Vogue model wins right to unmask offensive blogger Follow

This.

The harm caused by forcing an anonymous poster to be revealed is vastly greater than that caused by said anonymous posters statements. A statement of opinion only has as much weight as the person making the statement. And let's be honest "Anonymous" on the internet is as unimportant and irrelevant as you can get.

Now, if the people running this site had "officially" declared her ***** of the year, or whatever, then she could sue them. But an anonymous poster on said site? I think that's absurd. The very nature of anonymity on the internet precludes the need to "face your accuser". Cause no one takes an anonymous accusation seriously (or at least they shouldn't).

Now. I suppose on a case by case basis, if she can show direct harm from said anonymous post, this could be legitimate. I have a feeling that this is more of a really dumb judge reacting to the rising cyberbullying issue. I think the whole thing is a trend in the wrong direction as regards speech on the internet. By treating things said on the internet seriously, we're granting said posts more weight than they really should have, leading to this sort of ridiculous ruling...


The unfortunate aspect of this is that the person revealed cannot challenge this until *after* the damage has been done. Not just to that person, but to all of us. Imagine the ramifications for a site like Allas, where many people express sometimes off color opinions every single day. Can Alla be threated with suit if someone posts something on his site they don't like? Would he be forced to reveal the identity of his posters in that case? Why? Does the opinion of "randomguy" posting on Allakhazam really have sufficient weight to cause harm to someone in the real world? It shouldn't.

How so? How is that harmful at all?

When did the world lose the ability to detect implicit opinions?

Anonymity empowers a voice that may otherwise be kept silent. Disregarding the nature of this one particular voice, the precedent set here is dangerous. It basically says that no one can express their mind behind a anonymous veil of safety without the potential for court mandated identification. In this case, the harm is probably close to nil, but I shudder to think about future cases.

That's just my

I fail to see how that's really harmful, honestly.

If you read his comments he says and I quote "I would have to say" that right there is an opinion which IMO makes the lawsuit and all the arguments for her moot. seriously if she was walking down the street and I made the same comment it's still just an opinion, get over it.

And I had to look her up as I didn't know her and really unless the blogger knows her and her private background he's just talking crap. the whole freedom of speech aspect bothers me quite a bit but maybe something does need to be done to get some accountability I'm just not convinced that this is the right case for it.

Well, that's why we have courts.






















This comment brought to you by Banal Input, Inc.

That analogy doesn't exactly hold. If he is saying that she is 40 years old and she isn't, that could very, very easily start a rumor that could impact the amount of work she could get as a model.

If you have the widespread readership to put you in a position where your "opinions" become considered a voice of knowledgeable authority, then they carry the same weight as fact as far as their ability to impact a person's livelihood. Brownduck calling an actor bad here on a gaming forum has little weight. However, if you were, say, Roger Ebert and said it on your blog, it carries a lot more weight, weight which could potentially impact the actor's marketability.

This is precisely why the smart critics like Ebert keep their opinions firmly within the realm of "was the film good?" "was the screenplay weak?" and "was it a good performance?" rather than "the director sucks" "the screenplay writer is a hack" and "the actor is terribad."

Seeing the difference? Had the blogger in question said, "she looked ****** in that magazine spread" it would have been an entirely different ballgame than calling her, personally, a 40-something *****.



Edited, Aug 19th 2009 2:30pm by Ambrya

I really don't see what the problem of revealing who the blogger is.

To those of you that think the blogger is in the wrong, then he should be held accountable for his actions.
To those of you who think the blogger did nothing wrong, then why are you worried about him being revealed and put on a trial that will fail as he did no wrong?

You are responsible for the consequences of your own actions and words. That's what grandma used to say, and it still holds true.






That is not the point. It doesn't matter where he posts his insults. As long as it is open to the public, then the victim has a right to pursue a lawsuit, whether she is going to win or not doesn't matter.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 5:41pm by McGame

I can only imagine that the law suit would be based on that more than anything. But then, models aren't known for their brains*. Also, for what it's worth, I'm sure the law suit will get tossed.

*Statement of opinion, not to be taken as fact.

Your bar analogy is not accurate. In that situation he is only talking to the barman, and that's it. It is more comparable to a guy emailing another guy that the model is a *****.
However, the blogger posted in a public forum, visited by hundreds if not thousands. The scale of defamation is incomparable. If he is allowed to insult another in 'public'(as far as internet goes), then the victim should be allowed to defend against it, in 'public'.