Defamation or free speech? U.S. court orders Google to hand over identity of blogger
That's what Liskula Cohen, a 37-year-old fashion model, was called by an anonymous blogger.
To sue the blogger for defamation, Cohen needed the blogger's identity. So she demanded it, and a U.S. court has ruled that Google must hand that identity over.
“I’m a human being. I bleed. I have feelings. When I saw that blog, it was awful. All I can say for this person is, I really truly hope that they have more in their life than this," Liskula said in the New York Post.
It's no surprise that the anonymous nature afforded to Internet activity allows commenters and bloggers to stir the pot ("troll") with off-color language and opinions --you can read them right here on any ZDNet post about a hotly-debated topic, such as a recent one about the cost of computers.
And no one can argue that if you legally defame someone online, you're legally liable.
But should Google (or any other provider) be legally required to give up your identity to be sued?
Defamation is defined as a claim, stated or implied to be factual, that gives an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
And the actual case would probably hinge on whether it can be proved that the blogger acted maliciously and spread lies about the model -- rather than simply opined about her character.
After all, it's protected free speech to say that you believe someone is disingenuous or otherwise intolerable. It's another thing to imply incorrectly that the person sleeps around, especially if you knew it wasn't true.
(Want more detail? ZDNet Government blogger Richard Koman explains the role of legal precedent in the case.)
But the real debate is over whether Google should be forced to reveal the blogger's identity. After all, if the blogger wins the case, he or she remains outed. There's no going back.
Is that really fair?
Do we have a right to be anonymous on the Internet? In the case of a more oppressive nation such as China, Iran or North Korea, does full disclosure silence the ability to dissent?
Related on ZDNet: