what she wrote.
Here’s the thing. Rosemary Port libelled a model, Liskula Cohen, calling her a “psychotic, lying, whoring… skank”. Such abuse is nothing new on the internet – some people revert to the playground when given the mask of anonymity. But to think that an individual can write whatever they like, regardless of libel laws, and expect their publisher to stand by and protect them beggars belief.
Here’s a selection of Port’s charming comments about Cohen:
I would have to say that the first place award for “Skankiest in NYC” would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen. How old is this skank? 40 something? She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.”
Yeah she may have been hot 10 years ago, but is it really attractive to watch this old hag straddle dudes in a nightclub or lounge? Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one.
Port’s defence in deciding to take on Google is brilliantly naïve, lacking any semblance of self-knowing:
This has become a public spectacle and a circus that is not my doing. By going to the press, she [Cohen] defamed herself. Before her suit, there were probably two hits on my Web site: One from me looking at it, and one from her looking at it. That was before it became a spectacle. I feel my right to privacy has been violated…
Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me. I would think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate would protect the rights of all its users.
Excuse me? Cohen defamed herself by complaining to Google that Port had, er, defamed her? And the publicity, not publication, of a libel violated Port’s privacy? That’s an incredible statement to make, and a wonderful example of hypocrisy and doublethink. Can Port really be so unintelligent? And does she honestly expect Google to protect the rights of those who use its services to break the law?
Over the years I’ve become sick of anonymous trolls, fully aware of their power to hurt, making mean-spirited comments about others online. It takes no skill or courage, and often skirts the fine line between fair comment and libel. What’s more, most of what’s said wouldn’t ever get published if the trolls’ identities were on the line.
It’s a cowardly way to operate, and there’s a clear division between the right to free speech and the right to libel. Most people aren’t even aware of the various laws which, as writers and publishers, make them responsible for content, but carry on regardless. Others simply don’t care.
I don’t know which category Port falls into, but clearly she was motivated by a personal vendetta. I’d love it if this mendacious women took on Google’s legal might, then got everything that she deserved. Not least of all a copy of the terms and conditions that she evidently overlooked when signing up to Google-owned Blogger.
Tags: google