Via @walterolson, a reminder that the rules of the game are invariably made under the worst case scenario. In this one, the worst case is bad indeed, where model Liskula Gentile Cohen is suing to learn the identity of the blogger of Skanks in NYC. Seriously, someone felt compelled to start a blog called Skanks in NYC!
The blog appears to be obsessed with Cohen, and quite derogatory. She’s identified by our mystery blogger as New York’s “skankiest” and a “”psychotic, lying, whoring … skank.” And in these hands lie the fate of blogging anonymity and first amendment rights? Spare me.
But skank-blogger has appeared by counsel to challenge Cohen’s efforts to pierce the veil of anonymity, and Citizens Media Law Project is impressed by the effort to put the blog’s contents into perspective:
With the increasing prevalence of email, chat rooms, social networking websites and web logs (“blogs”), the Internet has become essential to the free exchange of ideas and opinions, however absurd, insulting, profane or rhetorical. Petitioner’s Application threatens this free exchange . . . Despite its seemingly petty underpinnings, this action is important and involves fundamental First Amendment rights that Petitioner seeks to destroy. If granted, Petitioner’s Application would have a dangerous chilling effect upon what has become a predominant forum for free speech in modern society. . . .
A good lawyer can make even the skankiest blog sound relevant, which is good because otherwise this blog is absolutely disgraceful. In fact, the secondary argument is that:
no reasonable reader of the blog would understand the statements referring to Cohen as a “skank,” “skanky,” or “acting like a ho” to be asserting or implying verifiable facts about her.
In other words, the content is so ridiculous as to be obviously unworthy of credit. Of course, if this is true (and I have no doubt whatsoever that the content of this blog reflects one of the low points in the waste of English words), then why would anyone go to the effort to create and maintain it? Clearly, the blogger is one monumental, perhaps even psychotically obsessed, jerk. As for Cohen, I have a hard time blaming her for being angry about the obsessive focus of this blog. It really is offensive.
So once again, the freedom of speech of Americans comes down to the sensibilities of the lowest scuzzball around. It certainly brings me, as a blawger, great comfort to know that my rights are in this skank-blogger’s hands. I’m just thankful he hired a good lawyer.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People who attack others anonymously are the car-keyers of the internet. Please tell me why (other than slope-slipperiness) I should care whether they are allowed to maintain anonymity.
And this guy is one of the worst car-keyers I’ve ever seen. Yet we both know people who blog anonymously with good reason, and may indulge in the occasional attack. It’s for them, not the skank-blogger.
No reason other than slope-slipperiness. No reason at all.
What makes people engage in such petty, stupid hatred of someone for…what exactly? I can’t even tell what the problem is. I’ve encountered this personality online before, but never in person. Seems kind of cowardly. The commenters too.
Maybe someone should start CowardlyDouchebagsWhoHateWomen.com
Anyway, these guys are constitutional tripwires. Canaries in the coal mine warning us of danger to our freedoms. Otherwise, to hell with them.
The slippery slope issue is, indeed, a problem that should concern us in situations like this. It seems to me, too often, slippery slope arguments are rejected, probably because it’s difficult for “common sense” folk to believe that piercing the veil of anonymity for skanky bloggers will, indeed, ultimately have an impact on smart, sophisticated bloggers who, for whatever reason, are in need of anonymity.
The thing is that rules which damage low-life speakers ultimately cannot be differentiated from rules that damage those who legitimately raise or expose critical issues and do so anonymously to avoid risks to their property, personal liberty, or life.
Thanks to “stare decisis” (and the judiciary’s inability to craft clear arguments), going after cowardlydouchebagswhohatewomen can actually hurt us all.
To ignore this is to ignore history and to fail to recognize that just as a huge oak grows from a small acorn, so, too, does a fascist government begin from the tiniest moves to limit speech.
The best way to combat bad speech is with good speech.
And if that doesn’t work, G-d help us all.