A New York woman has filed a petition in a Manhattan court asking Google and YouTube to reveal the name of the person who has been talking trash about her. Carla Franklin, former actress, model and Duke University graduate currently employed as a business consultant, has told the court that unauthorized video clips posted to YouTube, and comments impugning her morality, have caused her personal humiliation and damaged her business reputation.
According to The
Associated Press, there are an increasing number of cases involving people and businesses attempting to force online entities to reveal the identify of persons making defamatory comments about them. Last year, in a case similar to this one, a Manhattan court ruled in favor of a Vogue model named Liskula Cohen who sought the identity of a blogger who'd made statements attacking her morality and personal hygiene.
Franklin's lawyer told the New York Post "People feel bolder and bolder that they can say whatever they want when they post things with anonymity, but there can be consequences if you say something defamatory."
Do you think entities like Google should protect your personal identify or have you given up your right to privacy when you slander or libel someone else?
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 14
so to avoid problems ...
Curatenie | Camere de supravehere
What I mean is that people have said some very UNTRUE wicked things,UNTRUE mean-spirited things, simply because they knew there were no consequences, and they could hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. It is a fact that employers are checking Internet sites to see what they may find about perspective and existing employees, and there are consequences for what lies have been found there.
Since the law of the land states that one may sue for slander or libel, why IS the Internet immune to that law? It should not be. If a person says something that is slanderous or libelous, thus damaging my character, they should be able to prove it, else suffer the consequences. Come on guys, THAT IS THE LAW!
I'll tell you what the issue is here: there are 2 laws in this country -- one for the rich, and one for the poor. A wealthy person with enough money, and the ability to engage the effective legal assistance shall certainly see justice in a court of law; the poor must grin and bear it.
This is a classic example where "the people" need to call their representatives on "the carpet", and make them be responsive and answerable to their needs. There is NO REASON why any individual should be allowed to get away with loose lips, and possibly ruining a person's reputation.