Joan Ball is a business professor at St. John’s University in New York and the author of Flirting with Faith: My Spiritual Journey from Atheism to a Faith-Filled Life.
So much for my hopes the ‘unmasking’ of the anonymous blogger in the Liskula
Cohen defamation lawsuit would remain between the two parties and
their lawyers.
The blogger’s name
was revealed today as Rosemary Port, a 29-year-old
acquaintance of Ms. Cohen’s and a familiar face on the NYC nightclub scene. The
issue that started the internet ruckus? According to the New York Post
(one’s source of choice for all things titillating and tawdry, of course), a
row over nasty comments allegedly whispered in Ms. Port’s boyfriend’s ear about
Ms. Port by Ms. Cohen.
Sigh. Apparently,
some of us never make it past the 11th grade.
However, if we want
to wash the taste of ethical ickiness off our tongues, there’s this from the Post’s
article to chew on:
Early yesterday, Cohen slapped her frenemy with a
$3 million lawsuit for “defamation in the form of libel and intentional
emotional distress,” for calling her such names as “ho,”
“hag” and “skank.”
But Cohen last night told her lawyer, Steven
Wagner, to drop the action.
“This is about forgiveness,” Cohen said.
“It adds nothing to my life to hurt hers. I wish her happiness.”
But wait, don’t get your hopes
for humanity’s inherent decency back up yet. In response, the article says:
Port countered yesterday by hiring hotshot
Manhattan lawyer Sal Strazzullo, who said his client doesn’t regret the blog –
“she regrets the court’s decision” that her identity should be
revealed.
“I’m shocked that my right to privacy has been
tampered with,” Port said in a statement.
By this point, I can’t say
I’m shocked by either party. But I do
think we’ve taken up a lot of grownup people’s time and money on what turns out
to be a very childish squabble. As for freedom of speech and right to privacy
issues, I do think the court has taken a very dramatic step and forged a
troubling precedent. As I said in my prior post, it’s important for those who are cyberbullied to have some recourse, and for those whose careers are damaged by libelous speech to have the right to face their attackers in court, but I’m not sure this unmasking of bloggers is the optimal solution.
What do you think?
Subscribe to receive updates from Everyday Ethics or follow us on Twitter!
posted August 21, 2009 at 1:56 pm
re: right of privacy–back when Caller I.D. was brand new, the ACLU and various other privacy buffs said it was an invasion of privacy–the caller’s privacy. As far as I’m concerned, when you pick up the phone and call somebody else, you have already WAIVED your right of privacy. You have stepped outside the protected zone of privacy. Same goes for blogging, unless it is for some purpose protected by public policy, like whistle-blowing.
posted August 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I am glad this person was revealed. She is a coward. When she posted this blog on the internet she actually gave up her right to PRIVACY. None of us are above the law. Anything you put on the internet or any phone call you make can be traced by law enforcement or any expert in the field of detective work.
posted August 22, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I think she is a hag
posted November 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Ok Suzie, what’s YOUR real name and address? I’m sure you’ve never said anything to anybody that might hurt somebody else’s fragile feelings, have you? So you have nothing to fear. Or, are YOU a coward?
By the way, it’s no more illegal to call somebody an “ageing skank” than it is to call them a “coward”. And since when does using a communication medium automatically revoke your right to privacy?
Marion, this is not the same as Caller ID. When you pick up the phone and call somebody else, you are contacting them directly and are running the risk of them identifying you by your voice, thus you give up the expectation of privacy. (I still think that’s a bit of stretch.) Caller ID is actually more like sending somebody an e-mail.
At no point in time did Port contact, or attempt to contact, Cohen. (In fact, Cohen went out her way to contact Port and attack her in a much more public setting than a stupid blog nobody ever read.) Port just used her expected anonymity to slag a “frenemy”. This is much more like you gossipping at a (masquerade) party about somebody you know.
With or without the technology, this kind of slagging happens perhaps 10-20 billion times a day. Do we want to allow everyone to sue everybody for everything they say? How many trillions would that cost us a year?
posted March 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Hello. And Bye.