

Model forces Google to reveal blogger's identity - onreact-com
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/model-forces-google-to-reveal-skank-bloggers-identity-20090819-epz0.html

======
byrneseyeview
It's probably !HN, but I'd be interested in how many people read this as
"Guess based on simulations forces Google to reveal..." versus how many read
it as "Person paid (well) to wear clothes (barely) forces Google to reveal..."

~~~
rapind
I agree with this ruling. While I think privacy is important, the anonymity of
the internet can bring out the worst in people. I think you should be held
responsible for your actions, and once we start doing that with the internet I
think you'll see a reduction in abuse.

Of course you'll get loads of frivolous lawsuits as well...

~~~
onreact-com
I'm not so sure about that. While this case seems obvious bloggers in Germany
on the other hand are required by law to publish their identity and real life
street address.

This way many people are afraid to publish articles that might be
controversial. Some already have been attacked by fascists or been shut up by
lawyers.

Not to mention China of course where blog publishers have to register with
authorities.

~~~
DannoHung
That's pretty f'd up. Do journalists have to publish their street address?

~~~
onreact-com
As long as they work for a publication that has a real address of their office
it's enough.

When they operate a blog or website on their own they also have to publish a
so called imprint including an address (which might be an office address
though).

Journalists and everybody else working from home have no choice for their
sites and blogs.

------
pbhjpbhj
Whether the model is a "skank" (which I read, as a UK English user, to be
similar to a slag - a loose woman of low morals, skank suggests "scruffy"
where slag does not) is a matter of opinion and not a matter of objective
fact.

How then can one show that she is being defamed, if one considers here to be a
skank then under that subjective definition she is. No defamation/libel just
name calling.

If you said specifically she "slept around" and there was no factual basis for
that then it would be different.

~~~
jimbokun
"How old is this skank? 40 something? She's a psychotic, lying, whoring, still
going to clubs at her age, skank."

I think that is pretty concretely claiming that she "slept around." If there
is a factual basis for the claim, the blogger should be cleared of all
charges. If not, a libel or defamation case seems appropriate, just as if
these claims were made in the New York Times or on CNN.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Reading that quote the only adjective at issue is "whoring" the rest are
subjective unless the alleged defamer is her Psychiatrist and knows that she
is not. Whoring in this context would be unlikely to be meant as actual
prostitution instead I'd interpret it (though the courts will doubtless
disagree) as meaning "she has multiple partners outside of or alongside long
term relationships". This of course is a matter to be determined by facts.

Even if it's shown that in fact she does not sleep around, then there's the
question of whether that allegation defames the person in question. For
example they may be widely publically assumed to have that lifestyle and so
this statement would no more defame her than the allegation of lying
(everybody lies).

So does she sleep around, perhaps this should be determined before the
breaching the anonymity of her critic. Revealing the critics identity is
punishing them before the trial has even taken place to determine if they're
guilty.

------
movix
There does seem an underlying 'this will make me $$$' feeling to this, though
it's very sad to read how her career was ended.

Having worked with models/media for years, uber-bitching really is part of the
territory, though they don't usually go as far as to put it in print, that
probably wasn't such a great idea.

That's a curious part of the web though, whatever you say (write) or do,
potentially stays there forever. I hate the fact the whenever anyone does a
Google image search on me, the first thing they find is a shot of me and my
business partner dressed as mariachi's - damn.

~~~
_pi
[http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-livecdent/...](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-livecdent/MoviX-
MPlayer.jpg)

Lies that's not a man in a mariachi costume! I demand to see the real picture!

~~~
movix
If you insist:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/karaandrade/1254260996/in/set-7...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/karaandrade/1254260996/in/set-72157601712656685/)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
"Bute Cardiff", do you have a RL connection to the Marquis of Bute?

Where's the third amigo?

------
tezza
Model Viewed Controller ?

~~~
cema
Model Controlled View, more like.

A serious breach in privacy, imho. Online or offline, does not matter.

------
Ardit20
I thought that repeating defamatory remarks was a defamation on its own!

