I have a Blogger account. I've been busy, so I haven't published anything there for about two weeks now. I've skimmed through my terms of service in the past and nothing in it has every led me to believe that Google (who owns Blogger) would protect my identity if I did something that had legal implications. And I can't think of a circumstance in which a contract with someone would reasonably obligate them to hide impede justice on my behalf.

I'm talking about the Rosemary Port story, and the anonymous blog she ran called "Skanks in NYC." Port profiled Liskula Cohen (see Wikipedia). Mashable gives a taste of the post (which has now been taken down):

One quote is enough to show the nature of the blog: "How old is this skank? 40 something? She's a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank."

Long story short: Cohen asked Google to tell her who the blog belonged to. Google refused. Cohen went to court and got a Manhattan judge to order Google to reveal the blogger's identity. Google complied. And that's how we all know Rosemary Port's name...

A couple of thoughts:

• Steven Hodson at the Inquisitr asks the question: "Since when is calling someone a skank considered defamatory?" He probably thinks the question is rhetorical. I've decided the term itself has a vague definition, and that the vagueness is useful for people who employ the term. I suppose the question of whether the term is defamatory or not may get settled in court. But defamation usually not about one word in isolation.


• Privacy is not that clear a right in US law. The University of Missouri has this discussion of the issue: The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. But the idea that you can publish your opinions on something for the public to see and then claim that act to be somehow private in nature seems contradictory. People don't try to attract an audience because they want privacy.


• Americans have come to believe that the First Amendment protects all speech. It doesn't. It protects certain types of speech that are in the public interest. You can't just say whatever you want and expect it to be covered by the First Amendment. Libel is not covered by the First Amendment.

We're not talking about a blogger revealing human rights abuses in some communist country, or even a corporate whistle blower revealing the unsafe behavior of some conglomerate. We're talking about whether some blonde model is a whoring skank who can't act her age. Not much public benefit in resolving that issue. And it won't make me feel any less safe in America if a.) Cohen sues Port and wins and b.)Port sues Google and loses.

Am I some radical right winger who doesn't understand the value of free speech and how anonymity on the web helps protect it? No. I'm an active Democratic Party member who holds a position on my local party committee. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. And I'm a teacher, responsible for teaching Internet etiquitte and acceptable use to tomorrow's bloggers.

You can read more on the Liskula Cohen story at Wired: Threat Level, Mashable, and Search Engine Land.