Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (21 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:24 PM on 08/25/2009
SHT, THIS GIRL SHOULD BE A MODEL.....
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Brett1981
04:22 PM on 08/25/2009
I think she's doing just fine as an "out.ed ska.nks blo.gger."
08:38 PM on 08/25/2009
Blogger girl Port should use this fantastic time on the spotlight to get some heavy duty legal representation, pro bono no problem (lawyer gets a ton of publicity), blogger girl gets some nice dough for appearing in this/that tv show, book deal follows, the whole works plus dessert.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anonani
A woman of substance
03:09 PM on 08/25/2009
"Thou shalt not throw rocks and hide thine hands"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anonani
A woman of substance
03:07 PM on 08/25/2009
Why be anonymous?...exercise that right to free speech with the sun shining brightly in your face.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Brett1981
04:22 PM on 08/25/2009
Because then we would have been deprived of the term: "Out.ed Sk.anks Blo.gger"!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:07 PM on 08/25/2009
Try reading some history before asking inane questions.

Countless progressive movements, resistance movements, etc. have had to rely on anonymous publications in order to protect people from the government and the mob. The Unites States' very existence is a product of revolutionaries who started out anonymous.

You are pretty arrogant by the way for someone who is posting anonymously herself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anonani
A woman of substance
09:39 PM on 08/26/2009
Nonsense. Besides if I decide to use scurrilous language and lies to attack another person in a blog, I would be woman enough to own up to it and take my legal licks. The only arrogance on display is your own which is exceeded only by your presumptuousness. Do we know each other? I doubt it. BTW, there is no connection between attacking this woman anonymously and fight for liberation of the United States...talk about arrogance coupled with ignorance .... pathetic!
03:06 PM on 08/25/2009
Why should someone have the right to privacy to say nasty horrible things about another person? I think the anonymity of the internet seems to give people the feeling that there are no consequences for their actions. If you wouldn't say something to someone's face, maybe you should think twice about blogging about a topic anonymously.
photo
force fed up
I serve no party that serves to divide.
01:47 PM on 08/25/2009
So many people in this world are so easily offended it's amazing the suicide rates aren't higher. I'm getting sick of thin-skinned babies who think that a blogger's opinion is somehow going to hurt their "career."

Guess what Liskula, you only got a few more years anyway, you better grow some thicker skin soon because Photographers and Agents will be saying much worse.
01:57 PM on 08/25/2009
thats a real dilemma for her. if her skin grows too thick she will begin to encounter cellulite problems.
oh its a hard hard world for a supermodel.
01:42 PM on 08/25/2009
Lets face it the model is probably called much worse behind her back by her agents! this is just another ploy to get her name out here in the "public". having had close contact with several models i can say as a group their morals are not generally not "the paragon of human virtue" .

you have to have character in order to defame it. if she was really serious she would not have dignified spurious comments with the dignity of a response. and yes the outed blogger is as cute as a bug. I hope she too gets maximum push out of her 5 minutes of fame.

famous ... infamous ... same thing.
01:58 PM on 08/25/2009
"Lets face it the model is probably called much worse behind her back by her agents!"

her agent??? how about her "freinds"..
02:57 PM on 08/25/2009
great point. Her career never was and now this is the chance to get the last headlines.
This will backfire if they think they can sue anyone for name calling.
It's pathetic that the model is doing this. I only hope the fashion industry doesn't promote her for acting like a brat.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yves Papa
01:16 PM on 08/25/2009
First can one sue a party for complying with a court order?

Second, "free Speech" and "defamation" are separate issues.

"Free Speech" is you can say what you want.
Defamation is when you maliciously say bad things about someone else. You are still free to say such things, but watch out if you hurt someone.

She's doing what I would call the "Limbaugh Defense", which approaches the "Twinkie Defence" in absurdity. Similarly to what Limbaugh does, she made defamatory comments that pass for real, but when flagged, are demurred as simple entertainment. I believe it is right to hold everyone accountable for what they say, and that everyone should stand behind what they say.

If a commenter on this site says that Michele Bachman needs to see a psychiatrist, this commenter can be sued for defamation. And even if Bachman was crazy, she would still have a suit since the author is maliciously belittling her for her alleged ailment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:38 PM on 08/25/2009
"Defamation is when you maliciously say bad things about someone else. You are still free to say such things, but watch out if you hurt someone."

Wrong.

Defamation is when you make false statements about someone. Maliciously stating hurtful or "bad" things is fully protected speech so long as what you say is true or couched as a personal opinion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Eris23
Justice is in indefinite detention.
01:42 PM on 08/25/2009
It is truly amazing how so many people who have commented here, on one side or the other, no absolutely nothing about our rights, the law or what happened in this case.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yves Papa
02:53 PM on 08/25/2009
Your phrase is missing a verb.
03:12 PM on 08/25/2009
Also know, is spelled no.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
01:01 PM on 08/25/2009
Committing defamation anonymously is not a right. Defamation is a crime, end of discussion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mdlawyer2
02:53 PM on 08/25/2009
Actually defamation, slander in verbal form, liber in written form is a tort (not a crime). A tort is a negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
04:05 PM on 08/25/2009
Okay. I'm not a lawyer so I'll keep using the colloquial "crime" for all violations of law, but thanks anyway for the info.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
12:41 PM on 08/25/2009
Really, how inappropriate to spout your own personal feelings about someone on the internet. Angry, selfish, immoral, immature . . . Good example of the potential we have in our society to behave in a really disgusting manner. . Even if she didn't get outed, it's wrong.

She needs to go work in a soup kitchen to get grounded . This chick is looooossst.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:19 PM on 08/25/2009
It appears the irony is "looooossst" on you that your post constitutes "spout[ing] your own personal feelings about someone on the internet".
03:25 PM on 08/25/2009
very good
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
12:12 AM on 08/26/2009
I get the irony, but the fact is this girl did a bad thing, and it will only help her if she looks to herself to see where the anger comes from. Jealousy is uncool. I see below you say she is a beautiful girl. I say beauty on the inside is what counts. It seems she need s to work on this. Just being honest here.
12:19 PM on 08/25/2009
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. ...unless you get way too catty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:20 PM on 08/25/2009
Except that Rosemary Port is quite beautiful herself...
11:52 AM on 08/25/2009
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Turnabout is fair play. etc.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jasev01
11:50 AM on 08/25/2009
The only defense she has is that it is her opinion but she should have framed it as such. The first amendment protects you from government intervention to your freedom of speech not other private parties. Again that is something you learn in a civics class. Regardless she does have the right to state her opinion and a right to state fair criticism. Bottom line for there to be defamation, the statement has to be believable so this actress/model/ whatever has a long road before she proves anything.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
1dogs2
12:16 PM on 08/25/2009
No, her only defense under the libel laws is that what she said was TRUE or that she reasonably believed it to be true. She certainly has a right to her own opinion and she even has the right to state her opinion publicly, but when she states it publicly, she is subject to suit for libel. I regard the model who brought suit as a heroine for suing this twit.

It's clear that the net is full of comments from people who proclaim their First Amendment right to say anything that enters their tiny minds, but who are uninformed as to the limits of the protection of the First Amendment, let alone its fundamental purpose and core value. They belong to the same category of morally and intellectually bankrupt people as those who, when asked why they committed some reprehensible but not illegal act reply, "Because I can."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Eris23
Justice is in indefinite detention.
12:20 PM on 08/25/2009
A heroine? It's passive aggressive nonsense. A number of you seemed to miss that she is not suing the person. Cali deals with this nonsense as a result of their anti-SLAPP law much better.

http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/apr/a094062.shtml

" The phrase big sk.ank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false. Attributing the comment to a specific source, plaintiff' s ex-husband, does not alter that conclusion. The word sk.ank is a derogatory slang term of recent vintage that has no generally recognized meaning. Like "' creepazoid attorney,' "it is a "subjective expression[] of disapproval, devoid of any factual content." (Ferlauto v. Hamsher, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404; Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829, 838.) Indeed, plaintiff provided no accepted dictionary definition for the term sk.ank to the trial court and, instead, only proffered a declaration from her ex-husband stating his understanding of the term sk.ank as referring to "a woman of loose morals." Plaintiff has cited no reported decision in California or elsewhere that has held the term sk.ank constitutes actionable defamation, nor has our own research revealed any such decision. "
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jasev01
12:22 PM on 08/25/2009
Not in the United states its not. in the US you can state any opinion however negative you want so long that it is clear that it is just that an opinion and the more outrage the less chance of libel because people won't believe it which is a requirement. And it has nothing to do with the first amendment at all,its one of those "inherent" rights. Lookup the SCt caselaw on the subject.
11:48 AM on 08/25/2009
People, we all have the right to free speech but there are limits as well there should be. We have the right to free speech but don't have the right to incite a riot, for instance, nor do we have the right to shout down others and create disturbances. And we certainly do not have the right to defame someone and hide behind anonymity. Sure, it's her opinion but if you feel that strongly about what you are saying, if it was sourced correctly, then quit hiding behind some cyber shield and stand up for what you said. These anonymous postings are all BS anyway. Why do you think there are bylines in newspapers?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:06 PM on 08/25/2009
Nice try slipping the 'nor do we have the right to shout down others' comment...you should have just said nobody has the right to challenge elected officials (who happen to be Democrats) at town hall meetings. The ACLU would differ with you...
12:22 PM on 08/25/2009
Yeah, right. Of course the other party formerly known as Republicans managed that process by arresting and/or throwing out any and all dissenters. No shouting down there...

Ain't it great how discussions can get warped so easily?
12:39 PM on 08/25/2009
Sure, you have the right to shout, but don't give me that BS that they're "challenging epected officials." They can do that without shouting, by simply speaking their point in a clear and concise manner, in the proper forum.

The purpose of the shouting, as you well know, is to end any conversation at all.

Exactly the opposite of "freedom of speech" - it's suppression, plain and simple.
11:46 AM on 08/25/2009
As President Obama continues to demonstrate, in The Corporate Police States of America, privacy is no longer an option. Send her to Gitmo and take plenty of pictures!
12:23 PM on 08/25/2009
On whose blog are the pix gonna be posted?
11:45 AM on 08/25/2009
Progressives need to start suing people who make outrageous defamatory statements. Terms such as "Death Panel" and "Kill Granny" would quickly vanish from the American Lexicon.
03:37 PM on 08/25/2009
or "Bush Lied".