Google Must Reveal Cyberbully's Identity, New York Judge Says
A few months ago, former actress, model and Columbia graduate Carla Franklin took legal action against a mysterious cyberbully who posted defamatory comments about her on YouTube. At the time, Franklin said she had a pretty good idea of who the crude commenter might be, but her lawyers decided to file a court petition for Google to formally reveal his identity. The petition, which was initially filed in August, has now been confirmed by a Manhattan judge, meaning that Google must unmask the cyberbully within the next 15 days.In the court filing, Franklin's lawyer, David Fish, asserted that the posted comments "were made with the intention to harm Ms. Franklin's reputation and interfere with her relationships, employment and livelihood." Franklin, who graduated last year with an MBA from Columbia Business School, is now working as a business consultant. While at Columbia, she filmed a series of short clips for the university, in which she offered guidance and advice to other students. One such video was subsequently uploaded to YouTube, where a rogue user posted inexplicably obscene comments -- including one that called Franklin a "whore."
Once the prosecution identifies the true identity of the YouTube user, Fish says, Franklin will slap him with a lawsuit for "personal humiliation, mental anguish and damage to her reputation." Perhaps more important than the identity of the user, however, is the legal precedent that the judge's decision could set. As The Next Web observes, this may very well be the first time that a court has ordered YouTube to unmask one of its users because of legally nebulous comments -- and it probably won't be the last. This is hardly new ground for Google, though. Last year, because of the threat of a potential defamation suit, Google was forced to reveal the identity of anonymous blogger Rosemary Port, who ran the 'Skanks in NYC' blog.
Franklin, after all, has every legal right to protect her name and reputation. She should at least be allowed to confirm the identity of her target before using her own resources (and the court's time) to pursue a lawsuit. If this commenter was using YouTube to post threats or child pornography, for example, a federal judge wouldn't think twice about forcing the website's hand. Why should a defamation lawsuit be any different?





Las Vegas Court Officials Accused Of Covering Up Sex Assault [VIDEO]
'Undercover Boss': Top 4 Moments From Season 4 [VIDEO]
Walmart vs. Costco: How Do They Really Compare?
Oklahoma man allowed to sue state over native american rain god on license plate
Groomers Lose Dog, Claim Not Responsible
The Story Behind Shapewear: From Girdles to Spanx
Living in a Van Was the Best Financial Decision I Ever Made
'Grease' Cast: Where Are They Now?
Microsoft E3 2013 Xbox liveblog!
7 Myths of Long-Term Care












Comments
1
Subscribe to commentsan0nym00seDec 7th 2010 12:20PM
What the courts do not see is that now Justin Bieber may find and sue all of the 3,000,000 haters that post "bad stuff" on his youtube videos.
What people don't seem to understand is that words are words and people rarely listen. People who post bad comments can also be flagged, blocked, etc.
Since this stuff was happening OUTSIDE of the internet, THEN GET EVIDENCE OFF THE INTERNET! You know who it is, yet you WANT to identify the anonymous user on youtube! All this does is give the anonymous users even more fear of Big Brother who is now going to be able to identify everyone who even toes the line a little bit. If you arrest the guy you think is the online and offline abuser, and the online stuff stops, then you got your man!
I find this absolutely appalling that people now have to go to legal means because someone called you a "bitch" on youtube. This isn't elementary school anymore. GROW UP.