I'm posting a response to Tracy Flory-Clark's broadsheet about the model suing the insulting, sexist blogger

I fail to see how the sexist and demeaning remarks made by a "sociopath" are the most provoking thing about this story. Name a day when that kind of stuff doesn't happen. I'm obviously not saying that such insults are morally sound or intelligent, but it's not exactly big news that some obscure model (or anyone) is being called a skank on some obscure website. People get mocked every day on the internet. I'm sure there are hundreds of pages on MySpace made by kids dedicated to mocking other kids. The same goes for adults on various sites. People are cruel. People are sexist. People are petty. Sure, the guy sounds way over the top, but that's not unusual for the web either. In other words, it's not a story.

To say that we "should reserve our disapproval for the obsessive sociopath behind the site seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Freedom of speech really is more important to the actual story than creepy slurs. By filing the lawsuit the model opened herself to legit criticism and went from being completely sympathetic to seeming, well, kind of dumb. As others have said, there would BE no story if she hadn't sued. And she's not exactly a whistleblower for calling out some sexist, anonymous jerk. The case seems so frivolous--if celebrities can't win in suits where the Weekly World News makes up some outlandish story about them, why would she stand a chance?

It seems like there is more to the story than meets the eye here. I don't think it's so crazy that she may have some suspicions as to who the person is. Also, occasionally people make cynical plays for publicity by claiming to be righteously wounded. Neither of the characters in this little story have perfect moral arguments--it's hard not to disapprove of her lack of respect for the blogger's 1st amendment rights. If all the model was seeking was publicity, she succeeded. If she was actually looking to expose the horrible sexism out there and protect her rep, she certainly had a funny way of doing it.

The real question here is, why are people interested in this story at all? Why are these stories being written? What I think it boils down to is, 1) naughty words and insults, 2) naughty words and insults about a woman, 3) a beautiful model is involved, 4) a stupid lawsuit. In a way it frees writers to sort of call the model a dumb, airheaded skank-ho who is so vain she files lawsuits when people insult her. This seems like the real insult and an interesting thing to write about--much more fascinating than seeing this as a one-sided "Man mean to woman" story. Facile commentary interested solely in the blogger's caveman-like thoughts doesn't add anything useful to the story. In fact it sort of elevates this anonymous blogger, some nobody, to a level s/he certainly doesn't deserve.