HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

Yeah, I heard about the case of the model who successfully sued Google, in order to get them to reveal the name of an anonymous blogger who’d been mean to her.

Here’s the story from The Times Online:

A Vogue cover girl has won a precedent-setting court battle to unmask an anonymous blogger who called her a “skank” on the internet.

In a case with potentially far-reaching repercussions, Liskula Cohen sought the identity of the blogger who maligned her on the Skanks in NYC blog so that she could sue him or her for defamation.

A Manhattan supreme court judge ruled that she was entitled to the information and ordered Google, which ran the offending blog, to turn it over.

Ms Cohen, a tall, Canadian blonde who has modelled for Giorgio Armani and Versace, went to court after reading the wounding anonymous comments on Google’s Blogger.com.

Now that the blogger has been named-and-not-so-shamed, apparently Cohen’s planning to launch a defamatory suit against her. It’ll be interesting to see how that works out.

According to the first article, Rosemary Port is now planning to sue Google for not protecting her anonymity to the tune of $15m, no less. Seriously?

Here’s what Rosemary Port had to say:

“Before her suit, there were probably two hits on my Web site: One from me looking at it, and one from her looking at it,”

She makes a good point methinks.

In my opinion, Liskula will now always be the model that that blogger called a “skank”, and “an old hag”, and Rosemary Port and her blog will have gotten no end of free publicity, the likes of which she’d have never had, before her identity was revealed. Apparently she’s due to go on Good Morning America for Oprah’s sake.
Port is going to make so much money off this case, that Liskula Cohen will probably end up wondering who really won here.

Do I think it’ll make a blind bit of difference to how the majority of bloggers act online?

Not really.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if some bloggers out there, started to launch random attacks on ‘celebs’, in the hopes of garnering lots of free publicity for their blogs. Suing and being sued, has been the new black for years now in the USA, so nothing would surprise me.

Other bloggers will more than likely simply avoid stating insults as facts, e.g. In my opinion, I think that Liskula Cohen is an old hag.

They’ll then probably just sit back and wait to see if anybody has enough balls to try to sue them for their opinion.

Thanks to Jody Wallace for the tip-off.

17 Comments

  • Suing and being sued, has been the new black for years now in the USA, so nothing would surprise me.

    Isn’t that the truth. The only thing that worrys me is I wonder if because of this someone will be able to twist the law & be able to get info about authors. I know it may be far-fetched but you never know.



  • Ghetto Diva
    August 26
    11:22 am

    People are dying in countries, murderers are let loose as well as pedophiles, and the court system is stupid enough to worry about Liskula being called a skank?

    Hey, some loser called me a “fat slut” over the phone yesterday, even though I have no idea who he was. Hmmm maybe I should have the cops trace his call, so I could sue him.


  • @GhettoDiva. I agree, total waste of time, effort, and money. It’s these kind of rulings that encourage people to try their luck, thus turning America into the most litigious country in the world.


  • Dear Brer Fox,
    beat me with a rubber hose if you want. Roll me in chicken fat and toss me to the wild dogs if you must. You can even throw me in the thorny briar patch. Just plu-leeeeeese don’t call me a skank on the internet and subject me to attention!! For the love of god don’t do that!!
    Yours truly,
    Brer Rabbit
    C/O Bunnies Without Agents
    Modeling Company, Inc.
    Acme Acres, USA



  • DS
    August 26
    5:14 pm

    According to Findlaw, as soon as the model found out who the blogger was she dropped her defamation action. Looking for deeper pockets than she found? http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2009/08/outed-skanks-blogger-rosemary-port-to-sue-google.html



  • Anon76
    August 26
    5:31 pm

    Such a stupid thing, and sooo hard not to watch.

    Perhaps the one chicky dropped her suit once she found out who the blogger was because…well, she’d said nasty-mcnutty things about the blogger to an ex boyfriend before all this happened.

    Is there a difference between dissing a person to a third party, versus dissing them on the net? Interesting.

    Plus, the blogger was also commenting on what she considered inappropriate behaviour in public. Something about a party where pics were taken of the blogged about as she feigned sex with a man (clothed though) in front of everyone. Hmm, I might call someone a skank if I’m at a party and I see a pair dry humping.

    But, that is neither here nor there. I’m watching the case because of it’s implications on the net world and the ability to post or blog as anon. Shoot, most of the newspapers who have an area to respond to a column will have to shut that feature down. Some vile stuff gets thrown around on those.


  • People are dying in countries, murderers are let loose as well as pedophiles, and the court system is stupid enough to worry about Liskula being called a skank?

    Very good point, Ghetto Diva!


  • [...] browsing) that allow completely anonymous speech.  It looks like the accused blogger–Rosemary Port–used her real email address when setting up her “Skanks in New York” blog.  If [...]



  • Kristy
    September 1
    6:55 pm

    I am really concerned about the responses I am reading here. You think that because the victim is a ‘celeb’ that she is not entitled to fight back against hurtful and untrue statements made about her publicly. Obviously, none of you have been a victim of online defamation.
    Well I am; in fact, the offending site is still online, because I do not have the money to hire a lawyer to go after the offender.
    First the offender committed copyright infringement against me, and continues to call me names and accuse me of being the ‘criminal.’ BTW, I am in law enforcement, and have been told by my legal department that my ability to testify may be compromised by the slanderous statements made by this individual. Even though none of it is true, it mat be used by defense to ‘muddy the waters.’
    Until you are in the shoes of the victim, you cannot know the harm this can due (and by the way, being called a name over the phone is not slander; the statements must be made in a public forum, and cause potential damage to your reputation).
    I honestly hope that this never happens to any of you that think that this is no big deal.


  • Kristy, while I am sorry you have been slandered and your copyright violated, I must object to this: saying hurtful things is not illegal. Unless it’s hate speech, which I don’t believe the case above is remotely related to.



  • Kristy
    September 1
    7:54 pm

    AztecLady,
    What is posted about me has gone far beyond ‘hurtful things.’
    My supervisor came to me after finding these comments and criminal accusations about me on the Internet (I am no celebrity, but I have built a professional reputation, and am a recognized expert in my field)
    When Googling my name, the first ‘hit’ is this libelous and slanderous webpage.
    My supervisor was the one that informed me that this may be affect my value as a testimonial witness (law enforcement are often called upon to testify).
    This amounts to the very definition of Internet defamation.


  • Kristy, I repeat that I am sorry for your circumstances, I was going by this statement in your first comment:

    she is not entitled to fight back against hurtful and untrue statements made about her publicly

    Further, I don’t believe any of the people who have so far commented have a problem with a person who has been the victim of either libel or slander (one is written, the other oral, by the way) to seek redress.

    But going from that to setting a precedent to strip protection from anonymous speech… Slippery slope, if you ask me.



  • Hank
    October 27
    12:08 am

    Lee Baker (CMLP) has blogged extensively on this case and is opposed to the judge’s decision. Lee Baker is an openly gay man who is active on some of the largest gay forums. Lee Baker hails from Toronto, Canada, which is a very gay-friendly city. Lee Baker, it would seem, would be more compassionate towards a person such as Liskula Cohen who has been the victim of sexual innuendo on the internet. Lee Baker is not a lawyer, but a second-year law student. I am amazed that anyone takes his blogs seriously, based upon his status as a foreigner and a non-lawyer. Maybe Lee should consider finishing law school in Toronto since he is obviously over his head on U.S. legal issues.



  • Morris
    November 26
    11:00 pm

    Today is Thanksgiving and Lee Baker of CMLP is eating cock!



  • Carmen
    November 30
    12:25 am

    Today is the Sunday after Thanksgiving and Lee Baker of Citizen Media Law Project is eating cock leftovers! Lee Baker will eat any cock, leftover or not.



  • Snazz
    December 8
    2:43 pm

    Lee Baker of CMLP is an arrogant, little prick who sucks professorial cock, if you know what I mean. Whoever heard of a foreign, failing law student expounding so vociferously on each and every U.S. lawsuit filed since the beginning of time? Oh, Toronto, why did you sick this demented, deranged bastard on the good ole’ U.S.A.? Do you really hate us that much?


  • I’m a bit fed up with the vitriol that some imbecile has been posting in the comments here. After placing three such streams of garbage in moderation, I’m turning the comments off.

    Anyone who feels the overwhelming need to protest my decision is free to take it up with Karen (and good luck there).


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.