VOGUE MODEL LISKULA COHEN WINS RIGHT TO UNMASK OFFENSIVE BLOGGER

UK TIMESONLINE ^ | 8-19-09 | James Bone

[CougarGA7]

Sarge, I thought I told you to stop playing those games. It’ll rot your brain.

[CholeraJoe]

Butterface! Everything but her face looks pretty good!

[RichInOC]

Not guilty, pending further evidence.

[GeronL]

skank. sooo meee.

[1000 silverlings]

We’d better inform the Whitehouse, this smells fishy

[GeronL]

wait a second. I am not anonymous, I use my real name... oops

[Lazamataz]

[dangerdoc]

Her skankitude will remain unremarked upon until the results of her lawsuit are available for review.

[PapaBear3625]

She has an unattractive face, even WITH model makeup. I’d hate to see what she looks like without makeup.

[Sloth]

What a skank.

[1000 silverlings]

good grief, is that 5 o’clock shadow?

[xzins]

If she’s the photo at #6, then she does look like a skank. My def of a skank is a girl that dresses like that. Besides, when she took on a public role, putting pictures out for the world to evaluate, then she pretty well gave up any right to get worked up over comments on her appearance.

Internet users utilize aliases to protect their security, a need that every police officer will tell you is legit.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Is Ms. Cohen any relation to Rula Lenski?

[Mr. K]

I don’t know from skany but she is certainly NOT GUILTY

[ladyjane]

She poses with her breasts showing and then gets upset when called a skank.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Cue theme song from the movie “Mannequin.”

[BigBobber]

So all the people who post negative on-line reviews of products can now be sued by the manufacturers?

This judge is out of her mind.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your concerns, dear sister in Christ!

For lack of tort reform, people seem to view lawsuits like lottery tickets. So I expect them to continue to search for damages anywhere they can.

[KrisKrinkle]

http://internetdefamationblog.com/?p=96

 

Fourth paragraph:

 

Look carefully at the comments. Defamation arises when someone falsely accuses someone else of, basically, illegal, immoral or unethical conduct. The comments don’t charge her merely with being a skank, but claim she is psychotic, a liar and a whore. The action would never have survived review if all that had been said is that she is a skank. That term is ill-defined and nebulous enough that arguably one could from the pictures form the opinion that word is an appropriate description. But what is the justification for the remainder of the remarks? What is the factual basis for calling her psychotic, or saying she is a lying whore? The comments go far beyond calling her a skank.

 

 

[Verbosus]

Gosh - if you can be sued for calling this woman a skank,
think of what could happen if you were truthful about
Michelle’s looks.

No wonder the media lies about her.