[Phillips:] Republicans want it, a two-word message from the White House responding to reports that if all else fails, Democrats may pass health care reform alone. They have the votes if they stick together and especially if they use a special procedure that takes away the possibility of a filibuster. Still, the White House says it wants a bipartisan bill and isn't giving up.
[Gibbs:] The president believes strongly in working with Republicans and Democrats, Independents, any that seek to reform health care, that want to see costs cut, coverage increased, insurance reforms implemented that no longer discriminates against families and individuals. The president strongly believes that we're making progress.
[Phillips:] Folks on both sides of the health care debate are trying to be heard online and in town halls and maybe even in the streets of your town. In Northern Virginia, for instance, some supporters of the public option, rather, are going door to door to discuss it. Our photojournalist Jeremy Moorhead tags along for the latest in our "Health Care In Focus" series.
[Unidentified Female:] we're just going to load up with voter guides.
[Unidentified Male:] Should we start at the top of the street?
[Webber:] We're on Cedarwood right now, right?
[Huennekens:] These people look good.
[Webber:] That will be closer.
[Huennekens:] We're volunteers with the Virginia Organizing Project, a statewide nonpartisan social justice group.
[Unidentified Male:] Good luck, Paul.
[Huennekens:] I have the odd side of the street, and Allie's going to take the evens. Just going to go up to the house, knock on the door and talk with people about health care reform. On our clipboard is the name of registered voters in the neighborhood. And we data-entry just the information, how they feel about health care reform.
[Webber:] We go to every house, though.
[Huennekens:] We go to every house.
[Webber:] We don't just go to the registered voters' houses. Nobody was home.
[Huennekens:] Our goal is trying to get people to call Senator Mark Warner, our Virginia senator, and get him on board with supporting a public option.
[Webber:] Usually, if we knock on maybe 100 doors, usually about 20 will answer. Ten will talk to you. I am just going to see if someone is still living here. I'm Atlee Webber. One of the main issues we're working on this summer is health care reform. On a scale of one to five, five being most important, how important is that in your opinion?
[Unidentified Male:] That's a four.
[Webber:] All right. Do you know if you'd support a public health option that would compete with private health insurance plans?
[Unidentified Male:] Depending on how it was structured, yes.
[Webber:] You know, a lot of people are worried about losing their health care insurance. And we assure them that they could keep their private insurance if they wanted to, but there would be a public option available to people who aren't as fortunate as them.
[Huennekens:] A lot of people we talk to think it means Canadian- style single payer, where the government will provide for everyone. And so, just informing people, assuring people that it is a public option. You don't have to you can keep your private insurance if you're happy with it.
[Webber:] And a lot of people have never called their senator before. So, that's always really exciting when we get someone to get involved who never was involved before, didn't feel like they could be involved.
[Phillips:] Well, if you want to get involved in the health care debate or at least get educated on the details, check out CNN.comhealth care. There's a ton of resources for you, including fact checks, town hall schedules, and yes, you can even read the bills that Congress is arguing about, all 1,600 pages of them. Name-calling, it's the oldest form of bullying in the book. But it's now at the heart of a lawsuit that could change what you can post online. Let me begin with Exhibit A, gorgeous former "Vogue" model Lescula Cohen. But if you read an anonymous blog, Skanks in NYC, she is called a "skank" and a "ho," among other things. Well, she was pretty upset, and rightfully so. Exhibit B, Google, the company behind the Internet search engine that you use online every day. Cohen took Google to court. What did she want? The name of the anonymous person who called her names on its site, blogger.com. Well, a judge ruled that Google did indeed have to give up information. So, Google did. Now, Lescula Cohen says that she's suing the blogger for defamation. And on ABC's "Good Morning, America," Diane Sawyer asked her, with all the stuff out there on the Web, why didn't she just let this go?
[Lescula Cohen, Defamed Online:] Why should anybody let it go? If somebody attacks somebody on the street, you're not going to let it go. If somebody attacks you personally, your not going to let it go. Why should I let it go? Why? Why should I just ignore it? I couldn't find one reason to ignore it. So I didn't.
[Phillips:] Well, a lawyer for the blogger says that her client has voluntarily taken down the Web site, which brings us to Exhibit C. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley joins me now live from Washington. OK, John, now, I agree with you. I think this could be a pretty fascinating torts case. What do you think?
[Professor Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law School:] It is very interesting because it really gets in that difficult question of balancing between the need for anonymity and free speech and to protect people like this former model. The great concern is that it will also sweep into more protected areas, for example, whistle-blowers who use anonymity to make statements against powerful individuals or organizations. Anonymous critics of people like the Church of Scientology or more litigious organizations. I think they are concerned that this is going to open the door for these individuals to pursue them and to strip them of anonymity.
[Phillips:] But truth remains a defense here, right? And there's a big difference between exposing somebody who's corrupt and doing something horrible to somebody than just some coward that, you know, has an issue with somebody and wants to call her horrible names that have no truth to it?
[Turley:] Well, that's right. Truth is always a defense. I mean, he could argue that "I could prove she's a skank," but I doubt he'll do that. And for good reason.
[Phillips:] Oh, it's a she, by the way.
[Turley:] Oh, it is a she?
[Phillips:] Yes. We found out the blogger is a she. And actually, Lescula did and called her up and said, hey, you know, why did you do this? And apparently, according to Lescula, she said the blogger told her that she didn't know what she was talking about and said that the two women should not speak to each other except in the presence of their attorneys. And then that was it. But the next thing you knew, the blog was taken off the Web.
[Turley:] Well, you know, it's interesting, because the courts have dealt with these types of name-calling cases. Roby, a well- known case, deals with the meaning of "slut." And so, we often have to deal with the lowest common denominator in the law. But what's interesting about this, Kyra, is that usually, name- calling like this is treated like opinions. Calling a model a skank, many people would view is like calling a politician corrupt. That it's an opinion that is usually protected. You cross the line when you make a statement of fact. You don't just simply say a politician is corrupt, but you make some reference to money in an envelope. And then you have something to answer for. So, what's interesting about this case is that when you look at these attacks, they're juvenile, they're vicious, but they're generally not the type of thing that you see in a major defamation case.
[Phillips:] Well, but these and you know as well as I know, I mean, you and I both have had some pretty horrible things said about us. I mean, you and I that's why I don't like to read these blogs, you know. At least these people have the guts, though, to put their names on what they say about me. I don't know about you.
[Turley:] I was recently called Exhibit
[C. Phillips:] There you go. Come on, that was nice.
[Turley:] That was nice.
[Phillips:] C stands for charmer. But seriously, I mean, these type of things have led to people losing work, getting fired, you know, getting talked about in other circles that have been we've sort of watched this unfold, I mean, even here within our business. So, do you think that something she has something here? Now that we've seen a development, could this lead to something bigger, and could these anonymous bloggers, who as you well know, are extremely unfair, and so many of them are just making things up, and it's not factual. Could they be held accountable, finally?
[Turley:] Well, they can. The question is what limits there are. And what's surprising is that you have here a public figure. And usually public figures are subject to a thing called the New York times versus Sullivan test, which you're very familiar with, which is basically saying that you even if something is untrue, it's still not defamation unless the person acted with actual malice. Now, there does seem to be actual malice here. But it's a little surprising to see a public figure respond to such name-calling. But you're absolutely right, there's no sympathy towards this person. The only concern is, how far will this swing? To what extent will the next person who is making claims against a politician or a company find themselves in court and having their anonymity stripped? To what extent will whistle-blowers be reluctant to go to the Internet? I mean, the Internet is the most important development of free speech in decades, maybe in the history of our species. It is an amazing tool that allows people to participate in politics, to have their voices heard. And so, there is a concern that cases like this could create a chilling effect.
[Phillips:] But there's and there's also so many people, Jonathan, as you well know, that whether it's Wikipedia or these blogs, or...
[Turley:] Oh, yes.
[Phillips:] ... other, you know, that have that don't show their face, their name, their credentials. You don't know who the heck they are, and they make things up. And it just it's so unfair.
[Turley:] No, you're very right.
[Phillips:] Well, we'll continue to follow this. It will be interesting to see how it develops and what kind of impact it has. In the meantime, I'll only write nice things about you, Jonathan.
[Turley:] Thanks, Kyra.
[Phillips:] Good to see you.
[Turley:] Okey doke.
[Phillips:] Well, Lescula Cohen will be a live guest with Campbell Brown. That's tonight at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN. The stress of combat on the battlefield and at home. Teaching soldiers the skills they need to survive. A new program we're going to tell you about.