InfoWorld Home / Adventures in IT / Notes from the Field / Skanks for nothing: Google must identify...
August 19, 2009

Skanks for nothing: Google must identify 'anonymous' blogger

Model Liskula Cohen has forced Google to hand over the name of an anonymous blogger who defamed her. Is this the end of free speech on the Net?

| Print | 26 comments|
335 Recommendations

Remember when mom said not to worry when people call you names, it's the sticks and stones you need to watch out for?

Well, it turns out mom was wrong. Again. In this case, though, it's the name-callers who are in danger of getting stoned (no, not in that way).

[ Cringely points to more signs of changes on the Internet, courtesy of AT&T and 4chan | Stay up to date on Robert X. Cringely's musings and observations with InfoWorld's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]

Yesterday a U.S. federal judge ruled that Google must turn over the name of an anonymous blogger who took a severe disliking to aging supermodel Liskula Cohen. The ripples emanating from the ruling could potentially wash over every member of the blogosphere (including those who delight in anonymously depositing nasty comments on blogs -- you know who you are).

The backstory: In August 2008, some soon-to-not-be-anonymous blogger (STNBAB) created a Google blog called "Skanks in NYC" (no longer available, but archived at Mahalo). The sole topic of this short-lived blog: Liskula Cohen, a zygomatically gifted Canuck who has graced the covers of Vogue, Elle, and other magazines probably not in the bathrooms of most InfoWorld readers.

Among other things, the STNBAB called Cohen "a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank." He (she?) also called Cohen "an old hag." I bet that's the one that really stung.

(Note: This blog takes no position whatsoever on the relative skankiness of any supermodel, Cohen or otherwise. I'm sure they're all just sweet-natured gals at heart. Also: 100 percent virgins. But I digress.)

Cohen's attorneys sent a nastygram to the blogger, who immediately removed "Skanks in NYC" from Blogger.com. But it didn't end there. Last January Cohen sued Google, demanding it reveal the blogger's identity. Yesterday, the court ruled that Google had to hand over the only information it had: the blogger's IP and e-mail addresses.

So it looks like STNBAB is about to be sued for defamation, libel, and anything else Liskanka -- err, Liskula's attorneys can dig up. Bad news for him/her, but potentially worse news for the rest of us. Because if anonymous speech on the Internet is no longer anonymous, some people will simply stop speaking.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
24 of 26 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
CodeZombie 19-Aug-09 8:17am
1 reply
I'm at work right now so I don't dare click on the link provided (especially after the "two girls, one cup" search you told us about - eww, I get nauseous just thinking about that one) but I wouldn't be surprised if her lawyers did something to have that search result removed.
raargh 24-Aug-09 10:14am
1 reply
I'm suing everyone who commented on this story! Lying, whoring commenters! How dare you comment! This is America! Just shut up and read.
tcapun 24-Aug-09 3:30pm
I don't agree.

While Liars should be sued, Whores should just be used.

Meanwhile, has anyone from her PR or Legal office bothered to prove she isn't a skank?

As I understand Libel and Slander laws, it's only illegal if it isn't true.
Conga 19-Aug-09 8:43am
5 replies
Cringely, Some time back, I used to be in agreement with every article/post you wrote, but now I'm beginning to wonder what alternate universe you seemed to have moved to. Libel and slander has always been against the law in this country, free speech or not, and for very good reason. Wastler's comments were right on, but you seemed to miss the point entirely: a public writer needs to back up their stories/accusation with facts. It's one thing to say, "she's past her prime but still parties like she's 18" or some such, but to actually put in print, for all the world to see, "Psychotic" "Lying" "Whore" and other terms, without - I'm guessing - even the benefit of the semi-magic words "IN MY OPINION" is just simply wrong and is an undeniable abuse of the entire concept of free speech. Hence the laws against libel and slander. This ignorant person is not the first, and won't be the last, to be brought to trial over this issue. There is a growing list of bloggers now being sued over libel (for example, the one being sued by Anna Nichol Smith's mother) because they completely ignore both the laws against this sort of thing, as well as the dictates of common decency. Your argument seems to be that "anonymous" makes someone above the law, and that's ludicrous. If you wear a mask and rob a bank, you're trying to be anonymous. Shall we let you go for that reason? No. If your sister is standing next to you during the robbery and aids you, shall we not force her via the law to reveal your identity so you can be punished for your act? Of course. So sister Google is being told to unmask the culprit. Not a shock. If the "anonymous" writer had not libeled, I'd be with you. But (s)he out and out broke a legitimate law (unlike the apple-and-oranges example you gave of the Chinese dictatorship), and must be held accountable per the rules of the society. This will not bring down the net, and anonymous posters discussing legitimate issues need not worry. But were I the target of libel, I too would want the person punished appropriately.
apeshansky 19-Aug-09 12:31pm
I mostly agreed with what Conga wrote until "But (s)he out and out broke a legitimate law (unlike the apple-and-oranges example you gave of the Chinese dictatorship)...". It was not apples-and-oranges comparison: Chinese dissidents did break Chinese laws. True, these laws are oppressive, but they _are_ laws of the land! Returning to our libelous blogger, I would think (although IANAL) that after the injured party won a libel judgment against "John Doe" it should be entitled to request to discover his identity. From the common sense POV I don't see how it will repair damaged reputation, but the glitteratti say there's no such thing as bad publicity, so it is probably OK from their POV.
davemskinner 19-Aug-09 12:40pm
1 reply
I cannot let this one go without comment. I absolutely agree with this person's comments about right and wrong in public speach/writing and the analysis and comparison to a bank robbery. I will say that I don't think for one second that Mr Cringley thought that the anonomous blogger should be protected. What I think he was pointing to was the slippery slope of government power. In this country, there has always been a struggle between individual power/rights vs governmental power/rights. Generally the individual rights are the basis for our whole form of government. With exceptions being made for the good of the whole. Unfortunately, we live in a time where the current establishment wants to dismantle much of the traditional view of individual rights so that the whole can be stronger. Commonly called communism, or to a lesser degree socialism, our individual rights are being whittled away at an alarming rate. A gun can be an instrument of feeding oneself or murder. It is in the mind of the user that the gun goes from a benevolent tool to a weapon of agression. So it goes with governmental power. Beware, beware, beware, we do live in a time where many think they are entitled to others rewards. The day is quickly coming when we all may regret the power of technology. David Skinner
Regaug 19-Aug-09 1:24pm
1 reply
The only "slippery slope" here is the one in your imagination. We will *never* have to worry about blurring the line between anonymous political free speech and cowardly slander in this country, because paranoia of the government (a fine old American tradition), has become an American past-time of late. Also, most Americans, like yourself, use the labels of socialism freely and enthusiastically, yet have no concept of what they mean. This is because we've never had communism or socialism in this country! We live in a democratic republic; always has been, and God willing, always will be. What people like yourself seem to fear so much is called "Federalism" (at least that's what it was called in the old days).
John the Econ 20-Aug-09 4:50am
Really? Controlling ownership several of the largest banks and 2 auto companies. Complete control of the mortgage marketplace. 50% control of medical services with talk of taking over the other 50%. Looks like socialism to me. I don't think we've been much of a "democratic republic" for some time now.
cklaver 19-Aug-09 1:16pm
1 reply
Conga and others missed the point. It's the target, not the writer, who matters. A supermodel is, by definition, a public figure, so the standards for libel are a bit more loose. Opinion about the person is generally fair game (whether socially appropriate or not) and statements of fact don't have to be true, only made without intention to harm (absence of malice). Anna Nicole's mother is not a public figure, so the law is more strict about what you can say about her and get away with it. The comments Cringley quoted in this case would not likely be libelous, only inappropriate and petty.
gunner@gulftel.com 20-Aug-09 5:25am
1 reply
Did you read the comments the blogger made?! "Skank", "whore", "old hag", "liar"... I hardly think any of those exhibit "absence of malice." Seems to me, when someone comes up with something this malicious they SHOULD be shut down. ...but sued for slander?.... And it seems that when something's this malicious and hurtful, Google SHOULD be forced to give up the IP and email. The blog obviously had only a single purpose (which it obviously attained) and had no other social relevance. At least Google didn't just hand the info over.
MahatmaGandu 20-Aug-09 7:44am
So, more or less, you support government sponsored censorship of the net? Because, via a court order, that's exactly what this is.
Robert X. Cringely 19-Aug-09 2:12pm
1 reply
nope, not defending the anonymous 'skank' blogger. not sure where you got that idea. personally, I hate people who hide their identities solely to attack others, and applaud those who stand by what they say online. but suing google to get this guy's name? incredibly stupid move. if they'd just shut him down and moved on, nobody would have noticed.
Conga 20-Aug-09 6:14am
1 reply
Not intending to illicit responses to my post, I nevertheless welcome them all with interest and have two quick follow up comments. First is a clarification on my "apples and oranges" statements. The key there was my use of the term "legitimate law." Granted that's a subjective notion, but I was drawing a distinction between libel laws, which are geared to protect innocent individuals and the type I consider legitimate, and Chinese laws of censorship which forbid airing of verifiable truth if the government simply doesn't like it, which I consider an illegitimate law. My second comment goes to Cringely: where I (and apparently others, as none corrected me and one apparently "backed" you) got the idea you were defending the blogger is simply how you wrote the article. I agree that suing Google may have been an error in judgment, but that, of course, depends on the true aim of the plaintiff. My disagreement was allowing the libeler to circumvent justice, and your own words about forcing an entity to identify ANY anonymous poster gave me the distinct notion you were taking that stance. (For example, "if anonymous speech on the Internet is no longer anonymous, some people will simply stop speaking.") If you truly do not see how I got the idea, you need to seriously reread your article. Your response perhaps sheds light on my first comment that I find myself agreeing less with you over time. I had already started to suspect, based on the shifting tone of your articles, that something key had changed in your writing. Increasingly, you appear to be posting articles that say something you later claim was not the intent, and this is a prime example. Whether through haste, overwork, lack of concentration, or some other reason, your articles are not the same and, from my perspective, sloppier now. Certainly less thought out. If you did not want to intend to support the skank blogger, your article should have been composed quite differently. (As an update, I see news agencies report that Cohen, having been informed of the blogger's identity, has chosen to, "forgive her.")
Robert X. Cringely 20-Aug-09 3:55pm
1 reply
I'm acknowledging both sides of the anonymity vs privacy issue, because I can see both sides. but as I said above, there are instances where anonymity is essential, as in political dissent. this ain't one of them, and I didn't say it was. if that's not clear to you, maybe the real problem exists somewhere between the screen and your chair, eh?
Conga 21-Aug-09 8:29am
Doubtful, since - as I've already pointed out - the other commentators apparently drew the same conclusion from the piece in question. Many screens, and many chairs, but the crucial one is being excused off hand. As a professional editor, I again suggest Cringely reread his own article. As professional writer, Cringely should perhaps be more cognizant of his wording and their effect.
JIMTHEBOSS 21-Aug-09 7:01am
I ARGUREE I GIT SICK AND TRIED WEHN PEEP[LE MAKE FUN OF THE SMRATEST MAN IN THE WROLD SETVE BLAMMER
rhoefelmeyer 19-Aug-09 7:16pm
1 reply
Cringely, I vote for anonymity. Free speech is important, and anonymous speech needs protection. Besides, public figures are fair game in the USA. And defamation here in the USA is hard to prove, as that is a matter of opinion. Political speech requires even more protection. So, at the risk of torquing off the skanks of the world, I weigh 100% on the side of anonymity. If lawyers can out a skank caller, they can out a Chinese dissident. All it takes is one court to agree, and we've got political dissidents dead or in concentration camps. People can live with being called skanks - they can't live being outed in repressive regimes. We'd have to trust the courts to get it right, and I am not betting anyone's life on that outcome. Cordially, Ralph Colorado Springs, CO, USA
CodeZombie 20-Aug-09 8:00am
So, if someone were to anonymously post untrue, derogatory, slanderous, libelous statements about you then it would be okay? If someone were to anonymously post in a blog that anyone on the internet could read that Ralph of Colorado Springs, CO, USA, spends all his nights getting drunk and paying for prostitutes without anything to back up said statements (note: I'm not saying that - I'm sure Ralph of Colorado Springs, CO, USA, is a fine upstanding person who does nothing of the kind - just using this as an example) then the protection of identity of the anonymous poster is okay even if said statements were to cause you anguish or possibly even personal or financial loss? Is that what you're saying? You wouldn't want to know who did that to you and press charges against them or sue them? Wow!
MahatmaGandu 20-Aug-09 7:41am
Well, I can always go war driving again for when I need to post something and make sure it's anonymous. (-;
zornwil 21-Aug-09 12:36pm
Although I think there's a slippery slope, the more dagnerous slippery part is further down the slope I believe. Libelous/slanderous free speech invites "forced decloaking." Were this done on paper pamphlets in 1800, I would see quite the same response as the judicial system produced here, with the obvious exception that it would have been much harder to find the originator (depending). That said, I'm not ignoring that the ability to accuse and demonstrate something tantamount to a grand jury "yes there's enough evidence to have a trial" can be a way for those with means to force decloaking unfairly. Certainly some clear standards will have to exist, although I would wonder if such hasn't already been addressed - after all, we've had pirate radio stations before we've had the web, and so on (back to anonymous paper pamphlets), so I imagine there might be precedents here already.
law-n-disorder 24-Aug-09 10:54am
1 reply
Time to bring in an expert on skanks. Is Bill Clinton in the house?
Robert X. Cringely 31-Aug-09 5:33am
close, but no cigar. ;)
rdhalste 24-Aug-09 12:35pm
"Used to be", this kind of liable depended on the target and the source. Public figures had little protection from the public nobodys. IOW an individual like almost any of us on here who do not have a large following, or are not well known (a nobody) could say almost anything about any public figure whether it was true of not as our opinion and statements held no weight and still don't. Although I find the blogger's statements distasteful and inappropriate he's still a nobody and from that aspect the court's decision worries me a bit. BTW the government owning the auto manufacturers and a large chunk is not out and out socialism but rather socialistic practices. Yes they are a move toward socialism. For the record I am against/oppose big government and socialistic practices in this country. And...you can't use Bill as an example as those accusations were true according to the press. <:-)) BUT hang on as they are working on a bill to make it a crime if what you write hurts someones feelings whether it was directed at them or not.
rcprimak 24-Aug-09 1:31pm

First, the blog title ("Skanks of NYC") should have raised red flags with Google. But let's suppose Google wants to err on the side of free speech. I haven't read ALL of the Google Terms of Service, but I don't think they regard blogs and the identities of their creators as being 100 percent protected Free Speech. So under these TOS, maybe there is some wiggle-room. Anyway, if they are anything like Yahoo 360 used to be, defaming or insulting other people is a definite TOS No-No.

Second, I believe in free speech and anonymity, but this does not give anyone the right to undermine the reputation of another person. Some of the comments here about the Church of Scientology, and some of the Church members' comments about their detractors, have come perilously close to crossing the line of undermining people's reputations. That might be considered libel in some quarters. Still, I do not know of anyone who was banned or whose identity was revealed to a Court for anything they posted here in those cases.

So, Cohen and her attorneys were probably out of line to demand the identity of the anonymous blogger, but faced with legal action, Google could not afford to say no to the demand. How the case will or would have been decided may never be known, if Cohen has in fact decided to reconsider her intention to sue the blogger. This would have made a nnice test case of the limits of Free Speech in the context of a blog posting.

In my own blogs and comments, I try to make an effort to include a "Personal Opinion" disclaimer whenever I post that a product or service is not working, and whenever I post something which may make someone feel badly hurt. But other than those (rare) occasions, I trust that the reader is intelligent enough to recognize sarcasm, to be able to take a joke or even a mild insult, and to remain calm when I tell him/her/them/it that they may be breaking a law or asking others to help them to break a law by posting certain particularly outrageous things. (Such as when folks post a how-to for making a "hackintosh" out of a netbook PC, or ask how to illegally download a movie.)

Can I be sued for what I post? Probably. Would the case have any merit? Probably not. Most of the time, the Courts do decide (eventually) to let common sense and Free Speech prevail. And I expect this to be the case in the future. We should be vigilant about our liberties, but we need not get paranoid. The sky is not falling down -- yet.

But Cringe, keep posting about incidents like this. This article is a good example of how the Free Press often stands between citizens and an overreaching government. Thank you for your vigilance.

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Robert X. Cringely: Notes from the Trenches Newsletter

The one-stop resource center for IT professionals.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.