BETTER WATCH WHAT YOU SAY (OR WRITE...)

by broggerboy19 on Aug 19, 2009 1:22 PM PDT

http://gothamist.com/2009/08/19/allegedly_skanky_model_calls_accuse.php

Saw this on ABC this morning. Has potential ramifications on all people who use internet aliases. More than anything this should scare Ben from writing any more pieces about Steve Blake, and quite possibly endangers Adrian Wojnarokowlakadakasteinbowkowski's career altogether.

PS., Tried to make this a fanshot but was unable to post one for failure to retrieve an image. Is an image always necessary for a fanshot? Can anyone help me on finding a library of images that are easily retrievable? I tried Google and had no luck.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There is something to be said

for some kind of accountability for what is said on line. If you would be liable for saying something in print, you ought to be tracked down if you say it on line.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 19, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions

Agree.

Unfortunately accountability is becoming a lost concept. Everything is always due to some one or some other factor, never ones own fault.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Aug 20, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions

This has been a question of time and that time is coming. Life is dangerous.

by amlmart1 on Aug 19, 2009 2:04 PM PDT reply actions

For some odd reason, I never for a minute thought that writing on the internet

protected you from any of the laws that regulate print media.

by raoulduke on Aug 19, 2009 2:17 PM PDT reply actions

Free speech including criticism will continue to be protected, but nobody said free speech is speech without consequences

"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw

by Norsktroll on Aug 19, 2009 2:34 PM PDT reply actions

I don't really see this as a bad thing

There’s a huge difference between Ben writing once a month about Steve Blake holding us back, and starting a blog singularly devoted defaming someone’s character. I don’t really see this affecting the online sports media at all.

Besides with some of the supposed MySpace cyber-bullying leading to suicides, maybe some amount of accountability on the internet wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

by Royster on Aug 19, 2009 2:49 PM PDT reply actions

How about

Firedavidkahn.com or any number of the fire(insertnamehere).com websites that pop up? Are those defamation? They could cause harm by getting said person fired.

Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game

by iDea on Aug 19, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

While my experience with libel law

is limited to what I remember about it from being an editor at my high school newspaper, I think a couple things prevent that sort of doomsday scenario. While I can’t comment on whether “Skanks in NYC” fell under any of these, I feel pretty confident that any sort of “fire(whoever)” website would be protected by one or more.

First, opinions are not generally considered to libel, or at least it’s a valid defense. I highly doubt any of these websites present themselves as bastions of reporting.

Second, it is nearly impossible for a public figure to win a defamation case, with essentially the only way a case can be brought is if the defendant knowingly publishes something falsifiable. So if a website publishes a story claiming that Kahn is a terrible GM, not only is that an opinion, but it’s not provably false beyond reasonable doubt, so there’s no potential for a defamation case.

Now, if a website posted that Kahn raped a girl, that is not only presented as a fact, but also provably false, so he would have a case. But personally, I’m not sure why it’s important to protect the freedom to knowingly disseminate false defamations about people.

by Royster on Aug 19, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions

If the model is a public figure, she's gonna be losing her case...

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Aug 19, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Not Necessarily

Basically, it comes down to whether this blogger’s allegations damaged her career (which it seems like they did) and then whether the allegations are true (and it would seem like there isn’t any proof that the model’s a skank). If what the blogger is saying isn’t true and if it damaged the model’s career, that’s a defamation lawsuit.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.—Dune

Just because I value rebounds and shooting efficiency doesn't mean I want to argue with you for hours about Wages of Wins.

by Muad'Dib on Aug 19, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I imagine that will be a centerpiece of the defense's case

arguing that the model is a public figure while the model will be arguing that she isn’t. I certainly had never heard of here, but I know jack about fashion and even less as it pertains to the New York scene. but like Muad’Dib said, even if she is that doesn’t make it a slam dunk case either way.

Still, it would make it a whole lot easier for the defense, but without any of us knowing what was actually on the site and its truthfulness, there isn’t a whole lot to go on off this.

Stating that this will somehow completely change the internet when every form of media has bashed or ripped public figures ever since an independent media was formed is just so over the top alarmist, though.

by Royster on Aug 19, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Also, "public figure" is usually measured by the method of dispersal.

In B. Law we talked about how public figures in some scenarios, like a town mayor, are not public figures in other scenarios. Since the website was broadcast to the whole world, and this model is not really a big deal, the public figure argument is really shaky.

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

by staylost on Aug 19, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Very good point

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 20, 2009 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions

'Skank' is a subjective term though.

Why can’t one call a person a skank? How is it not the same as calling a person an a_____e? The word has a lot of different connotations. What about calling a model ugly or saying a band sucks? That’s not libel. It’s protected speech. I could see it if she was accused of being a pedophile or a murderer or something, but saying somebody’s a soulless POS shouldn’t be grounds for a lawsuit.

And what about all of the pundits who called Jon Benet Ramsey’s parents murderers or all the people on the net and in print who have voiced concurring opinions? Are they also liable? Her parents weren’t public figures until the crime occured. What about someone like Nancy Grace who continues to accuse a person of murder who has been exonerated?

Besides, how could being called a skank have any effect a photo shoot? A model’s job is to look good, not to be some moral icon. J-lo, Russel Crow, and Naomi Campbell are all consummate a______es from everything I’ve read but it hasn’t taken down their careers.

And what is this notion of a model not being a public figure? Just because she hasn’t made it yet doesn’t mean that she’s not aspiring to be a household name. If you say some guy in a local band is a ratbag, is there some threshold of fame below which it’s not okay to criticize their character?

It looks like a slippery slope toward curtailing free speech to me, as well as a complete waste of taxpayer resources.

by Benjamanic on Sep 12, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions

i hope the insulting blogger girl

loses. Assuming she was lying ans simply trying to hurt the model.

"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.

But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html

by ratbastird on Aug 19, 2009 3:15 PM PDT reply actions

this is interesting

and you have to walk a very fine line. However, I keep coming back to the idea that nobody should take a website called “skanks in NYC” seriously.

To me, nobody was “wronged” here. The person who put up the website needs to get a life, but the idea that this hurt here career is ridiculous. It sounds like she is trying to find a scapegoat for a failed career. If you could get sued for this, how is the National Enquirer still in business?

That said, while I fear the potential widespread legal ramifications of a victory by the plantiff in this case, this kind of behavior is clearly not cool. But I fear the long term ramifications—can we get sued for calling Darius Miles lazy and selfish? For calling Z-Bo a bad seed? For calling Andre Miller a bad defender?

Once you make the transition to celebrity, you open yourself up to some abuse. It sucks that people take advantage of it, but that’s the way it is.

--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog

by David Piper on Aug 19, 2009 3:53 PM PDT reply actions

National Enquirer does get sued for this sort of stuff.

They just make enough money to absorb any court losses.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.—Dune

Just because I value rebounds and shooting efficiency doesn't mean I want to argue with you for hours about Wages of Wins.

by Muad'Dib on Aug 19, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Better watch what you say

if you’re making false statements that could damage someone’s career.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.—Dune

Just because I value rebounds and shooting efficiency doesn't mean I want to argue with you for hours about Wages of Wins.

by Muad'Dib on Aug 19, 2009 5:17 PM PDT reply actions

Muad'Dib sucks at clubbing baby seals!

Take that! Now it’ll be difficult for you to succeed in that career!

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

by staylost on Aug 19, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions

It's true

This is what happens when you botch a seal clubbing.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.—Dune

Just because I value rebounds and shooting efficiency doesn't mean I want to argue with you for hours about Wages of Wins.

by Muad'Dib on Aug 20, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Link?

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 20, 2009 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Let's take a deep breath

One judge issued one court order. This will not result in a lot of “legal precedent”….it will be quite some time before it ever reaches a higher legal level…if ever at all.

One issue for all potential attack bloggers…..if your site becomes even remotely popular, you are setting yourself up as a public figure…..which can have a tremendous downside.

"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green

by antediluvian on Aug 20, 2009 9:08 AM PDT reply actions