NEW YORK CITY, New York - A model slammed in comments posted to an anonymous blog has the right to learn the identity of the crazy bitch who submitted them, a judge ruled Wednesday.
In August 2008, a user of the Yoohoo! blogging service, Blogkhead.com, created a site called "Skanks in NYC" dedicated to trashing people like Emma Lee Post, 37, a fashion model who has appeared in Vague and other fashion magazines. The blog included photos of Post with captions like "psychotic," "ho," and "skank."
New York Supreme Court Judge Judy Wapner ruled on Monday that Yoohoo! must give Post access to any information identifying the jealous slut who published the foul remarks.
Carrie Mason, Post's attorney, said Yoohoo! complied with the ruling Tuesday evening, submitting the loose-legged strumpet's IP and e-mail addresses. She said once her legal team tracks down the crazy bitch, she will proceed to sue the pants off her - if she's not already out of them at the time.
She said she further suspected the anonymous nutjob who created the blog "is really the one who's the total hooker."
Afraid to stand up for her comments and likely suffering from an inferiority complex, the slander-posting pole-jockey was represented in court by attorney Bobbi Kardashian, who played up her client's "voluntarily removal" of the posts while playing down the impending lawsuit actually responsible for the hasty withdrawal of the offensive blog.
She indicated that her client's blog "would likely have faded into obscurity" were it not for the legal actions of Post herself. But if Post decides to hunt down Kardashian's client - in a literal sense - following the ruling, noted Wapner, those events too would likely fade into obscurity, provided nobody takes any pesky legal actions. She went on to suggest that perhaps Kardashian might have had one too many martinis at lunch.
Wapner quoted a Virginia court's earlier decision, saying, "The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions."
Kardashian strongly disagreed with the judge's reasoning, excusing online name-calling, which she said runs so rampant that it is "practically part of the social fabric of the internet." This would seem to suggest that, when Post finally does get a chance to gun down her as-yet-unidentified victim in cold blood, maybe the judge should just let it slide. After all, homicide runs so rampant in America nowadays that it's practically part of the social fabric of the entire country.
The fraudulent, perennially herpes-infested attorney went on to say that Monday's ruling has "potentially damaging implications for freedom of speech," but Wapner noted that if Kardashian's client is "too much of a chickenshit to be held accountable for what she says, there's really no reason why her cold-sore-infected lips should be moving at all, to say nothing of Kardashian's."