Internet Law
Outed Over Online Rants, Blogger Threatens to Sue Google for IDing Her
Posted Aug 24, 2009 4:50 PM CST
By Martha Neil
After someone started ranting online against Liskula Cohen, the model complained of defamation and managed to get a court order requiring Google to identify the once-anonymous blogger.
Allegedly, the individual who had described the 37-year-old on a Blogger site as a "skank" and a "psychotic, lying whore," as well as an "old hag," was a former friend, Rosemary Port, a 29-year-old student at the Fashion Institute of Technology.
Now Port has lined up a well-known lawyer and is threatening to sue Google for $15 million in federal court over being outed, according to the New York Daily News and PC World.
The search engine giant violated its fiduciary duty to her by violating her privacy rights, Port tells the Daily News. She also blames Cohen for publicizing a website that, Port says, would have been virtually unread if Cohen hadn't pursued the defamation issue.
"I'm ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court," her lawyer, Salvatore Strazzullo, tells the tabloid newspaper. "Our Founding Fathers wrote 'The Federalist Papers' under pseudonyms. Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously. Shouldn't that right extend to the new public square of the Internet?"
Cohen's lawyer, Steven Wagner, says she is ready to drop her $3 million libel suit against Port in order to put the entire situation behind her and would have thought twice about pursuing it in the first place if she had anticipated that it would result in more headlines.
On her side Port planned to apologize on national television, but changed her mind after hearing that a mea culpa might not be a plus factor in defending a defamation suit, reports the New York Daily News in another article.
Hat tip: BoingBoing.
Updated on Aug. 27 to include information from second New York Daily News article.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
HBC
Aug 24, 2009 8:12 PM CST
I’ve tried to find “skank,” “psychotic, lying whore,” and “old hag” in the Federalist but I couldn’t. Could you ask Strazzullo what number Federalist he has in mind? [By the way, it is Federalist, not Federalist Papers]
Flag this comment
Tired of ABA posters
Aug 24, 2009 11:48 PM CST
I will give five dollars and thirty-seven cents to the first person who identifies the “attorneys” who go by the handles “B. McLeod” and “J.D.” I will then give them links to monster.com and eharmony.com, so they might find better outlets for their time.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 24, 2009 11:54 PM CST
Hey, I got dibs on half of that. “B. McLeod” is an attorney named B. McLeod. Go figure. How hard is that?
Flag this comment
tim
Aug 25, 2009 7:57 AM CST
I don’t want to know who McLeod and J.D. are. The comments are the only reason I read the abajounral online. If people had to post under their real name, the comments would be dry and worthless.
I hope google loses this suit.
Flag this comment
Michael Roberts Internet Libel Victim's Advocate
Aug 25, 2009 8:22 AM CST
I am encouraged by the increasing community awareness to this 21st century pandemic called internet libel. Until someone has experienced it first hand it is difficult to relate to the anguish it causes. Judges too often by their body language and rulings see these suits as petty and undeserving of relief. However, a person that relies on their reputation can be as utterly devastated as a farmer who’s livestock, barns and fields are set alight by a vandal.
Respectfully submitted, Michael Roberts
www.rexxfield.com
Flag this comment
Rath
Aug 25, 2009 9:20 AM CST
As my firm has counseled our clients countless times in cases of “internet defamation,” if there is no measurable financial damage to one’s reputation, bringing a defamation claim only serves to fan the flames or as the case may be feed the trolls.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 25, 2009 9:42 AM CST
However, in at least some jurisdictions, some forms of defamation give rise to “presumptive” damage, and even $1 of actuals may support an additional claim for punitives. In those jurisdictions, defamation actions can effectively be used to punish the defamer. Use of the Internet by persons deliberately posting defamatory matter would seem to give rise to a potentially broad menu for “choice of law” as well as a potentially extensive selection of the jurisdiction(s) where the tort “occurs.” Presumably, the sophisticated plaintiff will do the research to determine the best forum option before filing the case. I suspect we will see such cases increasingly, because so many people who use the Internet are overoptimistic in their belief of anonymity, and believe they can safely use the medium to defame at will.
Flag this comment
Martina
Aug 26, 2009 7:21 AM CST
What about Cohen’s privacy and wasn’t Google made to reveal her identity by the court and rightly so. It is no surprise it was just a jealous and probably ugly friend that did it. This is a form of bullying and stalking and as such, should not be protected by privacy laws. Psychologists have to adhere to privacy laws too but not if they know their client harms others. I hope she loses the legal fight and Google sues her for damages. People like Port should be taught to respect privacy of others before they scream theirs has been vilolated.
Flag this comment
Bruceongames
Aug 26, 2009 7:38 AM CST
I write a non anonymous blog about the video game industry, Bruceongames.com. Recently I have written some articles about Evony, all that I wrote was provable fact or fair comment. My blog is written in the UK and hosted in the USA. Evony is Chinese. But they are threatening to sue me for libel in Australia. I obviously cannot defend the case despite being in the right and they can enforce any judgement due to reciprocal arrangements.
So they will rewrite history in their favour, stifle fair criticism and destroy any notion of free speech. We are all potential victims of this sort of bullying. Our only way out is to rely on Streisand effect.
Obviously, being a blog I have written this up: http://www.bruceongames.com/2009/08/26/why-use-warren-mckeon-dickson-to-threaten-me/
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 26, 2009 11:41 AM CST
Maybe they just assumed, based on “Bruce,” that you were in Australia. Perhaps announcing to the world that you can’t afford to defend the case might not be the best deterrent strategy. [Maybe too late to be helpful, I have heard it is possible for bloggers to insure against the litigation risk]. This case does, however, provide a good example of the worldwide publication via Internet giving plaintiffs a broad choice of where to bring their case.
Flag this comment
Bill
Aug 28, 2009 6:03 AM CST
They both seem like very charming women. I’m sure they are wonderful human beings and a joy to be with at all times.
But please. Citing the Federalist in support of your First Amendment right to blog anonymously? If she wants to be a constitutional lawyer, she needs to brush up on her understanding of the state actor doctrine. And of the First Amendment right to free spech as well.
In my opinion (see, you have to make it clear you’re just expressing your opinion), that Port women sounds like pathetic little whiner.
Flag this comment
silencedogood
Aug 28, 2009 6:08 AM CST
This suit is ridiculous.
Google was ordered by the court to out the blogger who was writing libelous content and not commercial, political or any other type of speech that is protected. It was the online equivalent of “fire” in a theatre or fighting words with a technological megaphone.
Her suit should be dismissed and she should do something constructive with her life and quit wasting the court’s time.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Aug 28, 2009 7:51 AM CST
I predict that Ms. Port will raise the truth of her comments as an absolute defense to the lawsuit. The deposition of Ms. cohen, which will explore every single facet of her personal life since puberty should be a laff riot.
Thought for the day for reality TV show producers—there’s a potential gold mine in televising depositions like this.
Flag this comment
Joe Jacobson
Aug 28, 2009 9:02 AM CST
Rosemary Port should be embarrassed that she posted such juvenile insults about a former friend. I cannot see that Google did anything wrong here, and I hope that they stand their ground and not offer Port even a nuisance settlement. Google responded properly to a subpoena and, as other commentators stated above, this is not a case of protected speech or speech affecting any public interest.
Flag this comment
Casey
Aug 28, 2009 9:37 AM CST
“She also blames Cohen for publicizing a website that, Port says, would have been virtually unread if Cohen hadn’t pursued the defamation issue.” Hahahaha. So she admits her blog is a waste of time! If no one is reading what you’re blogging about, what is the purpose of your blog, aside from venting your rage and jealousy over a former friend… I can say with full confidence Port needs to get a life!
Flag this comment
sam
Aug 28, 2009 9:45 AM CST
What is a skank and a whore. If you dress sleazy are you a skank and a whore? Do you have sleep around for that?
This is a frivilous suit and I hope they go after not only google but the plaintiff and her attorney.
Flag this comment
bac59447
Aug 28, 2009 10:08 AM CST
So did Google have a written agreement with Port that they would defy court orders and subpoenas for her name? Did Google suddenly become a state actor subject to the First Amendment? Did Port just morph herself into a founding father putting her life on the line for liberty and freedom? These and many other ironic but pathetic questions will be wasting some judge’s time for the next several months. Sigh.
Flag this comment
Jim
Aug 28, 2009 10:13 AM CST
When a lawyer says, “I’m ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” you can generally be sure that his client has no case.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Aug 28, 2009 10:48 AM CST
#2: I’m sorry you feel so threatened by ideas that don’t conform to the radical, post-America, leftist babble you’re used to. Why is censorship always coming from the political left? We’ve got a return of the “Fairness” Doctrine in the works, we’ve got news today that Obama will have supreme rule over the internet….
The left must view it’s own ideals as so delicate, unsubstantiated, and unpersuasive that even the slightest challenge is a threat.
Google, unlike the gov’t, is a private company, however. In the least, they need to update their agreement clause.
Flag this comment
Mick
Aug 28, 2009 12:38 PM CST
Here in New York, the Supreme Court is our trial court. We take every case to the Supreme Court, unless we have federal jurisdiction and a reason to use it.
Flag this comment
James Pollock
Aug 28, 2009 2:40 PM CST
The Fairness Doctrine, even if it were to be re-introduced, is not and never has been censorship.
The Fairness Doctrine required that access be given to “responsible opposing points of view” by broadcasters making use of the public’s airwaves. The only people who need fear the Fairness Doctrine are those whose ideas would wilt if presented next to other ideas which are clearly superior. Those who know that their own ideas are superior should welcome a return to the Fairness Doctrine, because it would give them an opportunity to clearly show that superiority. In contrast, someone who either knows or secretly suspects that their ideas are not that good, wants no part of the Fairness Doctrine.
Mr. (I’m assuming) J.D., which side are you on, again?
Flag this comment
R
Aug 28, 2009 3:00 PM CST
So Ms. Port, a two-faced twit(terer) who indisputably called her colleague and former friend these vile names in an anonymous blog, was really planning on doing the right thing, behaving like an adult, and apologizing ...
... but then decided not to because she learned that it wouldn’t help her defense against the defamation lawsuit?
Wow. What a wonderful human being Ms. Port is.
Oh well, since we know how deeply, fervently and sincerely Ms. Port and her attorney Mr. Strazullo believe in the sacred right to defame people anonymously… may I hereby exercise my own sacred right (according to them) to anonymously call both of them every conceivable name that, if actually recited, would violate the ABA Journal’s “Terms of Use”? (Just use your imagination…)
PS: An attorney saying “I’ll take it all the way to the Supreme Court” always comes across as a buffoon and blowhard. It’s actually a Freudian, subconscious signal that the attorney realizes he or she is really making a mountain out of a molehill and doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Fifteen million dollars. Ugh. The reputation of a person who views an apology as a mere tactic in a lawsuit isn’t worth fifteen CENTS.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Aug 28, 2009 3:28 PM CST
Responding to #16—what is a skank and a whore? The analysis is like Potter Stewart on obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”
Flag this comment
stepheng
Aug 28, 2009 5:30 PM CST
I for one find “B. McLeod” amusing.
Flag this comment
LisaR
Sep 3, 2009 2:31 PM CST
“Whore” defined (www.dictionary.com): “a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.”
Such an accusation in a blog, if untrue, constitutes defamation per se, as it directly attacks Ms. Cohen’s chastity. Furthermore, assuming prostitution is a crime in NY, the imputation of criminal conduct has also been asserted against Ms. Cohen by Ms. Port. Since defamation is not consitutionally protected speech under the 1st Amendment, Ms. Port has no claim to any constitutional right to privacy regarding her speech.
As for the claim against Google for revealing Ms. Port’s identity, the information was released pursuant to a court order. No court will grant her relief, because to do so would encourage parties such as Google to defy court orders and risk contempt as an alternative to civil liability exposure in the millions of dollars. Public policy will reign supreme, here.
Flag this comment
Laura
Sep 3, 2009 7:20 PM CST
#11, reread the article.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.