START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Culture & Lifestyle

Rave

Bad News for Fake Scientology Posters

Posted 33 months ago|14 comments|839 views
Written by
Louanne
Los Angeles, CA
Up to late last night I had never heard of Liskula Cohen and I am not much into "super models" either. But the blonde catwalker just recently made a dent into a situation I had talked about in earlier posts: trolling.

Cohen was the victim of an anonymous blogger who spread bias and falsehoods about her. The catwalker did not just swallow it but went against Blogger.com - Google Inc, that is - to obtain the blogger's IP and email addresses. Last Monday she succeeded: as ABCNews reported yesterday "Cohen took Google to court in hopes of forcing the company to reveal the writer's identity -- and won."

A little googling found me a courtesy copy of the actual court document. Google was ordered to "provide petitioner with information as to the identity of the Anonymous Blogger(s), specifically that person's or persons' name(s), address(es), email address(es), IP address(es), telephone number(s), and all other information that would assist in ascertaining the identity of that person or persons."

And they did. Google provided the information to Liskula Cohen's lawyers right away. She now plans to pull through a libel suit against the troll.

Oh, I can hear the sleazebags clamoring about privacy and free speech and the usual trash that is put on the table when it comes to anonymous jerks taking responsibility for their doing. Certainly one can argue that Freedom of Speech must be protected by all means and I agree.

But your own freedom ends where you violate somebody else's.



EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Wow, sorry louanne. I guess when Pat called me a criminal, I should go after her?

No, actually, not exactly. What you're not taking into account is that there are very specific legal requirements for defamation. In Pat's case, for instance, when she called me a criminal, she believed it to be true. (that may not pass the "reasonable belief" requirement, but you see the point)

In fact, freedom of speech is a very broad brush, and deserves very careful protection. Your implication that "fake" scientology posters will be affected by this potential suit reflects a chilling propensity towards attempted silencing of critics, even so by presenting this information in such a manner!

Legally, it is not defamation if the statement is made in good faith with reasonable belief to be true, OR actually true, OR a fair comment on a matter of public interest, OR innocent dissemination, OR the subject is incapable of further defamation (as in when the subject's reputation is already negative, and further information could do no real harm), OR (and this is very important), if there is No actual injury.

That last one is very telling. If the CoS is truly growing, as they claim, then all the negative statments are causing no actual injury! In order to be defamation, one would have to consent that the CoS is not growing at the rate claimed, or at all. In fact, I recall you (and others) claiming that the negative publicity was actually increasing membership.

Lastly, comments made regarding public figures are generally exempt (in most cases).

I, myself, value freedom of speech, even when I don't agree. To paraphrase, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.".

Even your sweeping comments on your other blog (directed at private citizens who may or may not be part of a particular group), which can be considered malicious, to say the least- I still value your right to say such things.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: As an aside, this was the category of "Defamation per se" that caused your example to be considered "defamation".

'Allegations or imputations of "unchastity"'

I believe he called this fine, upstanding woman a 'sk*nk', which is clearly within this standard, unless he's in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee. Not knowing for sure would allow for the discovery action taken by the judge.

Interestingly, another category of "Defamation per se", which DOES apply in California is "Allegations or imputations of criminal activity".

Have you ever accused anyone, or perhaps an entire profession, of criminal activity?
Louanne
Louanne
Los Angeles, CA
33 months ago: "Have you ever accused anyone, or perhaps an entire profession, of criminal activity?"

Yes, no.

"Wow, sorry louanne. I guess when Pat called me a criminal, I should go after her?"

You are missing the point, Mark. This is not about you. Unless you have a blog you never told me about.

- L
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: It's not about me- it's about freedom of speech, which is what I defend.

Did you indeed post it with the implication that this somehow applies to critics of scientology? (please bear in mind the legal information provided)
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Another small example:

You said, in a previous thread, "nice trolling mark".
You were implying (okay, saying) that I was a "troll".

You said in that same thread that you believe a troll to be or do the following:

"purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards."

trolls are proud if they get someone to get excited or upset about some provocation they spread.

"the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium. Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh".

far more harmful personal attacks and slander

Do you reasonably believe those things to apply to me, or did you say those knowing they were false?
33 months ago: I have to go fact check, but as an added twist I believe the US Supreme Court made a ruling last year that you can be found guilty libel, even if what you say is true, if you wrote it with malicious intent....
33 months ago: Sorry...it was the US court of Appeals....

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hilden/20090330.html
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: To be fair, it was an appellate review regarding Massachusetts state law, but that's still pretty awful! I agree with the author, that it really sets a dangerous precedent contrary to every other state interpretation!
33 months ago: People still buy into that Scientology mumbo jumbo?
Wish I could declare my business a religion and get all that tax free revenue.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
33 months ago: Judging by the fall out I've seen around the web this Liskula Cohen, a woman I'd never heard of until now may well regret this move if she is genuinely upset about being called a "skank".

As to the title of this rant, I don't know how many "fake" scientology posters there are, if indeed there are any, but for various technical reasons this judgement isn't relevant to any such posts or posters. It certainly doesn't affect me any how.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
33 months ago: Re 1st paragraph my post above. My cynical side thinks this Liskula Cohen is a fading B/C list model trying to get attention and using this case as a vehicle. She has certainly succeeded in that since Louanne had never heard of her either.

Either that or she is naive in thinking that pursing this case will get her anything more than a name for herself that she may not like.

I don't know the woman but what I've read on the Internet so far isn't complimentary. Pix and Dox will no doubt follow.

As to damages, well "spotty basement dwellers" who write blogs don't very often have much to sue for and so tend not to be worth pursing.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
33 months ago: The Church of Scientology is known for filing lawsuits to harass people, and it is perfectly in keeping with Scientology policy that Louanne threatens to sue people who criticise the cult on this web-site. What the cult does not understand is that it is exactly this kind of behavior which has made them so disliked in the first place. Other organizations and religions engage in debate with people who criticise them (Islam would be an exception) rather than trying to silence all criticism whether it is valid or invalid. There are even organizations which are capable of change, and which respond to legitimate criticism by remedying the problems which were criticised. Scientology, per policy, can respond only by attacking.

Anyway, if it is your judgment, Louanne, that I am in some way a "fake" Scientology poster (my posts are all genuine, but I know that the cult does not like to have the truth told about itself) and if you wish to track me down and sue me, go ahead. You will lose.
31 months ago: Really hilarious coming from a lady who uses an anonymous pseudonym to post lies and slander. Get a mirror, dumbass.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
26 months ago: Well now, isn't this just elronic! Cult shill says, "Certainly one can argue that Freedom of Speech must be protected by all means and I agree.
But your own freedom ends where you violate somebody else's. "

So you apparently do know of the concept of crossing the line. As Australian Senator Nick Xenophon admonished Scientology in a recent speech, "In Australia there are no limits on what you can believe. But there are limits on how you can behave. It is called the law, and no-one is above it."

Scientologists have repeatedly demonstrated that they think they are above the law. They have no problem making up false accusations against critics. In fact, it's in their doctrine. Hubbard said if you can't find crimes, manufacture some.

That is libel and slander.

Unfortunately for Scientology, the accusations leveled at the organization are well documented. That isn't libel or slander. We don't need to make up anything. Scientology's own history gives us plenty of fodder to work with.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave