3 ms·

This should not be done in the United States. The Manhattan court is a skank.

• enjo 17y ago
  Libel is libel. Why should someone have free reign to publish untrue statements about another person with no fear of repercussion? Your reputation plays an enormous role in both your professional and personal life, and you should have the ability to protect it. The court, in this case, required that they show evidence of libel (which they did) before compelling google to hand over the blogger. I think this ruling is an outstanding one. Speech can be damaging, and folks who engage in libelous or slanderous speech deserve what they get.
  • runinit 17y ago
    It is my understanding that libel is only libel if you are aware that it is a lie. If the blogger was honestly convinced that this women was a skank, then the blogger would be be guilty of defamation...
    • pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      it's only defamation if it's not true; it's only defaming if it is, which sounds like a truism. If I claim someone is a drug-addled buffoon, that may be defaming, if that person is Ozzy Osbourne, then his corpus of work speaks directly to that conclusion and only the most highly paid lawyers would bother to argue that description defamed him.