Model Sues Google to Reveal Blogger’s Identity

Filed as News on January 6, 2009 9:08 pm

Being called a “skank” or an “old hag” is never easy to swallow. Trust me, I would know.

Model Liskula Cohen, who has represented Giorgio Armani and Versace products, is so pissed off that an anonymous blogger ‘defamed’ her, that she’s suing Google to reveal the writer’s identity.

According to the New York Daily News, the defamation suit seeks a court order compelling Google and its Blogger.com subsidiary to identify whoever led the ‘vicious Internet assault against Cohen.’

The blog at the center of the legal drama is “Skanks in NYC.” We’re sure the legal mess won’t help their wallets but will help the amount of traffic they receive.

This might be preaching to the choir, but I’d love to hear what you guys think about the case.

And remember, refrain from referring to anyone as the “#1 skanky superstar.” Unless of course you’re referring to me. In which case, thank you.

Tags: , ,

This post was written by

You can visit the for a short bio, more posts, and other information about the author.


Submissions & Subscriptions

Submit the post to Reddit, StumbleUpon, Digg or Del.icio.us.

Did you like it? Then subscribe to our RSS feed!



  1. By Nicholl Virtual Assistance posted on January 6, 2009 at 10:37 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I just don’t understand how so many bogus lawsuits even make it to court these days. As far as this one, you know the old saying about if it doesn’t apply let it fly? Well she sure ain’t lettin’ this one go!

    Reply

  2. By Darnell Clayton posted on January 6, 2009 at 11:17 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    My thoughts regarding anonymous blogging reaches as high as the gutter (unless you are blogging from a hostile regime).

    Hey Andrew, is it me, or is everyone too scared to link to the blog post the article is referring to?

    Reply

  3. By Tarheel Rambler posted on January 7, 2009 at 8:17 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    As long as attorneys are able to collect fees on supplying false hope, this kind of litigation will continue. As far as I know, expressing your personal opinion is covered under the Free Speech doctrine. And calling someone a “skamk” or and “old hag” would qualify as personal opinion.

    This poor girl has got bigger problems than someone else’s opinion of her. With self-esteem as low as hers appears to be, she will be downright suicidal if her lawsuit fails and she can’t find out who that terrible person is making those statements about her.

    Reply

  4. By Steve Alter posted on January 7, 2009 at 9:22 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    What ever happened to “Sticks and stones will break your bones but words/names will never hurt me?”

    Reply

  5. By Ellen Kimball posted on January 7, 2009 at 11:06 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I have gone through this little drama several times. At one of the political sites I frequented from 2004 — 2008, moderation by members didn’t work all that well. While PERSONAL ATTACKS were frowned on according to the rules, there was not a lot of control by the owner and the members who volunteered to be moderators. There was an amazing amount of in-fighting and it still continues. “Banning” is the only hold they have over people, and that appears to occur quite frequently.

    Now that I am no longer affiliated there, I have my own blog and moderate the comments. A few months ago, I happened to run into a man whom I believe is deeply disturbed — and possibly incarcerated. I just happened to encounter him at a writer’s site, and while I tried to humor him and so forth, nothing has worked. Last October, he posted some very derogatory text about me, along with a photo stolen from my Photobucket account. He carried it into November, and I have asked him to delete the offending thread. He refuses.

    I do know that Google will do nothing about it through their channels, stating on their site that bloggers’ content is not their responsibility.

    I guess this will be a test case for the Internet. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

    EK

    Reply

  6. By Fern @ Paperback Traveler posted on January 11, 2009 at 4:23 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    The only other internet anonymity/defamation case from NY was the Orthomom case and it was thrown out because the plaintiff didn’t meet her burden of proof with regard to the defamation claims (i.e. the court said that the statements in question were not legally actionable). Although that court did say in dicta that NY should adopt a high burden of proof for internet anonymity cases.

    There was also the Sony case of the anonymous P2P users who were sharing music files. In that case the NY courts said that file sharing was protected speech (but not as highly protected as other forms of speech, such as political speech) and adopted somewhat rigorous protection of anonymous speech on the internet.

    My guess is that Ms. Cohen’s case is going to get dismissed for the same reasons the Orthomom case was dismissed. Calling someone a “skank”–while not very creative and certainly distasteful–is a statement of opinion. Thankfully, you’re still allowed to have opinions in America.

    Reply

  7. By Suzanne posted on January 22, 2009 at 12:17 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    Anonymous Blogging is Anonymous for a Reason…the Blogger believes that by being Anonymous they are protecting themselves from personal attack by others in a personal realm. So to attack others in an anonymous blog…is by all accounts technically being a Coward. We are all entitled to our opinions, and lets face it, we all have them. It is a free country and freedom of speech the last time I checked was still part of being an American. Who hasn’t been called names? And if Skank is the best they could come up with I have a few more…much more…uhhum “Creative” names to suggest? And seriously, who lets name calling get under their skin these days? Even best friends call each other every name they can think of…I have to agree the woman, and I don’t even have a clue who she is; is a bit thin skinned and apparently has ego issues as well. Perhaps she is one who believes that negative publicity and spending boucoup bucks on lawyers and courts is worth getting her name out there. The number of people who would have read the blog would have been nothing compared to the people who will NOW say Oh, that’s that woman everyone says is a Skank! Not too smart if you ask me..not that you did of course…see, we are back to everyone having an Opinion!

    Reply

  8. By Vancde Decker posted on January 31, 2009 at 7:08 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    …since when is a personal opinion, being held up as slander, allowed to make it to court? This is absurd! As usual, the media has not reported the idiot judge or the corrupt lawyer who has allowed this sham to proceed.

    If google rolls over on this then it will a clear sign that they are no longer the malevolent corporation they proclaim to be.

    As for the model, Clearly she is insane. She is considered a celebrity, that’ s part of being a model, and as a celebrity you should expect that people are going to make fun of you for various reasons. how utterly self absorbed in pseudo-importance must you be to have the nerve……

    …stupid skank.

    Reply

  9. By Laura posted on April 16, 2009 at 3:54 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    Must be nice to have the time and money to sue people.

    I think if you put your name into Google and do a search you have to suck it up when you read the results. If your skin is too thin, don’t go looking for random feedback. Just talk to the yes people who will always tell you what you want/ need to hear.

    Reply

  10. By Dee posted on August 21, 2009 at 10:41 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    The issue here is the legal definition of libel. In most states libel must be untrue, meant to do a person harm, and causes a person financial harm. One is allowed to have their personal opinions, but if they qualify according to these criteria, then it can be considered libel. Even if one posts something anonymously, they are still accountable for their words. If someone has been damages financially, then they have every right to sue. Money has been taken out of their pockets. It goes beyond simply having a thick skin. Additionally, Google would be in violation of the law if they refused to honor a court order to reveal the name of the anonymous blogger. If Google refuses, then they can be sued or held in contempt. Therefore, Google, respectfully so, is protecting their own. While this particular model may not have a strong case, we should still respect the rights of those who have been wrongfully damages by libelous statements.

    Reply

    Your words are your own, so be nice and helpful if you can. If this is the first time you're posting a comment, it might go into moderation. Don't worry, it's not lost, so there's no need to repost it! We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it please.

    Current ye@r *