Larvatus Prodeo

An American Court has required Google to disclose the identity of a blogger who allegedly defamed a New York model, Liskula Cohen, so that she could take an action for libel:

Judge Madden rejected the claims by the blogger’s lawyer that the comments were mere opinion or “trash talk”, and that only factual assertions could be considered libellous.

“The thrust of the blog is that the petitioner is a sexually promiscuous woman,” Judge Madden wrote in her judgment, noting that the comments were run alongside photos of Cohen in suggestive poses.

The blog, which was shut down in March, was almost entirely devoted to slagging off Cohen. It contained just five entries, all of which were published on August 21 last year.

It’s interesting to ponder how some of the comments on prominent blogs hosted by mainstream media organisations might fare if this precedent were followed in Australia. We all know what I’m talking about, but for a sample of the sort of bilge that is far too blithely published, see the quotes in Jason Wilson’s piece yesterday at New Matilda.

To some degree, bloggers on MSM sites have a practical, if not legal, immunity because of the deep pockets of their employers. But those who effectively make money for those mastheads, as Wilson argues, by eagerly responding to the elicitation of grossly offensive and personalised comments, might pause and consider whether they’d individually be prepared to defend them in court. I doubt the bloggers who foster attack speech would offer anything other than rhetorical support.

Some comments threads on independent blogs might also be problematic. I can think of some blogs where the comments consist almost entirely of vilification and abuse of individuals.

It’s also well worth noting that misogynistic slurs were the basis for this court decision.

Elsewhere: Mashable.

Update: Bronwen Clune.

Update: Legal Eagle.

Update: Kate Harding at The Guardian’s Comment is Free.