
Quoting
lovelyview
Actually it IS:
"How then should we view last week’s in a landmark case? Justice Madden forced Google to provide the court with an anonymous blogger’s real name so that Liskula Cohen could sue the person who had falsely vilified her as a “skank,” “hag” and “psychotic lying whore.” Cohen (apparently as unqualified to apply for the CIA’s hacking team as the rest of us) found herself with no choice but to put the law to the test if she was to get any further in the exercise to protect her reputation."
"A Manhattan judge ruled yesterday that a blogger can't hide behind a web of anonymity while flinging the ugly words "skank" and "ho" at somebody online.
The sternly worded ruling orders Google to give up the identity of an anonymous blogger-assailant who inexplicably devoted an entire blog -- titled "Skanks in NYC" -- to maligning beautiful blond model Liskula Cohen."
The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):
•Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
•Calling an attorney a "crook"
•Describing a woman as a call girl
•Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
•Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son
ASHMAN: NOW where is your evidence? And btw: What is your problem? And to combat your argument about caps, well writing a book also does no good if you don't have proof. Just rambling.