Another Woman Asks Google To Name People Who Were Mean To Her Online
from the the-anti-jerk-rule? dept
You may remember last year when model Liskula Cohen went to court to get Google to hand over the name of a blogger who was mean to her, calling her a skank. Of course, in doing so, it brought a lot more attention to the blog which almost no one had read before. In fact, it seems clear that a hell of a lot more people now associate "Liskula Cohen" with "skank" due to her legal actions, than the blog. Eventually a court said Google should unmask the anonymous blogger -- which it did. The outed blogger, Rosemary Port, then claimed she was going to sue Google for $15 million for exposing her identity -- though I haven't heard whether or not any lawsuit was ever actually filed. Almost every legal expert noted that the case had almost no chance of succeeding. Still, it did raise some questions about how far Google should go to protect anonymous users of its site. The company's terms of service do make it clear that they can and will reveal people if necessary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't fight for its users in many cases.Either way, it looks like we're getting something of a repeat -- as another woman, this time a former model and actress, and now a consultant named Carla Franklin -- has gone to court to get Google to hand over the names of some YouTube users who posted some videos of her, and referred to her as a "whore." She's claiming that the comments hurt her job prospects -- though, one might imagine that going to court over someone being a jerk to you online might also hurt your job prospects.
Obviously, it's no fun to have people say mean things about you online. But, in weighing the pros and cons, at some point you have to wonder if just ignoring it makes a lot more sense than ramping up the legal response -- which is only guaranteed to get the whole situation a lot more attention (and cost a lot more money). Perhaps Ms. Franklin should take the advice that she was giving in one of the videos that she's upset was uploaded. According to various news reports (the video itself has now been taken down), in the video she advised people "Don't take things so seriously." Sometimes, that's good advice.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, carla franklin, jerks, privacy
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(sorry i had posted anonymously)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have to wonder sometimes
Still, if she wants to optimize "whore" and "Carla Franklin" for google, I'm happy to oblige.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/08/14/2010-08-14_tila_tequila_insane_clown_posse_ fans_tried_to_kill_me_at_concert.html
But this I don't think so.
ps: I didn't know who Tila Tequila was until someone pointed out to me that article claiming she would sue the establishment for failing to secure her safety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny one, the girl was criminaly charged for annoying people LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From "the-anti-jerk-rule department" ?
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Said Everett, “Do nothing! Half the people who bought the paper never saw the article. Half of those who saw it, did not read it. Half of those who read it, did not understand it. Half of those who understood it, did not believe it. Half of those who believed it are of no account anyway.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I have to wonder sometimes
I think maybe that the Duke and Columbia grad is actually smart enough to do this as a publicity stunt. BTW since she indicates she is pretty sure who the person is that did it I believe she is also smart enough to realize it would be quieter to confront this individual without everyone associating "whore" with "Carla Franklin".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I have to wonder sometimes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I have to wonder sometimes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subject
Calling Carla Franklin a WHORE is very rude! I mean, I really doubt that Carla Franklin is a WHORE. I can understand very much so if Carla Franklin gets upset being called a WHORE. Being called a WHORE is a terrible thing, and Carla Franklin has the right to complain. Carla Franklin is right and no one should be called a WHORE. I just hope they didn't go too far by calling Carla Franklin a STUPID WHORE because she is filing a lawsuit against Google and bringing bad publicity on herself and ruining her chances for future jobs.
Only a STUPID WHORE whore would create negative publicity for themselves by suing one of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the world. That would be a VERY STUPID WHORE thing to do. But luckily Carla Franklin is neither a WHORE nor a STUPID WHORE.
So please do NOT call Carla Franklin a WHORE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm....
Ow-ee, you were mean to me, I'm gonna tell.
F'ING GROW UP PEOPLE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frankly:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nonsense
Sorry I don't see how is this relevant to the situation discussed in the article? Exactly what "risk" is even present here?
Name calling and bullying have been around for-ever, and we already have laws to deal with them when they cross the line into assault and libel. Why should we write new, more draconian laws that remove Constitutional protections specifically for the Internet just "for the children"?
Why should we permit, by accusation, an activity that requires a court order in the real world? (revealing an anonymous "source")
Is the Internet to be relegated as our testbed for tyranny?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/and hopefully this will show up on all future Google searches of her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]