Rosemary Port, Outed "Skanks" Blogger Who Trashed Model, Angry At Google

NEW YORK — A blogger who called a magazine cover model offensive names on a Web site says Google failed to protect her right to privacy.

Rosemary Port tells the New York Daily News in Sunday editions that she's angry that Google unmasked her after a Manhattan judge forced the company to reveal her identity.

Google says users agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by a legal action.

Port was identified as the author of a site on Google's Blogger.com that had published anonymous remarks about Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen's hygiene and sexual habits.

Cohen sued to have the blogger identified, arguing that the comments on the site were defamatory.

But Port says that her privacy was violated and she has a right to her opinions.

Comments

[Alaskan4alaska]

Port says that her privacy was violated and she has a right to her opinions.

She is correct, she has a right to privacy AND she has a right to her opinions. It's just not at the same time. Like you have the right to go hunting AND you have the right to ride the subway. But you don't have the right to go hunting on the subway.

[Eris23]

There is precedent demonstrating that one has the right to anonymously publish their opinions. Thus, what you post above regarding hunting on the subway is a logical fallacy. For a brifer on this very issue, see http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[the mean in meaningless]

I dearly hope you are aware of the hilarious irony there.

An Alaskan

making a comparison

involving hunting on a vehicle.

Hints: Palin, helicopter hunting.

This is way too easy.

[MIKEinNYC]

Ever hear of a civil cause of action called "intentional infliction of emotional distress"?

That's what Ms. Port is guilty of, intentionally giving grief to this poor woman for no reason at all except for her own perverted kicks in seeing Ms. Cohen suffer.

If I was the victim, I'd consider going after Ms. Port for this.

[Eris23]

"That's what Ms. Port is guilty of"

Really? You sure you want to stick to that claim?

[tonybrown]

Cohen is great. Port needs to grow up.

[socialtalker]

if you are gonna talk rough like the blogger did, you are going to have to host your set up a private corporation and host your blog overseas where the us courts cant get to you.
this blogger is unsympathetic, but there are cases like those in iran for example that need ways to voice their opinion without fear of exposure.

[MichaelMcKLA]

I applaud that judge. I'd like to know the identity of about a thousand badly behaved creeps from various places online. Guaranteed anonymity results in bad behavior without consequences.

Too bad about the blogger. You lose.

[FHTB]

Agreed...this sorry specimen of a person needs to get a life...if you are that much of a coward that you go around trashing and defame someone anonymously, then you deserve to be called out on your s--t...the b--ch has no reason to be angry at Google.

[force fed up]

Spoken through a veil of Anonymity. Clever.

[the mean in meaningless]

>"this sorry specimen of a person needs to get a life"

Spoke the anonymous person who has posted more than one-thousa­nd-and-thr­ee-hundred distinct comments at HuffPost.

[Breakwind]

Well said!

[Eris23]

"I applaud that judge."

This isn't really a situation where the judge needs any applause. She did her job the correct way in accordance with the law in NY. Google is not to blame here as they lived up to their end of the bargain, and certainly had no reason to believe for a second that the judge's decision was reversible. What I truly find the most funny about this thread is that people are cheering for either Port or Cohen when, as far as I'm concerned, both have shown themselves to be petty vapid people.

[Buddhistgal]

The internet has completely changed the rules of bullying. No longer are you gossiping among school chums - you are gossiping worldwide. The comments are left on the computer into perpetuity. If this cowardly woman chooses to defame a stranger for no reason whatsoever - her identity should be revealed.

[FHTB]

Precisely...the hazards of the Internet are that you have certified losers like this woman trying to hide her identity so she can flame someone she doesn't know personally, and even if she did, it still would be outrageous...

[JeanPaulSatire]

Boo freakin' hoo.

[sherifffruitfly]

Poor whiny Mean Gurlz.

[karinova]

Good grief. Yes, she has the right to her opinion.
She just doesn't have the right to anonymity. She "signed" it away.
It's the webcry for the new age: RTFEULA!

[EquesLignite]

The model is a public figure, she is fair game to any insult. Obama was called a Nazi, Bush was called a Nazi, they didn't sue anybody

[MIKEinNYC]

Even public figures cannot be defamed if the defamatory material is false and delivered with malice.

[JeanPaulSatire]

It's also an ID10T problem.

[the mean in meaningless]

Cohen should've been legally bound to actually bring action against Port when she sued Google to reveal the identity. The way it went, she just abused the judicial system to pillory someone. Whether or not what Port wrote is actually actionable will never be determined since Cohen wisely chose not to pursue the matter. Shame on Cohen.

[SteveDenver]

I'm impressed by the eloquence of your observation.

[the mean in meaningless]

Thanks.

[FHTB]

Wrong...if you can't have the courage to say your s--t openly, then you suffer the consequences...no defense for Port...she got her sorry behind outed and she deserved...save the drama for your mama, tramp!

[force fed up]

So your full name is FHTB? Oh wait, you're posting anonymously... irony

[billyboy949]

If you're going to throw sticks and stones, be courageous enough to own up to them. If you're going to make claims that negatively affect someone and don't clearly indicate that they are your opinions or thoughts and have no factual basis, then you have no right to privacy. People have a right to face their accuser and to claim that there is a right to act cowardly and with malice that somehow trumps my right to look you in the face and call you a liar, is absurd. This woman should be locked up for being to stupid to live on her own...she's a nuisance.

[the mean in meaningless]

Ok, newbie. Why don't you start by registering an account with your real name? Then I might consider the merits of what you're saying there.

[goldbry]

ha!

[FHTB]

Irrelevant...focus! Take your ADD and call us in the morning.

[EvieEve]

Never say behind someone's back what you can't say to their face. It always comes back to you. But to be fair, she is entitled to her opinion. I'm sure that model has been called far worse. This is just a litigious society.

[alguien]

the only thing is that if you say something to a person's face, they'll only hear it once. if you say it behind their back they'll hear it a whole bunch of times.

[FHTB]

Wow...that's helpful.

[force fed up]

I am laughing at every single one of you who is posting anonymously and proclaiming what google did was right.

[elan4444]

. . . . as you anonymously post that you are laughing!

[the mean in meaningless]

... while disagreeing with Google, which makes a whole lot more sense than the other way around.

[force fed up]

I don't know if you understand English, but I am FOR anonymity.

[rh654]

Of course she has a "right to her opinions" - but she cannot rely on a right to not be found out.

Perhaps people would be a bit more "civilized" if they knew that one day their real name might be attached to their comments.

[wilray]

Or the could just be more secretive. The truth is there is an staggering amount of information people give up freely that can just come back to bite them in the butt. When signing up at online sites such as My Space, Face Book, and even Huff Po, people give up information that leaves them open to identity theft and worse. When these sites asks for address, email address, and telephone numbers, do you give info that actually leads directly to you. Or do you give them that other address, other email address, other tel number, and while you're at it that other real name. Just to protect yourself you basically have to create an alter ego. Google could have never given up information that they didn't have to begin with, and it's not their responsibility to track anyone down. This incident has made me more aware of how more vigilant I need to be to protect myself. I have heard people complain about online stalking. Sometimes I wonder, how stupid are these people. They have facebook, myspace, and twitter. They put out enough personal info, for potential bosses to screen them, and for ex lovers to track them down. Their clamoring for attention can get ugly real fast when they attract the attention that they don't want. Actually, I look forward to seeing the murder mystery movie that involves twitter, though I am afraid it will probably happen in real life before then.

[the mean in meaningless]

You are correct in putting "civilized" in quotmarks.

[TheGripester]

I think that this is a warning to all trolls and haters.

Though I indeed am a "Gripester" by name and profession (as a professional reviewer), I deplore the lack of common decency on blogs, posts, and comments on the internet. I don't think there should be a law or anything - but when for instance a child's video on YouTube has comments using over-the-top profanity and making reference to extreme acts of sexual violence, I sense that we as an internet culture are going way too far. It is only natural that people should start pushing back legally - whether or not that pushback has a chance in the courts.

For more on this phenomenon, check out Philip Zimbardo's work on "The Lucifer Effect." The cloak of anonymity definitely gives a cover for some of the most hateful abuse in print. What is the emotional reward and motivation for these trolls? Read Zimbardo.

[Breakwind]

Agreed, Gripster!

[the mean in meaningless]

On the one hand, I'm like
http://www.cracked.com/article_16765_5-ways-stop-trolls-from-killing-internet.html

But then again, my reaction to
>"I sense that we as an internet culture are going way too far"
is to ask you to kindly consider humanity's history of scurviness and violence before pointing the finger at "anonymity" as the root of any evil.

Also, ALL ways to help fight the trolls are inevitably also ways to censor and suppress people. You know, IF they ever pass any kind of law or e.g. redesign the w3 protocols, protection against libel will merely be the excuse. The real purpose will be to abolish free speech.

See also my avatar, it's related. It's the free speech flag, but I replaced the "C0" with "CP". I'm aware of the categorical dilemma and the fact that there can be no real compromise on this. Either you are for free speech and accept negative things that come with it, or you don't. I do. At all costs. Even though the worst abusers of anonymity and the First Amendment in general are of course the big corporations and the right.

[TheGripester]

Um, I'm open to any fair criticism, but I respectfully object to being misquoted. Nowhere does my statement "point a finger at anonymity as being the root of any evil." While anonymity gives a cover, the cause or "root" as you put it, is in the impulse of individuals to vent hatred when there are no immediate consequences or risk. That is the "Lucifer Effect."

Please read my comment more clearly. It is my opinion that I don't think there should be a law. And my opinion that hateful comments go too far. And my opinion that it is only natural that people will start to push back legally. But I don't attack anonymity per se, nor do I prescribe any active steps against trolls that would suppress their right of expression.

I appreciate your passion, but I think you're picking over my message to try and paint my comments as soft on free speech, and they aren't at all.