August 20, 2009
-
Negative Affects For The Blogging Community [edited]
Edit:
I found a news article regarding the case. Apparently the model is suing the blogger because the blogger has called her derogatory terms, such as ‘skank’. Really, now? Sure, it’s not the nicest name to call someone, but people have been calling others this name for a long, long time. Plus, just think…now people could be sued for calling anyone any negative name. I think her argument is weak… But, she did win the case against Google for them to release the identity of the blogger…
—
As a blogger, I am concerned. A super model sued Google to find out a blogger’s identity, so she could sue the blogger for potential defamation. She won the case against Google, so Google has to provide the blogger’s name. I just saw it on Fox News, but I couldn’t find an article on the net…
If a blogger can’t state their opinion on celebrities in the spotlight, where’s the free speech? If paparazzi can take unwanted photos and the tabloids can PUBLISH lies about them, why can’t a blogger write what they want? Why can’t we write that we think so-and-so is a slut or a ho? But a tabloid can print garbage stories that most people realize are false but some people believe? This isn’t about potential defamation. If these other things can happen that are perfectly legal, why can’t we write what we want? This has everything to do with free speech. Why isn’t this model going after tabloids? Why is she attacking bloggers?
If this case wins, it sets a precedent for every blogger out there. We will no longer be able to write about what we want in our blogs. What’s next? Are we going to be like Cuba and we won’t be able to talk about the president in a negative way? What is going on in this country. I will be furious if this case wins.
What do you think?
Comments (27)
This is a terrifying prospect indeed. It calls into question so much about so-called free speech.
Frightening.
@skylar_rose - I know, it is frightening.
Yeah I saw that too. I would like to see an article about it that explains the exact nature of the lawsuit.
The blogger still have free speech. The person can now find out his/her name. It did not take away from free speech.
Oh no, I would be in big fat trouble!!!!!
hats garbage and like an invasion of the blogger’s privacy
CRAP. The whole point of my blog is to avoid getting sued.
I really hope that case doesn’t win.
hmmm. i like to start revolts. its a pastime of mine. regardless of the law, if there is enough people… then we can speak through whatever channel we choose!
@TheTheologiansCafe - I know, but the whole reason the model wanted the bloggers name was to sue that person for potential defamation…but the whole point is that a blogger should be able to say what they want. It’s not necessarily about free speech, no, but I still felt attacked, being a blogger. I just thought about all the people out there who blog about celebrities and what they say about them.
@Paul_Partisan - I just looked again and didn’t see the article. I saw the anchor on Fox News interviewing the model and her lawyer, so I don’t know why it’s not up there. I’ll try searching elsewhere for the story…but I’m at work right now, so it’ll have to be later…
Slander and libel don’t fall under the free speech category –so you can’t actually just make shit up about someone. You can feel free to express your opinion, but not to make up “facts”.
@momofjenmatt - I think a lot of people would be! That’s why I was so mad when I saw that interview.
@MARYBLOGS - lol maybe if you don’t talk about any celebrities at all, you could be safe
btw, I love that quote on the top of your page!
@BiTheWay_ItsAdvice - I completely agree.
@XxRainyxMondayxX - Yep, that’s what I say!
@just_the_average_jane - Yeah, but that’s what tabloids do every day. Why aren’t they getting sued? I don’t know what the blogger said, but the model kept saying “potential defamation.”
@crazy2love - They certainly can sue them if they want, but I imagine most tabloids have enough resources to either put up a big fight or simply settle, in which case we’d never hear about it.
sounds juicy. paris hilton is a slut. heh heh heh sue me now bitches!!!!!
It most definitely shouldn’t win. I totally agree with you
I don’t think it means that we lose our freedom of speech per se, I think it just makes it “edgy” (you could go to jail or be fined) to use your free speech as a rule. The precedent it leaves is basically one that says; “You’re either a rebel or a consenter.”
It says that freedom of speech may not be encouraged and may in fact be punished in the near future. Of course, it’s really easy to go from “edgy” to lost freedom…what with our government’s inclination toward indefinite detention and torture…but yeah. >_>
Keep us updated? I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
Our rights are safe in the blogosphere. This is about freedom of speech, and we are protected by constitutional rights. I’ve said worse and never been sued, lol, but I also put up a disclaimer years ago. If you wanna surf the waves, make sure your board is tough, something like that.
In order to have libel (it would be libel on a blog; libel is written, slander is spoken, both are forms of defamation of character) there needs to be: 1) People need to see it. 2) People need to believe it. 3) It needs to cause actual damage to the person being libeled, for example they need to be able to show they lost a job opportunity or something like that because of the libel, and 4) It needs to be shown you said it with the intention of causing the person to be hurt, and you knew it was false, this is also known as malicious intent. That is why the tabloids never lose. Noone ever proves anyone believes them, for one.
@crazy2love - this could actually be a good thing. if the lawsuit goes the right way it could set precident for protecting bloggers anonymity.
Thanks for posting the link to the article.
@MyFreedomWings - I edited the post, and posted a link to an article about the lawsuit.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - Yeah, she’s claiming those things in her lawsuit, I read an article about it a couple hours ago. I personally think her argument is weak though.
@ionekoa - I actually hadn’t thought of it like that, but you have a great point!
@Paul_Partisan - You’re welcome =]
@TheSeventhRhapsody - Well, someone mentioned that depending on how the lawsuit goes, it might set precedent for keeping a blogger’s anonymity…we’ll just have to see how it goes.
@lovely_rayne - lol! =]
@curious33 - lol, yeah, I hope so!
Hello Ms. Crystal,
You made your site simple yet elegant. The music player and videos are a nice touch. I see that you have a wide variety of interests and observations here!
I’m sending an important message to people from Jehovah God that is in the Bible: 7 “But always, first of all, I warn you through my servants the prophets. I, the Sovereign LORD, have now done this.” (Amos 3:7) (NLT)
@A_Final_Warning - UGH spammer!! If you would have gone further than skin deep on my site, you would have seen that I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, NOR DO I WISH TO BE. EVER. I swear I’ve seen the line “simple yet elegant” on my site before. Stop trying to brain wash people. Your site is filled with vile and hate-filled propaganda for anti-anything-that’s-not-what-YOU-think-is-right, I don’t want any part of it. I see you on my site again, I’m going to knock your block off.
click here to watch my newest videos or visit to my web blog!!!!!!!!
http://urlcover.com/3sy
http://urlcover.com/3sy
http://urlcover.com/3sy
http://urlcover.com/3sy
http://urlcover.com/3sy
If celebrities are allowed to lie and go by alias names, why can’t we give them names too?