Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
Dance Inc
|
|
Review by:
citysearch c.
|
|
Review content:
NEW YORK (CNN) --\r
\r
In August 2008, on Monday, Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that sites must hand over any identifying information it possesses about the blog's creator.\r
\r
Once the blog is traced to a name, the next step will be to take the detractor to court for defamation. \r
\r
In her ruling, the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line. \r
""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,"" the judge said, quoting the Virginia decision.\r
\r
""The court recognizes that the Internet is not a place where people can freely defame people or their businesses. Disguised in comforting anonymity, bloggers and online commenters can type some pretty nasty things – accusations and language that they’d never say to people face-to-face. However, the masquerade ball has just ended."" \r
\r
Bloggers should watch out. The court just rewrote the assumed rules for online decency.\r
Pros: Everything
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|