Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

Internet bullies, listen up. If a New York court ruling is any indication, your cloak of anonymity may be more transparent than you think.

In August, Carla Franklin, 34, a New York business consultant and Columbia Business School graduate, filed legal documents asking Google to identify people who posted unauthorized videos of her on YouTube and called her a "whore."

This week, she scored a victory. A Manhattan judge ordered Google, which owns YouTube, to turn over identity and contact information for the person or persons who posted the videos and insults online.

ABC link

I don't see this as a violation of free speech and I say "well done" to the woman for standing up for herself when she felt attacked. She was scared for her safety, worried that the online comments would impede her search for a job and taking her concerns to the Police only got her a "we can't do anything for you" response.

Her comment:

"The Internet cannot become a haven for harassers and criminals. It just can't," she said. "This is not about me trampling on anyone's First Amendment rights. Speak freely -- just show who you are. And if you're going to commit a crime, and harassment and defamation are crimes, then show yourself. "

I would agree - anonymous cowards should take note...

Google works for (and is a private contractor of) the CIA.

Why would a court have to order this? Couldn't the CIA just have stepped in and said- "don't worry, we got that info right here! Hell we have secretly been spying on you with our puppet-company Google for years now! Here ya go!"?

Eh...go figure.

PS- Cyber bullies targeting kids and making them cry/die/sigh are scum and should be dealt with as criminals.

Google is CIA tool. Don't forget that.

Also, in case some of you are unaware of what is going on within your CIA these days, heres a link to the Washington Post's exposé on said subject. (17 pages of HOLY WHAT THE HELL!!!>?)
Learn this NOW or remain ignorant of it.


S&F for the OP

Yes, these people are cowards. Bullies is giving them too much credit.

It is amazing the things people will do or write behind the guise of a monitor.

reply to post by LadySkadi



I agree with the premise of the ruling however, I have one major concern about this in that it could set a curious and potentially dangerous precedent. Where by Anyone with a grudge could manipulate this ruling into getting back at inocent individuals. Not to mention Corporations or Big Brother etc.

I'm curious what other members feel on this breaking of privacy....

reply to post by SLAYER69


If harassment and slander can be prosecuted in "the real world" than it absolutely should apply to the "internet" as well. Simply because the laws have not caught up to this reality, does not mean users are not still accountable and actions potentially prosecutable.

I am wondering if this is the beginning of what is yet to follow.
The internet is in their sights and they will try to make it uncool by whatever they think that they can do to stop it from being cool, but it won't be an easy job for them to do.

Hm, I don't know. I agree that the anonymity is not protected by free speech; the right to say whatever you want goes hand in hand with the right of others to get upset by what you say, and you have to take responsibility for that. And these people were not cool for what they did.

However, I think we ought to have a right to anonymity on the internet. People misuse it, yes, but I still think it's a good thing on the whole. Just a personal opinion there.

reply to post by Solasis



I agree this could be a problem.
The whole bully thing does get my blood boiling though.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Well, defamation of character, libel, and slander are all covered in some sense of this lawsuit.

Personally, developing a thick skin, and ignoring idiocy might have been the better approach.

While I certainly hate bullies and I am infact a bully-buster this opens a dangerous precedent towards the Internet.

But then again Google and Yahoo are supposed to clean up their own messes.

And hitting the FLAG button is the fastest and least hassling way to get things resolved.

Did she fail to do this or did she not know she had this as an option?

Opening a court case makes a legal crack in the dam for people to invade other people's privacy.

Like we all know Government, lawyers, and various other organizations like to do.

This is one of those many reasons I refuse to speak to the partisan rhetoric on ATS.

Besides the fact that I am a Centrist and a registered Independent.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

She has every right to do whatever she deems necessary to protect herself and her reputation and that includes a lawsuit to obtain IP's of those harassing her. Frankly, dangerous precedent potential or not, I applaud her for standing up for herself and support her choice.

reply to post by LadySkadi

I totally sympathize with the woman and hope she gets justice. Cowards use anonymity as a shield for things they would never admit to doing.

It's worth noting, however, that anonymity is the rule here on ATS. There are the T&C, of course, but someone who is banned can come back under another alias. I feel my alias has developed a certain reputation on here that is worth defending, and that keeps my posts up to a self-imposed standard. Still, I have a feeling a lot of people on here would not dare to say what they're saying if they had to post their real names. Considering this is a conspiracy site, anonymity makes a lot of sense. But it can always be abused.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I do not believe this certain situation is a problem. Slander is against the law...If you decide to hurt others in real life or on the internet you are giving your right to privacy straight to the government on a silver platter. I think that is okay. I think they finally got something right That woman could have lost a job over this.

It's one thing if they are taking your privacy when you are doing nothing wrong...It's another if you are abusing that privacy to create problems.

S&F OP! Thank you for posting something I can be happy about! So rare now a days!

Another view:

The Case That Could End Cyber Bullying

The National Conference of State Legislatures notes, "Forty-seven states now have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws." Flaming isn't always just good clean fun. It can escalate into the personal, specific and, subsequently, illegal and unprotected.

And then, bullies, you're on your own. As Franklin says, "The internet should not become an anonymous place for harassers to hide. Criminal behavior is not protected by the First Amendment."

I'll tell ya one thing...this lady is going to get way more "name calling" and public attention then if she ignored it.

I mean, heck, I understand unauthorized videos breach privacy laws and can equal slander easily and all. Yup, fine and dandy...but this lady just called an endless army of hooligans (shall I name them?) on to her with a red waving flag of war...

I do not support people looking to destroy people or cause them mental harm in anyway...joking and playing a bit rough is fair game between a few nameless names online...but going too far is not something I respect at all.

But... basically, this lady MUST know that she just kicked a cyber-bee-hive in the face and called it's queen a big loser-head...

I also have to wonder, does she want justice or just money? Because justice will be short and sweet, but the backlash of her actions will surly echo on for eons online between "certain circles" that make it thier "game" to screw with people.

I dunno...what happens if the culprits are 12 year old kids? 10 year olds? Then what? Then we just saw Google manhandle a bunch of wacky little puppies, while this 34 year old gets her revenge?

And I agree with my fine co-posters above who say this sets a dangerous precedence that MAY (and prolly willl) get out of hand in the long run.

I know its a crime to screw with folks...but honestly, I think this lady is being a sissy about it. Does she bring up lawsuits against all the people in the world who ever called her a whore? If so...gee...someone's vengeful.

But then again...that's just me and people call me a whore all the time...I just laugh it off and agree.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


Mmmm, you make a good point - though my impression reading the articles is that the harassment/attacks on her were by those known by her and perhaps in this case, that makes a difference... The physical proof (i.e. IP's) was needed to pursue legally (according to her lawyer).

and new laws passed to combat Cyber bullying will be totally exploited by Government to be used as a weapon to further any political agenda they wish to use it against...

100% of new or defined threats to Americans are always going to be exploited by government and private contractors to make more money and to be used as a tool against their enemies....

This opinion is simply based on what has been happening up till now.. I don't think they will change their tune any time soon...

reply to post by LadySkadi


I think that Google will need to re-assess Youtube at some point. Any video posted on youtube gets abusive comments. It does not matter what the video is about. I never read comments on youtube for that reason.

Legally speaking, there is nothing really new here. If somebody write something derogatory about someone else in the press, they can face court action. This rule should also apply to the internet.

Whilst we all know that there is little privacy on the internet anyway, this court ruling is still very important and I applaud it.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

I agree with the premise of the ruling however, I have one major concern about this in that it could set a curious and potentially dangerous precedent. Where by Anyone with a grudge could manipulate this ruling into getting back at inocent individuals. Not to mention Corporations or Big Brother etc.

I'm curious what other members feel on this breaking of privacy....

I don't see it as a privacy issue.. you have the right to speak, but do you have the right to be anonymous? Personally, I don't think so ..

At the same time however, unless the video of a voyuer of her in her own home or office, there is no limitation as to if a video can be posted of her. She has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the video being taken..

Also, whoever called her a whore has the right to call her a whore. I'll call her an over sensitive dumbass right now. Because it's my right to.

Personally, I hope she brings the wrath of Anonymous down on her..

But she does have the right, imo, to know who is behind the screen name.

good!

This doesn't violate freedom of speech what so ever. You can still say whatever you want, but now you can't hide behind a computer screen.

I love it.

Internet Trolls....Beware!

Originally posted by Lisakitty
I am wondering if this is the beginning of what is yet to follow.
The internet is in their sights and they will try to make it uncool by whatever they think that they can do to stop it from being cool, but it won't be an easy job for them to do.

Actually, I think anonymous trolls posting vile venom from their pretentious perches is the bane of the internet and all it could be.

this is a good thing.

To all who imply this is a 'slippery slope'; why should libel on the intertubes be any different than libel n the 'real world'? This is not a slippery slope, it is a light at the end of th etunnel.

on a related note:

Topix - Internet Bullying, Defamation and Hate for Profit

toxictopix.webs.com...