Trashy blog, hot gossip gets legal push back

New Media editor Don Fenley casts a big net for hidden gems about and behind the news

Published Thursday, August 20 2009 - (5) Comments

There's a group of Web hot talkers who now know that they were not nearly as anonymous as they thought. It's embarrassing for some of those involved, and it will probably get expensive.

One blogger, a Twitter user and a handful of people who commented on a Topix forum in Northeast Texas are headed for court over their online trash talk.

The most notorious case involves a former Vogue Australian cover girl Liskula Cohen. She just won a court battle with Google and forced it to give up the blogger who wrote some harsh and trashy things about her on the "Skanks in NYC" blog.

Skanks is no longer part of the blogsphere and it's not clear how the case will return to court, but the biggest part of the battle - the removal of the blogger's anonymous status - is settled.

Judge Joan Madden agreed with Coehn's arguments about the blog and ordered Googel to identify the author after rejecting claims from the blogger's lawyer that the whole thing was mere opinion and "trash talk," and that only factual assertions could be considered libelous.

Anne Salisbury, the blogger's lawyer, warned that the ruling would open the "floodgates" for anyone who has been the subject of a nasty comment online to take legal action.

Such a flood would keep a lot of lawyers busy and swamp the courts.

The next case was filed by a landlord who sued a Chicago woman for writing on Twitter that her apartment was "moldy." The woman only had 20 followers, but the landlord claimed the tweet damaged the company's reputation anyway.

The biggie in this example of legal Web trends is about a Texas couple who filed a lawsuit five months ago against a covey of anonymous posters on Topix.

Mark and Rhonda Lesher of Clarksville, Texas, have confirmed what they suspected since they began their quest to unmask the commenters.

Information disclosed by Topix, led the Leshers to a business owned by the husband of a woman who last year accused the couple of sexual assault and other neighbors. With that information they've amended their suit, named six people and demanded a jury trail.

The amended petition names Shannon Coyel, the couple's accuser, her husband Gerald Coyel and his brother James Coyel.

The story behind the comments is this: Mark Lesher, 63, and his wife, Rhonda, 50, and their ranch hand were accused of sexual assault by a woman in their small northeast Texas community. Before they were indicted a steady stream of attacks on the Web forum Topix.com began flowing. That's not that uncommon on many forums and news sites that allow comments on stories.

But the charges didn't stick. A jury found the couple and their ranch hand not guilty. Than's when the Leshers got the lawyers involved.

Who know how any of thes cases will finally be sorted out, but there's an old saying in the newspaper business that goes something like this, "It costs $50,000 to win a libel suit, more if you lose."

Some Web watchers think that the Wild Wooly Web will sooner or later be reined in closer to the standards for the printed word. For the uninitiated here's some points to remember:

1 - You may have a screen name and several doctored e-mail addresses, but you are not anonymous to someone dedicated to finding you. When served with a subpoena your blog host, Internet service provider or a newspaper that allows comments on stories will give you up.

2 - Writing that exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule; injures a person's reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided or injures the person in his or her occupation is libelous.

3 - Anything that is provably true cannot be libelous.

Discuss This Story

Be the first to comment: Sign In or Create Profile

Some comments do indeed go too far. Many on here add their own "proof" of guilt not printed in the paper. In a case such as that, the person could possibly make a case. In most instances, I don't think a case could be made. For instance the Texas couple. If I commented that based on the evidence given, I thought they were guilty, they would have a very hard time proving that my comment caused them harm. I can't imagine anyone saying they thought the couple was innocent until they read my comment. I would think they would have to show malice, especially since such a case is of public concern. I am glad to see some of these cases. There are those who do not know the difference between giving their opinion on facts and making up their own facts.

Lana Kennedy | 9/14/2009 - 9:08 PM - ( Comment

Suggest Removal )

Some comments do indeed go too far. Many on here add their own "proof" of guilt not printed in the paper. In a case such as that, the person could possibly make a case. In most instances, I don't think a case could be made. For instance the Texas couple. If I commented that based on the evidence given, I thought they were guilty, they would have a very hard time proving that my comment caused them harm. I can't imagine anyone saying they thought the couple was innocent until they read my comment. I am glad to see some of these cases. There are those who do not know the difference between giving their opinion on facts and making up their own facts.

Lana Kennedy | 9/14/2009 - 8:56 PM - ( Comment

Suggest Removal )

Lana - The problem arises when the opinion is expressed before the case is settled. A court of law determines what is true and what is alleged. The only defense against libel is the truth. If you make a very harsh case in comments about a person's guilt then they are found innocent you have a potential libel problem. This is precisely what's behind the Topix case in Texas. Many of the posters banked on the sex charges being upheld in court. They were not, the couple was cleared. Those people who savaged the accused before they were convicted are now being sued. A study of case law shows such cases have been successful in the past.

Don Fenley | 9/9/2009 - 8:55 PM - ( Comment

Suggest Removal )

Depending on the crime for which they are accused, I think it will be really difficult to prove an online comment caused point #2. For instance, if a teacher is accused of molesting a student, proving someone saying they thought he was guilty caused the shame instead of the arrest and newspaper article, would be fairly difficult.

Lana Kennedy | 9/9/2009 - 4:23 PM - ( Comment

Suggest Removal )

You have to get in a long line to sue me. It's similar to a line at Dollywood.

Watch the Damned | 9/7/2009 - 4:36 AM - ( Comment

Suggest Removal )

To comment, you must register.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the registered user participating in online discussions. You agree not to post comments off topic, abusive, obscene, defamatory, vulgar, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned.

Click here to review our complete user agreement.