Cyber Civil Rights vs Privacy in the “Skanks in NYC” case

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. A.J. Sutter says:

    Thanks for this nuanced commentary. I agree it’s appropriate to make a practical distinction between anonymous political, whistle-blowing etc. speech, etc. on the one hand, and anonymous name-calling against private persons (regardless of whether it reaches the standard of defamation), on the other. In theory there may be some cases where it’s ambiguous as to which category the speech falls into, but based on its facts, this case doesn’t seem to fall into that particular gray zone.

  2. Bruceongames says:

    I write a non anonymous blog about the video game industry, Recently I have written some articles about Evony, all that I wrote was provable fact or fair comment. My blog is written in the UK and hosted in the USA. Evony is Chinese. But they are threatening to sue me for libel in Australia. I obviously cannot defend the case despite being in the right and they can enforce any judgement due to reciprocal arrangements.
    So they will rewrite history in their favour, stifle fair criticism and destroy any notion of free speech. We are all potential victims of this sort of bullying. Our only way out is to rely on Streisand effect.
    Obviously, being a blog I have written this up:

  3. Bruce Boyden says:

    Bruce, that’s *very* interesting, thanks for posting that (even if somewhat off-topic, since you’re not an anonymous blogger). Unfortunately, I can’t give you legal advice, but I teach the Dow Jones v. Gutnick case, cited in the cease and desist letter as support for essentially universal Internet jurisdiction in Australia. And I don’t think that case says what the cease and desist letter says it says.

    I’m not sure fear of the so-called “Streisand effect” will have any impact here. Evony seems impervious to concerns about its own reputation, which makes the threat of a defamation suit ironic, to say the least.