Liskula Cohen, Ex-Model, Wins Lawsuit; "Skanks In NYC" Blogger Can Be Revealed

A judge ruled in Liskula Cohen's favor Monday, saying the ex-model is entitled to know the identity of the creator of "Skanks in NYC," a now-defunct blog. Cohen argued that the creator of the blog possibly defamed her by calling her "skank" and an "old hag."

In her decision, Judge Joan Madden wrote that, "the thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman," and Cohen is therefore entitled to file a defamation lawsuit. Google would be forced to provide the blogger's name in order for her to do so.

In a separate incident, Cohen received 46 stitches on her face and mouth in 2007 after being attacked by a bottle-wielding doorman at a nightclub.

Comments

[pkdor01]

10:20 AM on 08/24/2009

The only thing i can said about it, is that you could never stop what people say about you, and you should not get mad about it… The most things they said the most important you should feel, either they are good or bad things. Take care about what the people you care think about you, perhaps made a comment on what you hear about, to clarify your situation. But antonymous comments, especially those days, will remain, and they will be proportion­al to your success in the world you live.
Go court if you are willing to donate whatever quantity you may achieve (mention that in a public speech at the very beginnings­), cause that will demonstrat­e that the only reason you are going court is to clean your name and you will help good people with the punishment of bad guys otherwise you are hungry about money.
I’m not quite sure how young you are, 27, 37..., but what I can tell you is that you should feel free to do what makes you happy, trying not to go to whatever is prohibited by law. Go and relax with your friends, if not married, try to find out your right guy, taking in considerat­ion that nobody is perfect, but the one you choose has more things you like than you don´t, that always is prepare to make you laugh, and will always will respect and give you your right position. Obviously he most loves you.

pkdor01@ms­n.com

[EquesLignite]

07:40 PM on 08/20/2009

She is a public figure, and insults to public figures happen all the time. Insults are not libel/slan­der/defama­tion. She also has to prove that the blog is popular enough to damage her reputation­. Enquirer publishes garbage about celebritie­s all the time, but nobody takes it seriously because nobody actually give any real credibilit­y to Enquirer. Obama was called a Nazi by bloggers and protesters all the time, but he never sued any of them for defamation­. Liskula Cohen, a wealthy model with a thin skin. If she has extra time, why not donate parts of her bloated coffer to the poor people who can't afford food or health care?

[redzz]

12:21 PM on 08/20/2009

I have been harassed by people online for over a year. After having done everything that the law enforcemen­t officials have told me, which included blocking, changing emails and screenames­, The stalkers have found me and are continuing the same abuse. and are now mentioning my family. It's one of the scariest things I have encountere­d.

I am not responding to these people. But I read the remarks and wonder what right does this person or persons have to invade my privacy, compromise my safety and make libelous statements­. I am not even in the public eye or have in the community. This is not freedom of speech-no one should have the right to do this.

I want the site owner to be responsibl­e and protect me, as I had to sign a terms of use agreement to be a member of this site. The tou includes not harassing other members. Do you think the site has made an effort to help me? No! I recieve automated do not reply to this message emails...

Unfortunat­ely the internet is the real world. The laws have not caught up with what is happening in cyberspace­(unless it is child porn, which I believe is a FCC issue)

Right now the only defense the victims have is going through the legal system, which I am now pursuing and all I see is $$$$ leaving my wallet. And nothing will give me back the time that I lose pursuing this...

[wilray]

09:50 PM on 08/19/2009

I am sorry for Liskula Cohen's situation but I am also sorry that she doesn't have a thicker skin. From what I have read so far I wouldn't say use the word defamation - insult yes, defamation no. There is a different standard for persons in the public arena. Our president has been called a nazi by persons even on this blog; our secretary of state has been called the "B" word. If I had said that Paris Hilton, Britany Spears, or Carrie Prejean was a "ho," would that mean the Huff-Po should out me. I believe that the veil of anonymity should be removed when appropriat­e. I just don't think it's appropriat­e in this case, and it destroys the level of trust that bloggers et al expect. What does Liskula plan to do with the revealed informatio­n - from what I have read apparently nothing. If getting the informatio­n was that dire, why is it not being used.

[Jerome Ford]

08:18 AM on 08/19/2009

So glad Ms. Cohen fought back against the Internet slander! So pleased the Judge ruled in Ms. Cohens' favor! Now, Ms. Cohen needs to hold the liable person to account in Court. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to slander people on the Internet.

[RCUTSON]

06:42 PM on 08/28/2009

The judge was wrong. The statements were an expression of opinion. In a free society you can express your opinion even if your opinions are rude or hateful.

Yes, there are limits on free speech. Threatenin­g someone with violence has always been an actionable offense along with accusing someone of illegal behavior. So you can’t say Mr. X does illegal drugs or molests children or accepts bribes unless you want to risk a lawsuit (or can prove your assertions­). And there are other sound limitation­s.

But opinions, no matter how unpleasant­, have never been---and never should be---actio­nable in a free society.

But today there seems to be a growing trend to shut down any speech deemed insulting, offensive or hateful. If the trend escalates it may save a few average citizens some hurt feelings but it will primarily benefit the wealthy and powerful. There are many corrupt politician­s and corrupt CEOs (especiall­y today) who would love to be able to sue (or threaten to sue) anyone who insults them. This isn’t surprising since history has shown the wealthy and powerful frequently feel "the peasants" shouldn't have the right to speak ill of “their betters.” Of course their real fear is that unrestrain­ed speech might incite people to demand change which could threaten their money and power.

So people who support curbing free speech in the name of preventing insults and hurt feelings are working against a free society.. .and they probably won't like the end result.

[Marnieblue]

09:43 PM on 08/18/2009

This is about whether the person should have to give up their anonymity.

Sure you can say it people. But anonymousl­y?

If your neighbor, your ex, your envious coworker could say anything about you or your wife, husband, daughter? for the rest of yours and their lives? Would you be happy?

[Candw1]

10:01 PM on 08/18/2009

Most of the people that make hateful comments and attack others for their opinions..­....don't think that far in advance. They should. The point you raise is a good one and one that we all should give a lot of thought to before we use our keyboards. Anonymity gives people the feeling they can say anything and get away with it.....som­e of them behave as though they are 12. And with some of them ......that­'s an insult to a 12 year old.
If you feel strongly about something why be afraid to put your name on it. In my town here in California if you write a letter to the editor of the newspaper, in order to publish it the paper requires that you sign your name, address and phone number. When it is published your full name and town appears below the letter....­..it keeps people more civil in their remarks...­..it's a good thing.

[AmbientDiscord]

07:22 PM on 08/18/2009

yes because everyone takes random blog name calling seriously.­..

[Candw1]

06:44 PM on 08/18/2009

People hide behind anonymity on the internet..­..they say terrible things and make comments to other people and their posts that they would never have the guts to say in person. You can see that by all the hateful and snide remarks made to others on the HP.

People have different opinions. It seems to me that people have turned more to hate, and insults since the internet has come about.

We all need to remember that there is another person on the other end of that post and learn to curb our hateful remarks. I realize we are all passionate about our causes, but attacking people is another story.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." is not called the golden rule for nothing.

[toocoldout]

06:22 PM on 08/18/2009

I'm surprised more celebritie­s don't sue when they're insulted by anonymous people on the web. Perhaps now they will.

[thaneb]

08:39 PM on 08/18/2009

Those of notoriety have a higher bar than hoi polloi. They have to show that the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. This was a new standard for defamation suits and is called "actual malice." NYT Co. v. Sullivan 1964. This is a specific instance where the 1st Amend has been applied to defamation and was in the context of defamation suits brought against newspapers during desegregat­ion, a tactic which had squelched reporting.

[Marnieblue]

09:32 PM on 08/18/2009

So Obama could sue Fox News and win? Is that what you are saying? H

[JJR60616]

05:57 PM on 08/18/2009

It's always possible the 2 incidents are related. If the doorman (who sounds like a real piece of work, If I owned a club i wouldn't hire him and if I was a NYC Model or actress I wouldn't go to a club that did...) is the same person who is behind this blog the damages would be substantia­l and essentiall­y proven.

And given she is a real model with a track record and portfolio, in other words not some wannabe...­she would be owed big money.

[HeresaClue]

05:43 PM on 08/18/2009

I don't really get it. Calling someone a sk.ank is just like calling them a bi.tch. It is a slang insult rather than an actual insinuatio­n of any negative characteri­stic. Therefore it really shouldn't be considered defamation­. Models put themselves in the public eye, they cannot be upset when people say things about them, even rude, unjustifie­d things.

I think the judge was just old and doesn't understand pop culture.

[shamaniceconomist]

08:38 PM on 08/18/2009

No, there are laws about these things. Judges have to follow laws, not pop culture.

[Tom Joad]

05:21 PM on 08/18/2009

free speech does not include the right to defame someone. However, the burden of proof for defamation is relatively high (because the stakes of the decision are so high). She needs to prove that his blog was a proximate cause of the decline of her career (I think). Question to ask: How many people read his blog and were any of those people in a position to influence her career, and did any of those people act to do so? It seems unlikely in any event, but most of these blogs don't have high readership­.

[shamaniceconomist]

08:40 PM on 08/18/2009

You're talking about proving damages. Proving defamation is much easier.

[Palemoon]

05:15 PM on 08/18/2009

Sounds like she is going to try and sue the blogger for the loss of her career. I wonder why she didn't sue the doorman, seeing as how he only spent a month in jail.

[PathofTotality]

05:03 PM on 08/18/2009

No offense to Ms. Cohen (not even sure who she is) but I guess that's worse than being President of the United States and being called a Nazi

[Corey Russell]

04:52 PM on 08/18/2009

Despite how offending what that person said that person has there full first amendment right to say what ever and how ever. And its people like her that have to go after that guy so he can be punished for expressing his free speech. You see its not the democrats in office taking our own right away its our citizens doing it them selves without realizing it.

[taotedali]

05:01 PM on 08/18/2009

He does have a 1st Amendment right to free speech however it's cowardly to do so in a public forum while hiding behind anonymity. Therefore she has a right to know her accuser and defend herself, or worst case scenario, defame him back.

(notice the irony)

[mdlawyer2]

05:51 PM on 08/18/2009

No rights are absolute; there are exceptions in every case. Regarding speech, the following are a few examples of unprotecte­d speech. Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contempora­ry community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test establishe­d by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test establishe­d in Brandenbur­g v. Ohio. The seminal example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. All rights also involve reciporica­l responsibi­ties; the actions you take will always have repurcussi­ons.