Standard Hotel -- New York -- Free Sex Shows

There are plenty of reasons to go to New York without ever thinking about visiting the Standard Hotel in New York City. However, if being part of a little bit of voyeurism and exhibitionism is your thing, then perhaps the Standard Hotel is the perfect reason to be heading to NYC.

The Standard Hotel is called "plush" by many however it is the floor-to-ceiling windows that seem to be the biggest attraction for those on the inside and those wanting to have a little peek in from the outside. Why? Well, it seems that the windows have inspired guests and staff alike to partake in the odd free sex show. Free for those looking in from the outside and there is a growing number of those.

The guests pay for the pleasure of staying there. Yet, they also provide a great deal of free pleasure to those stressed out New Yorkers and tourists to the "Big Apple" by stepping out of the shower and toweling down in front of the windows whilst bearing all their wares to the world outside. It is even being reported that some guests have gotten into the act by pleasuring themselves whilst in front of the windows. Supposedly, there are even reports, and perhaps a video, of guest making a porn flick.

The authorities know the score and know that it is going on. An employee with the Parks Department noted that there has been an influx and a significant increase in 'voyeurs' heading to the park to watch the free exhibitions many stories up in the Standard Hotel.

It is unclear whether the Hotel's owners or management condone the activities. However, some staff said that there has been encouragement for the activities as a way of creating buzz for the hotel and perhaps as a means of generating business. Perhaps a food and drinks stall somewhere in the park might be a good way of capitalizing on the increasing numbers of people milling around to catch a glimpse or two of an erotic peep show.

Not all people are happy with the free sex shows. Yet, it would seem that a great majority are happy for them to continue.

I am not sure that the free sex shows are worth a ticket to NYC. But, if someone was willing to pay for me to get there I would be more than happy to write a review of the experience.

Maybe it is time to diversify my skills and get paid for my writing :D

Anonymous Blogger -- Outed By the Courts & Google...

This is a follow-up to an earlier post on anonymous blogging and whether one can be truly anonymous when they blog, particularly if they are writing content that offends someone and they decide to take legal action. You can read that post here.

The anonymous blogger is Rosemary Port, a 29-year-old fashion student from New York, and she is so unhappy about Google giving up her identity and breaching her right to privacy that she is allegedly going to sue Google for USD 15 million.

Port's lawyer, Salvatore Strazzullo, seems to think that the case has enough legs to get all the way to the US Supreme Court. The arguments that Strazzullo are going to run with revolve around the fact that Google has "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her [Port] expectation of anonymity".

However, the other likely angles include that Cohen had a hand in publishing the sexually provocative pictures of herself and that the defamation action was nothing more than an attempt drum up some publicity for herself and defame Port into the bargain. Furthermore, Cohen has described herself as a "serial monogamist". Interesting choice of words to accompany the pictures posted of her.

This case would seem to have some ways to go.

A long story short, Port created a blog called "Skanks in NYC" and it seems that the only 'skank' Port focused on was Liskula Cohen. Cohen was offended and felt she had been defamed but was unable to proceed with any claim against the person doing the defaming because the blog was anonymous. Jumping forward, Cohen sues Google to get the identity of the anonymous blogger, the court decides that Google must hand over the identity, Google hands over the identity, and Port is outed.

Strangely enough, Cohen has 'forgiven' Port and pretty much brushed the matter off as Port being "an irrelevant person in my life". It would seem she knew Port, but obviously they were far from being friends. Although, they seem to have known each other well-enough that Cohen was comfortable allegedly trashing Port to Port's ex-boyfriend. Ahhhhh, the lives of models and fashion students.

It will be interesting to see if all the talk of taking this case all the way to the US Supreme Court comes to fruition.

How Anonymous Are You Really When You Blog?

Here is some food for thought for those of you out there, me included, who blog and say things that may or may not be considered defamatory.

A model, Liskula Cohen, has successfully sued Google for the name of an anonymous blogger who she alleges defamed her on a blog hosted by Google. The blog was called Skanks in NYC. The essence of the defamation case is that the anonymous blogger called Cohen a "skank" and an "old hag".

The anonymous blogger identified Cohen as the "skankiest in NYC". This was then followed with, "How old is this skank? 40 something? She's a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank." I am guessing that this does not leave much to one's imagination. Is it defamatory? On face value, probably.

However, there are defenses to defamation that if the decision survives appeal, assuming there is one, then the anonymous blogger would likely be arguing an extension of what the blogger's lawyer has put forward so far, namely: this was mere opinion and "trash talk" rather than any intent to defame. The extension here would be to argue that, in essence, what has been said is in fact true.

Judge Joan Madden has ruled in favour of Cohen and has ordered that Google must provide the name of the anonymous blogger. It is expected that the name of the anonymous blogger is to be revealed in court as a means of allowing Cohen to proceed with her defamation action against the currently anonymous blogger. According to Judge Madden the assertions made were that Cohen was sexually promiscuous and the accompanying photos on the blog bore this intent out sufficiently well.

Cohen's modelling career was seemingly cut short when she was glassed in 2007. The resulting injuries required 46 stitches to close the wounds. Cohen was glassed when she objected to some drunk bloke stealing a bottle of vodka off her table. The bloke decided his best course of action in response to this objection was to glass Cohen in the face. The bloke was sent to jail, and deservedly so.

The case is interesting because of the potential implications. These implications are that anyone who thinks they are blogging anonymously may not be so anonymous after all. There are undoubtedly many techno savvy individuals out there with the knowledge and means of ratcheting up their anonymity to make discovery of their true identities even more difficult or impossible.

I am not one of them. I have enough trouble just using the features of blogger to be worried about whether I am anonymous or not. That said, I am using my real name to blog. So, if I have defamed you then you know where I reside in cyberspace.

There is a belief that this decision will open the floodgates to litigation and defamation claims based on comments written online that people do not agree with. This would seemingly be the case.

It is worth noting that the blog in question was shut down in March of this year. The blog contained only five entries and all of them related to Cohen. My guess is that the anonymous blogger is likely someone she knows or someone she has had some acquaintance with. Alternatively, it is, or was, a cyber-stalker which is a scary thought.

Something for all you anonymous bloggers out there to consider is this statement from Google:

"We sympathise with anyone who may be the victim of cyber bullying. We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order." So, make sure you re-read the privacy statement from Google again if you thought what you clicked guaranteed your absolute privacy.

Food for thought.