Free Speech

Here’s an article from the New York Times entitled “Is it OK to Blog About This Woman Anonymously?”

Very interesting indeed.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

11 Responses to “Free Speech”

  1. Cafe Observer Says:

    Very good, and timely, WCGB.
    I gotta read, digest, and meditate on this. Not as good as your tamale postings, but I’ll still plan to be back for 2nds in the near future.

  2. gaga 4 dada Says:

    Libel is libel period. I am glad the blogger was exposed, a line was crossed. However I remain a staunch defender of those who stride up to the line without crossing it.

    My fear is some folks (she who won’t be named) interpret any disagreement as libel and try to shut down discussion.

    Nonetheless it is an interesting precedent.

  3. Cafe Observer Says:

    I’m most interested in hearing MG’s view about this.

  4. Gilman Says:

    Pretty interesting read…..

    I certainly don’t think it sets a precedent and it absolutely fails to prove libel by the blogger. Instead, it is simply a judge ordering the author’s identity so that the court’s could decide if libel actually occurred..( if the model does move forward with a suit)

    I think it really shows that anonymous blogging doesn’t really exist…ultimately, you can be held responsible for your comments.

    I much prefer this type of oversight versus the heavy moderation of comments……like the loon that runs another pasadena blog.

  5. Dianne Patrizzi Says:

    It’s interesting that the net result (purpose?) of the ruling to unmask the defendant proved to help resolve the issue. I wonder if the plaintiff was surprised to find out that the blogger was an acquaintance of hers. I was told the strength of a civil suit is damages ie. loss of income, loss of future income–due to reputation, and/or emotional damages resulting in medical costs, etc. But the plaintiff dropped the complaint– meaning she suffered no real measurable harm? Did the two negotiate a settlement? Or, was it confidentially settled by the blogger agreeing to retract and never speak about the subject again? Did plaintiff create the need for the defendant to sue third party Google as a way to recoup damages incurred by a settlement??

    What if someone (not anonymously) continues to publish lies about specific person(s) by name, i.e. “racist”, “whore”, and other unwarranted disparaging remarks, etc. and/or attributes horrible injustices perpetrated by them on to others when proof to the contrary has been made available to them? What if that same person takes action to poison the reputation ie. “inform every arts organization in Pasadena”– sheesh. But that’s not my problem. A bad rep is a good thing maybe for me–even if it isn’t true. Ha! I mean, take Joe Pytka. His bad rep made him all the rage with the creatives. No. Forget Joe. Who’d want to be like that jerk? (thousands)

    I don’t think insanity is a defense against the kind of specific defamation using sophisticated methods that “She” may have at her disposal. But that’s just my cheapo law school flunked-out opinion. Damage is damage.

    Anyway, as a friend said to me about this subject recently, Who cares what some lady says about you on the internet anyway?

    And, my own father always advised to avoid litigation if at all possible — err on remaining well within the scope of your rights so as not to muddy up the situation. Well, the mud is not made any less murky by the questions remaining unanswered in this article. The mudslinging continues unchecked and intensifying at times unpredictably.

    Meanwhile, I am sleepless over worry for homes in danger in La Canada tonight.

  6. Dianne Patrizzi Says:

    **retraction** Joe Pytka not a jerk. Fine fine fine director. Just kidding, bunny!

  7. Dianne Patrizzi Says:

    Wait. Hold the phone. Correction: Pytka says he is a prick.

  8. Cafe Observer Says:

    Thanks MG, I mean aka DP et al, for your wealth of input here! I knew we could depend on you for a reasoned, objective analysis of the situation…in whatever form or appearance.

  9. gaga 4 dada Says:

    I much prefer this type of oversight versus the heavy moderation of comments……like the loon that runs another pasadena blog.

    Yep they heavy handed moderation is a symptom of a control issue. Simply make folks register to comment. Requiring someone to sign in merely to view a blog, because one fears it’s contents (hilarious as theyare) may be cut and pasted strikes me as a bit much.

    Paranoid?

  10. gaga 4 dada Says:

    Forgive me, 1st paragraph of above post should be in quotes.

  11. frazgo Says:

    Nice post, short and sweet. The link however leaves me with much to think about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: