Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VOGUE MODEL LISKULA COHEN WINS RIGHT TO UNMASK OFFENSIVE BLOGGER
UK TIMESONLINE ^ | 8-19-09 | James Bone

Posted on 08/21/2009 10:39:30 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg

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.

Justice Joan Madden rejected the blogger’s claim that the blogs “serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting”, and should not be treated as factual assertions...

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: internet; lawsuit; ruling; weblogs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last
To: Dr. Eckleburg

On one hand, I agree that this appears to be an assault on privacy. On the other hand, I think that if you’re not willing to say something to a person’s face, maybe you should just shut up (not you, but in general).

A big problem with the Internet is a lack of civility that we normally observe in f-2-f interpersonal relations. Anonymity allows that better than anything else.


61 posted on 08/21/2009 1:07:12 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Tough to get a conviction based on definition of skank IMO.

Definitions of skank on the Web:

* filth: any substance considered disgustingly foul or unpleasant
* dance the skank
* a rhythmic dance to reggae music performed by bending forward and extending the hands while bending the knees
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


62 posted on 08/21/2009 1:12:14 PM PDT by outhousepatrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; Dr. Eckleburg
Is it even POSSIBLE to defame Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy?

Nope.

At least not according to present law. They're Public Figures. That was the USSC ruling in Fallwell v. Flint.

Not that i agree, i do remember something about equal protection under the law once upon a time. Guess it only applies to select individuals.

63 posted on 08/21/2009 2:07:15 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord

I just meant considering the deeds in their lives, it’d be hard to say anything malicious that would actually impune their character. There isn’t much lower that they could go.


64 posted on 08/21/2009 2:09:34 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Barry Falsewitness is proud of his "healthy skepticism" of organized religion. He's a deceiver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; Dr. Eckleburg
I just meant considering the deeds in their lives, it’d be hard to say anything malicious that would actually impune their character. There isn’t much lower that they could go.

Have to tell you that the fact that the two individuals you named are ELECTED to national political office scares the hell out of me.

Why is it that regardless of party, the American Electorate continues to reelect career politicians to represent us, when they would NOT trust the same individuals to babysit their children?

Truly frightening.

65 posted on 08/21/2009 2:15:21 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I don’t have any problems with this ruling. Either the statement is true, in which case the writer has an absolute defense, or it’s false, in which case it is libel per se.

The first thing the defense would need to do is to set up a video deposition of the lady in question. Her past, if any, is going to be an open book. Either she’s going to turn out to be as pure as the driven snow, or she’s looking for publicity - any publicity.


66 posted on 08/21/2009 2:29:21 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord

Not totally accurate - you could defame them, but for public figures the falsehood that constitutes the defamation must be either made maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth. For nonpublic figures, the malicious/reckless disregard standard does not apply. So it’s a higher burden of proof if you’re a public figure.


67 posted on 08/21/2009 3:26:58 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Laz, you must have the hairiest palms on God’s Green Earth.


68 posted on 08/21/2009 8:10:39 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson