We Interupt this Hiatus to Bring You…
26 08 2009SKANKS!
Yup, you heard me. Skanks. Normally, I’m above the hoity-toity nonsense in the celebrity arena, but not this time. I’m a geek blogger, and my precious blade, my long fawned over free speech, my sharpened and shined literacy has been threatened, and I’ll fall to the abyssmal pits before I let this go unchecked.
So stay with me, my soldiers, as I draw free speech from its scabard and attempt to slay my skanky foe.
Liskula Cohen is a skank, in my opinion.
Who is Liskula Cohen? Why, you’ve missed the train, my friend…
here’s a link to a picture of her, hosted by http://michelleallison.prblogs.org/.
The long and short of the ‘what happened’: Basically, a blogger made a blog called ‘Skanks of NYC,’ where she then called Cohen a skank, saying she was unnatractive and it would be gross to see her grinding some guy in a club, because she’s getting a little old to be acting that way.
Cohen contacted the blogger and the site was removed… but if what I have read is true, she didn’t stop there.
Cohen apparently called her lawyer and before you knew it, they were strong-arming google into giving up the blogger’s name.
Google relented, and the blogger was nearly sued for 3 million dollars.
Why I’m so ANGRY: Do you know what this means? It means, thanks to this case, that anyone who insults anyone can now have their annonymity stripped away and can be sued over a bloody insult that middle-schoolers use ever single day.
It means that bashing a corporation for unjust treatment can have you thrown into a spotlight and blackballed, your career ruined, and it could even mean the endangerment of you and your family. I’m talking some serious, Germany-style S.S. stuff here. Brace yourself.
I too, have now called Cohen a skank. Why? Because she couldn’t take a little bad press. Cohen flew off the handle and nearly sued a woman for a childish insult, and ruined internet annonymity forever. No more free speech, no more self-expression.
Thanks to Cohen, we can expect to see our liberties stripped away one by one, just like China has seen Google blocked and keeps its citizens from reading about their trysts. We will watch as the corporations of America invade the last frontier where we were all equals… and watch them destroy it, sinking our blogging battleships beneath the tremulous waves, because they have stolen Poseidon’s trident, and they can see us now, not as equals, but as ants.
Basically, the free speech we had on the internet is now as easily extinguished as the protesters with signs that stand outside their buildings… and will accomplish just as little.
So, because she has potentially ruined the internet revolution by making Google sell out a blogger, all because of ONE LITTLE INSULT, I say to you, Liskula Cohen, YOU ARE A SKANK. That is my PERSONAL OPINION, SO DON’T SUE ME TOO, SKANK.
Email me, if you read this, I’d LOVE to hear your side of the argument.
tips@glitchygoblin.com
New posts starting Monday.
I’m too lazy to email, so I’ll leave this here:
Defamation: any untruth said/implied about a person that can be identified as that person in the statement by any other to any other third party
To clarify, a statement is defamatory if 1) the statement is untrue and harmful to one’s reputation , 2) the person being defamed can be identified as such in any way in the statement, 3) the statement was published (passed to a third party).
Last I checked, being a called a skank (even actually being a skank) was not something to be proud of and potentially could harm a person’s reputation – Point 1 satisfied. The blogger clearly named Cohen in the post – Point 2 satisfied. The statement was made in a blog posting on the internet, most definitely published – Point 3 satisfied.
The blogger is certainly liable for defamation, and Google, through it’s ownership of the Blogger service, is also potentially liable to the defamation legally. Just because the blogger was anonymous does NOT clear them from any liability, niether does it clear Google.
Is the action a little grandiose and, perhaps, overblown? Probably. Is Ms. Cohen within her rights? Most likely. Is this an attack on free speech and internet anonymity? Absolutely not; ISP’s can be potentially liable for a lot illegal activity that their users participate in whether they are privy to it or not – this isn’t new, just a little drastic.
Are you now liable for defamation? Maybe, maybe not – even the case in question could really both ways depending on how a court rules. This time, the court in Cohen’s favor.
It’s an insult, yes, but it ISN’T untrue, because it’s the blogger’s OPINION. Everyone is entitled to that, it’s why even the KKK is allowed to meet and voice their racist opinions, protected by the government, so long as they don’t HURT any one PHYSICALLY.
It ISN’T defamation, because it’s an opinion, not a lie. So it IS an attack on free speech, because suddenly all opinions are subject to interogation and witch trials.
Defamation has to actually be speeking an untruth that is hurtful to someone’s reputation. Opinions ARE protected by free speech, so if the blogger believes personally that she is a skank and says so on her personal blog, she hasn’t defamed anyone, because it is her OPINION.
tl;dr – her statement isn’t untrue, it’s an opinion, so point one was never satisfied.
The opinion thing does not legally apply here. The opinion is not founded on any criticism or review of the person’s professional activities or whatnot as far as my understanding goes. It’s simply a personal attack. Depeneding on how the courts ruled Cohen to be (a private person vs a public figure vs public official – each with slightly different protections), Cohen is well in her right to receive damages for the defamation.
Now, just because a person is entitled to their opinion does NOT mean they are entitled to say it, even under our constitution. Defamation is NOT protected speech under our constitution, along with obscenity and child pornography. You can’t go into a theater and yell “fire” just because you believe you should be able to. Nor the having an opinion change whether something is a fact or not. If the blogger failed to PROVE to the COURT that Cohen is indeed a “skank,” said blogger can opine all she wants, but it will not change the legal FACT that Cohen is indeed NOT a skank, therefore point one is indeed satisfied.
I dare you to PROVE to me that the racist beliefs of many KKK members is indeed TRUE; you will find that rather difficult to substantiate convincingly with any hard evidence. That doesn’t depreciate the philosophical merit of the opinion, but it also doesn’t make the opinion RIGHT in light of what is actually TRUE.
However, the belief system of the KKK is exactly that, a system of belief, and in its application it is hard to say that a Klan member, in voicing his opinion, is defaming any particular individual or specific group of individuals – remember, for a person(s) to have a defamation case, the person must be directly identifiable in the offending statement either by name or necessary inference.
To bring it all together – and because I know you, I think I can do this – if I were to write on my blog that you were a “child-molesting fagot” and claimed it to be just my opinion of you, could you really say that I just voiced my opinion and it’s all good. I mean, you really aren’t a “child-molesting fagot” last I checked, so my opinion of you would clearly be an untruth about you that had the potential to easily tarnish your reputation. You could take action, and would likely win.
Assuming that Cohen doesn’t actually do the things that the blogger said she does, and assuming that the blogger’s statements don’t directly pertain to whatever Cohen does professionally, etc. that could possibly be up for public scrutiny (and as far as I know, they weren’t), then the blogger’s “opinion” was harsh enough to not just hurt someone’s feelings, but to anger them enough to prompt legal action in defense of their reputation and image – exactly what defamation law is there for.
Come on, man. You’re a journalism major, right? You should know this…
Oh, I forgot to emphasize:
Defamation is NOT just SPOKEN. It can be WRITTEN as well. Slander and Libel are both defamation. Which means all it is possible to be defamed in all forms of communications media. Something you should know as a communications major…
No. Saying someone is a skank based on pictures and a personal opinion is the same as me calling you a jerk due to seeing you on campus and in club. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it IS insulting. Besides, she then retracted it at request, and her name was released to the media.
It’s all ridiculous and goes beyond defamation laws. My point is, no matter the insanity, I want my opinion respected.
End of story. That’s why the charges are falling down around her ears. She is a private citizen and deserved protection.
Ok…so first of all almost all of your article is simply fabricated. I am embarrassed for you. You are a communications major? Wow…before you type another word that is supposed to be factual, check you sources and make sure your facts are indeed facts. Otherwise your just a gossip columnist and that major is good for nothing.
A) “Cohen contacted the blogger and the site was removed…”
My lawyer asked for the blog to be taken down in August of 2008, it was not taken down until March of 2009 after we went to court and my lawyer threatened the blogger with malice. I did not contact the blogger until after the judges decision was made public.
B) “Cohen apparently called her lawyer and before you knew it, they were strong-arming google into giving up the blogger’s name.”
Google did everything in their power to protect the blogger’s identity, and they put up a good fight for over a year. Why should they have to pay ten’s of thousands for an anonymous blogger to attack and defame me…oh well that’s right, they don’t so now the blogger has been hit with the legal fee’s, that is also in the TOS for blogger. I guess there really is no such thing as a free blog.
C) “and the blogger was sued for 3 million dollars.”
I dropped the lawsuit after I found out who it was, there was no point for me to spend the money to sue. Can’t get blood from a rock, and it would not do anything positive for me to sue her in the long run.
D) “It means that bashing a corporation for unjust treatment can have you thrown into a spotlight and blackballed, your career ruined, and it could even mean the endangerment of you and your family. I’m talking some serious, Germany-style S.S. stuff here. Brace yourself.”
What about the damages I had to endure from her public bashing? Or do you not see the harm in that? My career has been ruined. But because I am a model it doesn’t count? What is your point? If it’s your career its important but anyone else is nothing? I would say that this view is very SS like.
E) “I too, have now called Cohen a skank. Why? Because she couldn’t take a little bad press. Cohen flew off the handle and sued a woman for a childish insult, and ruined internet annonymity forever. No more free speech, no more self-expression.”
I don’t care what names you call me, you are posting as an opinion, the blog that was written about me was written as fact. HUGE difference. As for no more free speech, lol, no more freedom to defame, that’s the only difference now. And it was not permitted before, my story just got the headlines because people found it titillating and it was easy to sensationalize. Clearly as you have done here.
F) “Thanks to Cohen, we can expect to see our liberties stripped away one by one,” this sentence should read…Thanks to Cohen we may have to actually try to be civil to one another.
Your liberties have never been at risk, and are going nowhere, but again are the victims not allowed any liberties?
G) “So, because she has potentially ruined the internet revolution by making Google sell out a blogger, all because of ONE LITTLE INSULT,”
Now you just sound plain ignorant, no court would see my case as defamatory over one little insult, duh…
H) “Email me, if you read this, I’d LOVE to hear your side of the argument.”
I chose to not e mail you, as there is no point for me to argue mute points with someone who clearly has no interest in the facts. Re-write you article with the facts, make it intelligent, show that you are worthy of you communications degree and then maybe I will feel compelled to argue with you.
THERE IS NO PROTECTION AGAINST DEFAMATION, AND NEVER HAS THERE BEEN. I HAD TO PROVE IT WAS DEFAMATORY, I HAD TO PROVE WHAT SHE WROTE ABOUT ME WAS NOT TRUE. THAT PART WAS EASY ENOUGH BUT IT WAS NOT EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO BE DOING IN MY LIFE.
If I did a blog about you, saying things that were harmful to your reputation on both a personal level and a professional level I would expect you to retaliate… Ignorance is bliss.
IN MY OPINION… you are…actually I will just keep that to myself… (see how easy that was?)
IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYTHING NICE TO SAY DONT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL..
SI VOUS N’AVEZ RIEN GENTIL DE DIRE, NE DITES RIEN DU TOUT..
SE NON AVETE NULLA PIACEVOLE PER DIRE, NON DICA NULLA AFFATTO..
WENN SIE NICHTS HABEN, DAS NETT IST ZU SAGEN, SAGEN SIE NICHTS AN ALLEN..
“It’s all ridiculous and goes beyond defamation laws. My point is, no matter the insanity, I want my opinion respected.
End of story. That’s why the charges are falling down around her ears. She is a private citizen and deserved protection.”
FYI NOBODY HAS TO RESPECT YOUR OPINION…AND I AM COMPLETELY UNSURE OF THAT LAST SENTENCE WHAT CHARGES ARE FALLING AROUND WHO’S EAR? AND AM I NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN? WHAT ABOUT MY PROTECTION…
DON’T BE A HYPOCRITE IN YOUR WRITING. WHAT IS GOOD THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.
Well now, when I saw the first post and heard your side of the story, ‘Liskula,’ (course, I don’t believe for a second that you are who you say you are) allow me to respond civilly.
Yes indeed, you do deserve to protect your career, but as a non-private citizen, as someone who has chosen to be in the public eye, you have given up your right to privacy, to a point. This, in turn, means you have to endure mindless comments all the time, like my own, which were indeed harsh, but you need to understand that it isn’t ‘you’ that I’m even angry about here!
Because of this lawsuit (which I am indeed happy that you’ve dropped, good for you) other celebrities, and eventually, companies, will be able to weed out bloggers based on internet insults, which is a slippery slope and can (and I believe it will) result in the loss of liberties on the internet, again shifting the power from joe everyman to the bigger, more powerful companies, all because she insulted you and made some crap up. I know she shouldn’t have said what she said, but that doesn’t change the fact that with Net Neutrality on the brink of destruction, it is worrisome that this last frontier where all men’s comments are considered equal, we are now in danger of having that stripped from us over petty insults.
Now, that being said, she shouldn’t have the right to slander you, and you have news sites to thank for the distortion of time, which I apologize for on my part. You’re right, I did indeed overlook that. However, you had your lawyer threaten a private citizen over a few insults. And it doesn’t change the fact that you forced google to give her name up and reveal her to the press. As someone in the social spotlight, I expected more from you there.
As for the damage to your career, it was just one blog. No one takes them seriously until the celebrities in question force it to be removed. In a backwards way, it validates it. Doesn’t mean it’s right, just how the brain works. That being said, forcing a blogger out into the light for what she wrote on the net? THAT’S bad press. That will be what ruins your career, not what she wrote, which no one had ever even read. Even this blog only gets a couple hundred hits per month. See how that works? 100 people read bad press monthly versus millions seeing it on the news for months at a time.
Celebrities are ALWAYS easy to sensationalize, so that’s all I’ll say here. And what got published wasn’t about the terror of what she said, but your gross over-reaction.
You too are able to blog as she did, your liberties were in place, and as a public citizen, you could slander away and your lawyers would deal with it, protect you. As a private citizen, you simply dragged out the scrawny kid at school and bullied him, IMO.
Now, all this being said, I was emotional when I wrote this, because I really disagree with your decision to twist google’s arm like you did. I do believe it’s damaged the civil rights of all internet users, and I believe we will all suffer because of it. Whenever we hear your case sighted in future rulings, it will be shaving away at a blogger’s rights. So, while it isn’t your fault per se, you unwittingly poured gas on the fires.
Also, if you want to blog and insult me, fine. I will ask you to remove the defamation and once you have, that will be that. Well, actually, since you aren’t a private citizen but a PUBLIC one, I might actually pursue legal action, as your words have more sway than mine and so forth.
You have the right to blog and say whatever you want. But after that, when you start typing in all caps and insulting left and right, I’ll stop listening. The charges falling down around your ears? Like I said, you quit suing when you found out it wouldn’t get you anything but worse press. You knew it wouldn’t DO anything. You’re a public citizen, I’m a private citizen, and you had no right to drag that blogger out into the public eye, in my opinion. I retract officially my inaccurate conception of the time frame, but I still believe what you did to be beneath someone of your status.
That is all.
First of all this is me, and I certainly don’t care if you believe that or not.
Let me ask you this, How am I a public figure? How am I a celebrity? Why am I not allowed to be a private citizen like you? Do you realize that in NYC alone there are easily 50,000 models? Are we all celebrities? Don’t you think if I was a celebrity the blogger’s lawyers would have fought the argument you just laid out? Had you ever heard of me before this nonsense? I am not a singer or an actor how am I famous? My name is recognized now because of this, and I hate it. It was not my intention to sue anyone, not even Google. It is Google’s policy not mine. Read the blogger TOS. We tried to ask them to take it down, we asked them to ask the blogger to take it down. They wanted this circus, not me. They thought they were going to win. The judge ruled in my favor because what was written about me was not “a few petty insults” it was defamatory. And just because your blog gets next to no hits does not mean that hers didn’t get more. Your intention to write a blog on the WWW is that everyone in the world can read it, as was her intention. After we got all of the paper work from Google we were not surprised at all to learn that 1100 people had viewed it before January 6th of 2009. That was the date of the first newspaper article written about this case. And as for your comments on my gross over-reaction, I guess we will just have to wait and see how you react when it happens to you.
A client that I work for and make a pretty penny from showed me that blog, and I had to answer questions and feel like some sort of subhuman. Then they stopped booking me. Sure they have changed their perspective now, but I lost a large part of my clients for almost a full year. My industry is fickle, and when a client wants to book a model they Google that model to see her portfolio. Can you see for even just a second why this blog hurt me on a more than an emotional level. The blogger would have lost in the civil case too, because there is no possible way she could have proved her allegations to be true or factual.
The reason I stopped the lawsuit is because I personally did not want to go through all of it, when I knew who it was it became comical to me, and she regrets and is apologetic for the harm she has done to me. And just for the record, I had no idea who did that blog and I wanted to know if it was done by the man that attacked me nearly two years previous.
I have never said the blogger’s name in public and I never will, I never gave her name to the press. That was all there own doing. And if it means that people will think twice about defaming others, for no reason, then good. Sure if there is a reason, if someone is a known sexual predator, has committed illegal acts, if a company does something unjust, then please type away. I myself contact the BBB when I am unhappy with a corporation, and that always works. But everyone in America wants to defame, and throw stones. Just as I told the blogger, I would have rather her slap me in the face, or ask me about what she believed at the time (one dumb lie that fueled her fire). But she was a coward then. If I have a problem with someone I know, I take it up with that person. Makes life so easy. And yes I know I can blog too, and I have done so. Please feel free to have a visit.
And who are you to say the nobody takes a blog seriously? Maybe your blog is not taking seriously, but I know plenty of blogs that are taken very seriously. Do you even realize how much money this gigantic monster we call Google is making of these blogs? If your word is meant to be heard why don’t you write a book and make the money for yourself? I mean if you have a hundred hits a month, those are 100 potential buyers of your book. Right? So you have the customer, and your giving it to Google for free…I don’t really blog, just once as you will see if you visit it, so that’s not really enough for a book, otherwise I would do exactly what I just said. Or maybe you should ask Google how much they have made off your blog/web site thus far, and if you can get some of it.
http://mynameisliskula.blogspot.com/
and just for the record my blog has been up for two days and I have already got 60 views (six are me) so I don’t know what you are doing wrong that you get so few. Sorry.
I just read your bio, and was wondering if you went to the constitution event at MTSU? I was there, we could have met and maybe your views of this whole story would be a little different. I was there speaking against on line defamation with John Seigenthaler, who I has also been a victim of defamation. I am going to forward him your web site, I think he will find it very interesting. Maybe you should have a talk with him and find out how his experience effected him.
Okay, listen to me.
You’re being very irrational and insulting. I already apologized for a number of things I had been misinformed about, but I can link to a news article that contradicts most of the points you made last time.
Click here, it’s on the New York times website.
Now, that being said, no matter what you say, I still hold that you over reacted and threw fuel on this fire. Your reaction caused the bad press you say you wanted to avoid, and these actions dragged a private citizen out into the light. You ARE a celebrity, who has appeared on the cover of magazines and, like you said, as a speaker at a state university.
So, you cannot qualify, due to your fame, as a private citizen. Especially if you did indeed know the blogger, as I was told by the New York Times.
I have indeed heard Seigenthaler speak, he’s a very polite, interesting man. However, he simply got the defaming material removed, he didn’t even begin suing anyone and he didn’t let it become a media circus. He kept it private and that’s how it should have been with your case. If you could have kept your stuff quiet and not pushed Google to reveal her name to the press, my opinion would have changed.
I reiterate, what was said about you might not have been true, and it was most assuredly unwarranted at that time. However, your response was uncalled for and I still hold that you should have done better. Now, your last post was NOT a caps lock-filled yelling match, and now that you’ve calmed down, I can appreciate what you have to say.
Would you like me to re-word my post? If so, how, and I will agree to do so only if you agree to apologize for dragging a private (albeit angry and misguided) citizen into the public spotlight. You may do so on your blog, and once I see it, I will change my post. If not, that’s fine, but I will not change my mind if you can’t admit your reaction was over the top.
“If you could have kept your stuff quiet and not pushed Google to reveal her name to the press, my opinion would have changed.”
You just don’t seem to understand… How should I have kept quiet? I did not seek out the media, just as I did not ask you to do this blog, you took it upon yourself. Right? And where did you read that I forced Google to reveal her name to the press? That is a lie, I have never asked Google for anything other than what I got. In fact we told them after the judge made the decision that after we got the information they would not hear from us again regarding this matter.
As for the all caps, I quite frankly do not understand, my caps lock was on, at no point have you made me even the slightest bit angry that I would feel the need to yell and scream..
“You’re being very irrational and insulting”, I am not trying to be insulting, I just question your argument, I do not understand why you feel like I am a celebrity at all, I am not. And never have been, the media made this thing a circus, not me. I have run from the media for 18 years of modeling. When i had a cover of a magazine come out, I would leave the country, I never wanted to be famous, its a horrible life. After I got stabbed I could have milked the media, but I didnt. I did one interview a year after, when the man that stabbed me did the exact same thing to another woman. Google me, you wont find anything other than that. if I was famous there would be a lot more don’t you think?
And just so you know the person that did the blog is sorry, and is ashamed and has been for a while. She knows I didn’t expose her. In fact I could forward you e mails from my lawyer from when this all started where I told him that I would never publicly expose the blogger. I have never said her name in public and I never will. You just don’t understand how the media works. And I didn’t either, not until this happened.
And just so you know John Siegenthaler didn’t go public, because they fixed the problem and gave up the person’s identity right away. I had to fight for a year. Wikipedia was much more understanding than Google was. We tried and tried again to just get them to take it down. They wanted this battle, not me, and they thought they were going to win, and that the case would set them free of all the potential law suits they are now going to face. get my point. They make millions off these darn blogs, but they knew if they had to harness what people wrote, people wouldn’t be so over joyed to blog in the first place. There for not so much money to be made… and I will never apologize to the blogger for dragging her out into the spotlight, because I didn’t do that. The New York Post did…They made it into a cat fight. And I would never ask you to change what you wrote, if you feel like what you wrote is true, or validates some point, then write away…
Please enlighten me on what I could have done differently (that I actually did) to have made this better for everyone…
and fyi you can e mail the blogger yourself and ask her about these “quotes” she allegedly said, and her response will be that she NEVER spoke to the press, that it was a lawyer (that got fired the day after) that wrote and gave those quotes, and said it was her comment to the press.
I am sorry that the press misguided everyone, but there is little I can do about it…
and just because I am curious why are you so upset? Was it because I said I would forward along your blog to John? You shouldn’t worry, unless of course there is stuff here on your blog that you wouldn’t want your school or him to see… If so…sorry..
Of course I don’t care who reads my blog. Mr. Siegenthaler can read it all day, especially if it interests him.
I simply hate it when people drag other people into their arguments. This is between you and me, fake Liskula. Now, I DO hate it when people throw on the caps lock and post four and five comments at a time. It bugs me, so yes, seeing multiple comments in a row, some involving all caps, makes me agitated, because it’s usually regarded that caps lock equates to yelling.
That being said, you only fought for people to take down what was untrue when it’s in your favor. You didn’t tell that news site to take down their report that I linked to, even though it was about you and contained plenty of, according to you, lies. If what they posted was a lie, why didn’t you tell THEM to take it down, like you did the blogger? Like you did ME? My point is, I think you like to pick on the little guy, and if you cared as much about truth as you say you do, you’d take out the lies that matter, not that blogger lady.
And while you may not have directly dragged out her name for the media hounds, the info was for you, right? It had to get to them somehow. When John Siegenthaler got this crap removed, it didn’t soil his career, and he’s a bigger name than you. He also didn’t allow the media to get that person’s info, or if he did, they didn’t report on it and if he had sent them his info, I would have thought less of him. I admire his integrity. That being said, you ARE still famous. Once you’re a model, and on the cover of a magazine, if tons of press reports when you’re in a bar fight, then yes, you’re famous! That’s how it works.
So, in the end, while you didn’t do anything directly, you didn’t discourage the media from hounding her, did you? That ball was in your court, and yet I can’t find any evidence of you telling reporters to leave her be. You’re a model. You have more sway than a private citizen. Therefore, you should have kept the info google gave you to yourself as well as discouraged the media from hounding her. Because even allowing the media to obtain that privately gained information and pick on a private citizen over some crappy blog is tacky, in my opinion.
You could have stopped the media circus, and instead you did your interviews and pointed your finger, and now the whole world knows your name, as well as hers. If there was public proof of you trying to stop this whole debacle, I would have a different opinion of you. But I can’t find any, so I am left to assume you were fine with the courses of action the media took, since you in no way that I can find tried to correct them.
Thus, in the end, I disagree terribly with your (in)actions, and reserve the right to insult you based on my lack of respect for you. Volley insults all you like, rally your fans to do the same. It only proves my point: you’re famous and have more sway than me. Because of this, I expect you to have more integrity than me.
Because if you can really say that you tried to stop the media, that you tried to kill the spotlight, and that you fought to keep her identity between you, google, and her, I will be VERY surprised. Until then, I have very little respect for you.
first of all i don’t really care if you respect me or not, or any blogger’s for that matter although I used to. nothing personal, I just don’t know you and you clearly have made a million assumptions about me that are all wrong. how do you know what I asked the news sites to take down? how do you make these assumptions? one of the reasons I stopped with the law suit was to protect the blogger. and to not ruin her financial life, as she did mine. stop making assumptions, stop thinking you have any idea how the media works, you clearly have no clue. I never gave her name to anyone, her name was in court documents and that is how the media got it. those documents being public record are a free for all and the media reads every single one, scouring for info. not from anything i did. maybe it was her filing a lawsuit against google? maybe, just maybe it was her ex lawyer who was representing her for two days and was the one actually hounding the media for interviews, maybe it was him that contacted good morning america and cnn and the daily news and anyone who would listen to him for an interview, did you ever think of that? i only spoke to the media cause if you are thrown in the spotlight (as I was) if you do not respond at all, they simply make stuff up. there are dozens of articles that are based on meaning less nothing. when i was interviewed by the ny post i only answered stupid questions about my dog, my diet and that sort of thing, cause I didn’t want to do the interview. you don’t understand how these journalists come at you, they are like you best friend, they send you flowers, they get you taxi’s, the offer everything including money. i accepted no money, or flowers, i didn’t get in the taxi’s, i kept it moving and tried my hardest to stay to myself. sure i did gma and a few others, but never was it about the blogger, even when I was at your school, it was not about her, it was about online defamation. to try to make people understand that it is wrong and hurts people. and just so you know John Seigenthal did make his on line attackers name public, and the guy apologized, both publicly and privately. so let me ask you this if someone attacked you publicly would you eally want to protect them from being exposed? most people wouldn’t, but i did everything in my power…you can call jose martinez at the daily news and ask him yourself, ask him about the conversation i had with him, beggin him to not write an article…do you want his number?
please stop with all the hate and anger, please notice that i used no caps (as to not offend) i don’t care, and this whole thing has gotten out of control, and yes i am trying my hardest to have it removed, i have sent in my dmca notices for the illegal use of images that belong to me, but there is not a lot a person can do…i am hoping to be more proactive with other victims of on lone defamation, and try to help people get a better result than I got, taking different avenues, but there are not a lot of options. huge companies like google have their own TOS and sometimes they require a court order, and sometimes the media gets a hold of it. had i known that the media was going to do what they did, i would have just found an illegal hacker and gone that route…but i didn’t, so I tried to play by the rules.if you would have ever seen the actual blog, you would have seen my personal comments begging the anonymous blogger to remove it from the internet, just as i have commented on your blog. i think you are liking this, this is probably the most attention you blog has received. as for what your school thought of what you wrote… they were ashamed and apologized for your obvious ignorance.
I just re-read what I wrote, sorry for all of the spelling errors, I was running out the door..
here you go…have a read and educate yourself on thie bigger issue…
http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/10/our-lost-honor.html
I’ve tried very hard to be civil with you.
I offered to work with you and change what I wrote, as you’ve been rational, for ten minutes there, but now you return with more sidelong insults, such as saying I overreact to someone who types in all caps.
If you really did contact my school, I would love to know who you spoke with. Next, you continue to miss the point. I already said what she said was unwarranted and simply said you overreacted. You also have yet to tell me why the New York Times’ article still stands, even if it is as full of lies as you claim. You claim it lies about you as well, so… why not have it removed? That article even says, and I quote, ”
You also claim to not care what I say, yet you continue to comment, you claim to have contacted my school, and even claim you went to John Siegenthaler and tried to sick him on me.
Of course I considered those other options, I simply said I can’t find any evidence that you tried any of those methods. You also fail to supply any evidence of the things I suggested, even though you first asked what I thought you should have done, and then gripe at me, insisting I am a neanderthal. If I am indeed so ignorant, why bother? Simply walk away.
As for those pictures, I don’t know why you brought them up, but I then googled them and saw plenty. Wow. Those pictures are pretty odd, and indeed, make you appear promiscuous to me.
I think you’re being less than honest. This, on a subset of the Wallstreet Journal, says you went on “Good Morning America” to talk about the names she called you. You did in fact call attention to this and talk about her on the air.
As for liking this, you’re the one coming to MY blog and commenting. I also asked you to email me, not comment. I think YOU’RE liking it, because I think you like attention, no matter who it’s from.
I am locking this thread. You want to continue this? You can email me. Also, if you keep insulting me, even sidelong ones, I won’t respond.
This links to the pdf of the court ruling. It says the info was given to your lawyers. Not the public. And you went on Good Morning America to talk about her, from what I’ve read.
I am locking this thread. You can email me if you like, but my blog is no longer your circus. I will block all subsequent comments from you or anyone I think is you. -GG