N.Y. Sup. Ct.: Private Facebook Group's Conversations Aren't Defamatory--Finkel v. Dauber
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
...The case involves a private Facebook group comprised of 6 high school students apparently mocking and criticizing one of their classmates
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/07/private_faceboo.htm
>> Decision, Finkel v. Dauber: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34896368/Finkel-v-Dauber-Dismissed
Showing posts with label Rhetorical hyperbole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rhetorical hyperbole. Show all posts
Cohen v. Google, No. 100012/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County filed Jan. 2, 2009).
Status: Discovery motion (to reveal identity of blogger) granted.
Model Liskula Gentile Cohen sued over statements in the anonymous “Skanks in New York” blog (http://skanksnyc.blogspot.com/) that she was a “skank.”
In response to a court motion seeking to force Blogger to reveal the identitity of the anonymous blogger, the blogger responded (anonymously) with court papers arguing the posts are “rhetorical hyperbole,” and thus not libelous.
In March 2009 the blog was taken down.
In August 2009, the court ordered Blogger to reveal the blogger's identity. Cohen then contacted the blogger, who turned out to be someone she casually knew. She also dropped the underlying libel claim against her.
The outed blogger, Rosemary Port, then threatened to sue Google for revealing her identity.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cohen-v-google-blogger
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=101238
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=99112
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=97848
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1366627/skanks_in_new_york_and_liskula_cohen.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01062009/news/regionalnews/model_snared_in_ugly_web_147440.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/01/05/2009-01-05_model_liskula_cohen_sues_google_over_blo.html
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102465
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=111783
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_outted_blogger_rosemary_port_blames_model_liskula_cohen_for_skank_stink.html
Court order requiring disclosure: http://m.mediapost.com/pdf/Cohen_doc.pdf
Status: Discovery motion (to reveal identity of blogger) granted.
Model Liskula Gentile Cohen sued over statements in the anonymous “Skanks in New York” blog (http://skanksnyc.blogspot.com/) that she was a “skank.”
In response to a court motion seeking to force Blogger to reveal the identitity of the anonymous blogger, the blogger responded (anonymously) with court papers arguing the posts are “rhetorical hyperbole,” and thus not libelous.
In March 2009 the blog was taken down.
In August 2009, the court ordered Blogger to reveal the blogger's identity. Cohen then contacted the blogger, who turned out to be someone she casually knew. She also dropped the underlying libel claim against her.
The outed blogger, Rosemary Port, then threatened to sue Google for revealing her identity.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cohen-v-google-blogger
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=101238
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=99112
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=97848
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1366627/skanks_in_new_york_and_liskula_cohen.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01062009/news/regionalnews/model_snared_in_ugly_web_147440.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/01/05/2009-01-05_model_liskula_cohen_sues_google_over_blo.html
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102465
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=111783
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_outted_blogger_rosemary_port_blames_model_liskula_cohen_for_skank_stink.html
Court order requiring disclosure: http://m.mediapost.com/pdf/Cohen_doc.pdf
Staten v. Steel, No. 16-05-15033 (Or. Cir. Ct. Lane County jury verdict _____).
Status: $110,000 jury verdict affirmed (No. A133080, 222 Or. App. 17, 191 P.3d 778 (Or. App. Aug. 20, 2008), rev. denied, 345 Or. 618, 201 P.3d 909 (Or. Jan 13, 2009).
As part of a crusade against Club 71, a bar with nude dancing in Sunny Valley, Ore., defendants took pictures of club patrons and posted them and license plate numbers on their web site, www.seewhosthere.com.
Among those photographed and pictured on the site was plaintiff Greg Staten, who visted the club in March 2005 with his wife and some friends, and got into a scuffle with defendant Robert Falbo, who took pictures of Staten driving away from the club. During the scuffle, Staten destroyed Falbo’s camera.
Falbo took pictures with another camera, and posted them with commentary on the site. Staten sued for false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy; he later added similar claims based on commentary posted on the site in response to his lawsuit. Falbo claimed that the statements were mere hyperbole.
The trial court denied motions to dismiss the suit under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP law and for summary judgment, and a jury trial was held which resulted in a $110,000 verdict for plaintiff.
After trial, the court denied plaintiff’s motions for reimnursement for attorney fees and for sanctions against defendants’ attoirneys. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the jury verdict, but vacated the trial’s court’s rulings on attorneys fees and sanctions, sending those rulings back to the trial court for reconsideration.
Links and Court Documents:
Appellate decision: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A133080.htm
Status: $110,000 jury verdict affirmed (No. A133080, 222 Or. App. 17, 191 P.3d 778 (Or. App. Aug. 20, 2008), rev. denied, 345 Or. 618, 201 P.3d 909 (Or. Jan 13, 2009).
As part of a crusade against Club 71, a bar with nude dancing in Sunny Valley, Ore., defendants took pictures of club patrons and posted them and license plate numbers on their web site, www.seewhosthere.com.
Among those photographed and pictured on the site was plaintiff Greg Staten, who visted the club in March 2005 with his wife and some friends, and got into a scuffle with defendant Robert Falbo, who took pictures of Staten driving away from the club. During the scuffle, Staten destroyed Falbo’s camera.
Falbo took pictures with another camera, and posted them with commentary on the site. Staten sued for false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy; he later added similar claims based on commentary posted on the site in response to his lawsuit. Falbo claimed that the statements were mere hyperbole.
The trial court denied motions to dismiss the suit under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP law and for summary judgment, and a jury trial was held which resulted in a $110,000 verdict for plaintiff.
After trial, the court denied plaintiff’s motions for reimnursement for attorney fees and for sanctions against defendants’ attoirneys. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the jury verdict, but vacated the trial’s court’s rulings on attorneys fees and sanctions, sending those rulings back to the trial court for reconsideration.
Links and Court Documents:
Appellate decision: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A133080.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)