So, I guess you think you’re saying something wrong because you’re posting something anonymously….unless your real name is “gw307″.

Free Speech is ALL about protecting opinion in ANY communication medium. That includes billboards or Internet blogs. While not as concrete, anonymity, plays a role in it. Heck, some of the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence often used pen names to protect themselves from revenge attacks…like being sued by “ye olde, skanky, insecure, whores” who got a little emotional boo-boo when they read something.

Protecting unpopular opinion and opinion that may offend people on the public stage is EXACTLY what the writers of the US Constitution had in mind. That’s why this ruling is so offensive. If the spirit of this ruling was to prevail, nobody would be able to say anything negative about anyone anywhere without fear of lawsuit. We’d be living in one giant PR department, where all opinions would have to be positive towards the subject of the story.

If Hitler or Stalin were alive today, they could probably sue and win trillions of dollars.

Nothing this blogger wrote is anything but opinion. The lawsuit never should have come to a courtroom and she certainly shouldn’t have won. But after winning, the “defamed” Sasha er- Liskula Cohen decided (at this point in time) not to sue. So great was the damage caused to her that she decided to pass on the chance to redeem her virtue the court gave her. Her lawyer probably told her she had already got lucky and had no chance of further success (or should have no chance). From the beginning, it was Slap-suit designed to scare the blogger into shutting up. It worked.

The “beautiful” people DO have more rights than anyone else, I guess.

In many ways, a blog is little more than an extension of a blogger’s parents’ basement. Sure, anybody “could” see it, but the reality is that almost nobody will. A blog is of no more value than water-cooler gossip.

In fact, remaining anonymous actually reduces the “damaging” impact of any comment. The damaging force of a comment is directly proportional to the commenter’s reputation and the size of the audience. Ie BBC News saying something has millions of times the impact of a nameless blogger whose website was read by about 10 people.

Besides, what’s so unreasonable about assuming a 36 year old model is an “ageing skank” anyway? It’s like saying a “lying politician” or a “sleazy lawyer”.

To borrow a classic Free Speech limitation argument, this is like whispering “I smell smoke” in the parking lot of an empty movie theatre.

Clearly a case of an insecure egomaniac Google-ing herself to see what people think of her.

That renders it a question and not a statement of fact.

There is literally nothing on that blog that could be considered libel because its all opinion and none of that opinion isn’t unreasonable. Who doesn’t think a 36 year old model isn’t “ageing” for her profession and hasn’t been involved in “skankiness” along the way?

AND YET SHE WON!

That renders it a question and not a statement of fact.

There is literally nothing on that blog that could be considered libel because its all opinion and none of that opinion isn’t unreasonable. Who doesn’t think a 36 year old model isn’t “ageing” for her profession and hasn’t been involved in “skankiness” along the way?

AND YET SHE WON!