Canadian model Liskula Cohen has sued Google for a number of snarky remarks that were made by a blogger using the company’s Blogger service. The NY Daily News reports that the former Vogue cover girl has been called ’skanky’ and ‘an old hag’ by an anonymous blogger on a website called Skanks in NYC (could be deemed NSFW).
The defamation suit, filed in Manhattan, seeks a court order compelling Google and its Blogger service to identify the anonymous blogger. Google declined to discuss any specifics, only responding to the claim by saying they sympathize with victims of cyberbullying but “take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order”, so we’ll leave you with a quote from Cohen instead:
“I’m tall, I’m blond, I’ve been modeling for many years, and people get jealous,” she said. “If I had to deal with everyone who is jealous, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else.”
While some people are quick to dismiss that the model would have a case, and that she’s just looking for attention, I’m not so sure. It’s nearly impossible to identify bloggers who don’t reveal their real name without the help of the companies that maintain publishing platforms, and a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding what people can say anonymously just because they’re using the internet to say it.
The attacks on the blog are rather personal and vicious, and they’re targetting Cohen almost exclusively. As Ars Technica points out, the model will need to demonstrate defamation twice: once to show that she has a sufficient case that the identity of the blogger should be unmasked, and then again for suing the blogger directly.
Seriously, does she think this is going to go anywhere? This happens every single day to people (models and non-models, I’m sure). I’ve never heard of her, have you?
I have never heard of her either LOL.
I am going to make her a star with my blog!
Now u do. Job done!
If Tubby and The Skank had kids, they would be fantastically unattractive—and equally unsuccessful in their respective ongoing litigation.
We haven’t forgotten you, Fat Man.
I don’t think she can do much legally unless it has hurt her career financially– and that can be very hard to prove.
In the law, truth is an absolute defense to libel, so the fact that she IS skanky actually undermines her case more than the fact that she wasn’t damaged by the assertion.
The fact that we have never heard of her may actually help her in this case. The legal standard for defamation is much more difficult for public figures. Not sure the details of the law, but something I remember learning back in law school.
“I’m tall, I’m blond, I’ve been modeling for many years, and people get jealous,” she said. “If I had to deal with everyone who is jealous, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else.”
Please join me in laughter.
’nuff said.
This case will be interesting to follow, I hope you guys post up some content along the way.
I’m kind of confused. I’m not an attorney or anything either, but is it illegal to say mean things about someone on your own personal blog?
I could understand if this was like a NY Times article alleging she was a “skank”, but how is this guy putting it out there on his blog any different than me walking up to my coworker and saying someone was skanky?
It _is_ illegal to say mean things about someone or some company.
According to federal laws, you are not allow to libel, slander, demean, lie, distribute graphical images, etc. If caught, you will be imprisoned.
I guess you could get into an argument about the definition of a “skank” then.
So does that mean if someone makes some sort of mocking video edit of, say, the Bush Shoe Throwing fiasco and posts it to youtube, he can get sued?
Adam Welch, famed cattle humper and tiny pecker owner, also bludgeoned my grandma on Christmas Eve.
He blamed it on his fantastically tiny JohnThomas, which he inherited from his Father, Adam Welch Senior.
“It _is_ illegal to say mean things about someone or some company.”
Actually, it is a violation of CIVIL law to state false derogatory information as fact. If the information is true, or if you are expressing an opinion, then you have violated no law.
“According to federal laws, you are not allow to libel, slander, demean, lie, distribute graphical images, etc. If caught, you will be imprisoned.”
Uh, yeah, okay. Cite, please.
The law also states that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. To say that they think she looks a certain way or reminds them of something is not against the law but if you specifically say that they did something or are something then you can be prosecuted. Thus, one should end all of your troll comments with “… in my opinion” then you will not be breaking the law.
… in my opinion
What a joke. Here in Australia it isn’t uncommon to hear people being described in derogatory terms on TV, print and on the web. Fortunately, we don’t go around suing each other … yet.
We never had road rage until it was given a label either!
Does model = public figure?
She ain’t that hot.
Oh now your going to get sued too. Nice going.
http://www.thedan.us
Technically, she’d have to sue the guys at WordPress now. Or us.
“He ain’t that hot” – fixed.
I can see where his Adam’s apple was ’shopped.
This is a conscious Barbara Streisand effect attempt: http://en.wikip...treisand_effect
To have a case, she needs to prove that the person’s remarks were “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”. How can this hurt her job? It can only help her. I had never heard of her before this came up. Any judge who doesn’t dismiss this is after fame more than she is.
Exactly Len. The fact remains that even if it did hurt her career there is almost no way to prove it. Cases like this will land you some press– that is about it.
Whether you sympathise with her specific plight or not, the suit does raise important more universal questions.
Should bloggers and comment posters be completely anonymous?
What if someone were to post lies about you? Your family? Boyfriend or girlfriend? Child?
Where should the line be drawn? In India, there has been a lot of controversy about Orkut along related lines.
Voting is anonymous….
Actually, none of those are important questions. There is no absolute anonymity now, so that’s out. Lies have been told for eons, nothing new there, you just say it’s a lie. Yeah, I know, it’s the internet so all of the information is rock-solid true, but still you sometimes have to jump through hoops in your day-to-day life. Indian controversy? Some TechCrunch-like hysteria over the president being called untouchable? Also normal.
EH. do you really believe what you are saying? That anyone can post anything online without any worry about the harm that they may cause?
Let’s move away from this case, and examine this view. Let’s imagine some scenarios:
1. You have a 5 year old daughter. Someone posts doctored photos of her getting molested sexually. And then, they post comments calling her a skank and that she deserved it. These photos get distributed all around her school, despite efforts by teachers to control it. Lies have been told for eons, nothing new there.
2. You have a 10 year old daughter. She has been emotionally scarred by the death of her mother in a car accident. Someone decides that it would be fun to anonymously post messages online stating that her mother actually wanted to die because she was sick and disgusted with your daughter. All anonymously. Lies have been told for eons, nothing new there.
I personally think anonymous posters are cowards.
Indeed, I see that you posted anonymously as well.
Coward.
“What if someone were to post lies about you? Your family? Boyfriend or girlfriend? Child?”
Anyone suing mad has to remember calling that person names is out of opinion, not fact. If in fact the blogger can prove this model is a skank for real when she really isn’t, then she has a case for defamation of character. If the blogger stated he or she thought the model is skanky looking or skanky, then that’s a matter of opinion only, and therefore there is no case.
Lastly, I’ve never known anyone to be a skank the same way I’ve known people to be liars or thieves or drug dealers. I don’t understand why she’s upset enough to sue. It’s a matter of opinion. Case closed. If it were me, even through my anger, I would be intelligent enough to know there wasn’t anything I could or should sue over. It’s frivolous and silly. It’s grade school crap, from both parties.
And how do you propose to enforce a ‘no anonymous blogs’ law?
Wake up!
What does google have to do about it? It wasn’t google who wrote it!
It’s like suing the ISP of the pirate who downloads, where the ISP is google(blogger) and the pirate is the blogwriter
It _is_ illegal to say mean things about someone or some company.
According to federal laws, you are not allow to libel, slander, demean, lie, distribute graphical images, etc. If caught, you will be imprisoned.
http://www.jugargame.com
Where did you get that idea?
It’s my opinion that Jason here is not a lawyer.
Sarah jessica parker may have some serious competition. Neeeiiiigggghhhh
sue me but this chick looks like a man
great comment. i lol’ed and don’t need to read any of the rest because i know they won’t be topped. thanks for saving me time.
She doesn’t look like a man, she looks like Ann Coulter, who used to be a man.
Hey – you’re sued …. unless it’s just your opinion that I used to be a man! In which case, what are you doing tonight?
“and a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding what people can say anonymously just because they’re using the internet to say it.”
Yeah… except the 1st amendment. Of course, I’m against the “fire in a theater argument too.
Yah rights.
I haven’t seen a copy of the lawsuit, but the research I’ve done on Section 230 of the Communications Decent Act seem to indicate that Google has no liability. Court decisions have been very favorable to websites and Internet providers to shield them from liability for damages in cases like this. In one case, a blogger was ruled not to be liable for anonymous comments made by a reader. In a California case, an employer was held to be an Internet provider and thus not liable when an employee posted defamatory information while using the employer’s Internet access.
If the comments do rise to the level of defamation, and I am not sure that they do, she should be able to subpoena Google for the information to identify the blogger that made the supposedly defamatory statements. She really should be suing the blogger directly, not Google.
…but if she sued the blogger she would not get any press coverage.
Paris Hilton ruined the sex-tape strategy for everybody.
wait. Isn’t it what she’s trying to do? get a court order to google so she can sue the blogger? Or I’ve understood wrong.
I don’t know if she’ll get that information let alone if she could win against the blogger.
what is interesting is that freedom of speech is still limited in America, even on the web, contrary to what many believe. I’d be interested to know how this turns out.
How come all the comments are about her…
The pussy that owns that blog should step forward. It takes a real douche to take the time and effort to do this to someone. Get a life
Google should expose whoever did it
This blogs sole purpose seems to be to attack this model since all 5 posts on there are about her. Google at the very least should take down the blog.
Martin, if the sole purpose for the blog is to attack her she might have something to work with. However, that ’something’ is probably still not enough. Now if she has asked Google to take the blog down and they have refused more than once I can see them getting wrapped up in it. That said, I still don’t see much happening with this from a legal viewpoint.
Let’s get real. This particular slur is not merely “snarky.” It’s slanderous. At least it’s worth the time and expense to define this offense in court. About time somebody hauled an anonymous idiot into the open and demanded punishment. The law applies to the Web, too.
Now, to rope in all those kids in junior high who write graffiti in the school bathrooms. Genius strategy!
It’s easy to be a jerk when no one knows your name.
#1 This case improperly sued Google. Google will get this thrown out under the CDA Section 230. Just like every other attempt to treat a website as the speaker.
#2 She does NOT need to demonstrate defamation to get a subpoena. If she’d sued Doe, then she could have served Google with a subpoena for the identity. Google would likely not fight this; Yahoo doesn’t, they just notify the user and let them file a motion to deny. If the user doesn’t fight it, then the subpoena proceeds and they turn over all the IP’s of the author. Then the subpoena goes to the ISP who has to turn over the identity of the customer using their service. And so on.
These cases are stupid. People: if an anonymous author defames you, file your lawsuit against John Doe (or Does 1-10) then get a subpoena.
The only reason to sue Google is A) spectacular ignorance on behalf of the attorney, B) desire for publicity.
Who is jealous of this woman?
She looks more like a man.. that said, the people that spout crap anonymously are assholes and need to get a life.
hah. if this case would go through. Perez Hilton and tons of other celebrity blogs would need to call it quit based on that “defamation” argument.
First, she is a skank look at her. and slander has to be a lie, and clearly they are not lies, look at her she is a skank.
Second, it’s obviously her ex-boy/girlfriend. Those aren’t just Google image search pics this guy/girls was there…
They’ll settle. The posts will be changed to call her merely “skanky” rather than “a skank.”
Must be a disgruntled x?
Oh and third, way to attract even more attention to your skankiness…Models, they have such low self esteem, for the record I am not jealous that you are so skanky.
The idea is for her to use the case to become a public figure, and thus allow the kind of criticism she’s now suing over.
By the time I read all the comments I already forgot her name…….she’s a nobody trying to get paid.
hahahhaahah…. this is my old friends ex-GF … the case is going nowhere, sorry liskula but you needa grow some thick skin
The blog doesn’t seem that bad. At least it didn’t say anything about her past sexual life or personal info. Its actually quite mild from other internet harassment. It might just be easier for her to subpoena ex-boyfriends to find the culprit. I’m guessing its someone she knows either personally or from work. She’s probably just concerned about her reputation with google search.
Maybe she is behind it knowing that it will not go anywhere. An extreme attention seeker?
OK, when are we going to stop the nonsense. This is an opinion of a person, hence the use of the term BLOG.
It is one thing to coddle children that the real world doesn’t include mean people (which I don’t totally agree with), but it is another when you are an adult and public figure.
Maybe we should all understand that when we grew up, we got teased and had bad things said about us. We took it and all grew up just as nuts as the rest of society….
She looks like a tranny. WTF
WTFT, This might delay the next Pagerank update since Larry Page has to deal with Liskula
I don’t even know this model.
Oh, come on. . .
Guys love skanks. Skanky girls are the best (really, they are). Why? Well, ’cause their skanky (they’ll go places we want them to go…just not home to Mom)…
It’s not defamatory, it’s an expression of love and desire.
Skanky Catholic Girls are the ultimate, but any Skanky Girl will do, even Skanky ex-models, we’re not choosy, we love them all…any Skank, anywhere…(sorry girls, but this is all true — so, embrace your Inner-Skank and lighten up)…
Defamation suit over.
The BIYATCH is just trying to get publicity. Move on Folks.
It seems like the portrayal on the “anonymous” blog is accurate. This smells like a publicity stunt. Plus, she does have a horse face.
I’d expect better coverage from Techcrunch. Isn’t Arrington a lawyer?
RW: the point is that she should NOT be suing Google or Wordpress. It’s called a John Doe suit. See ChillingEffects.org or whatever.
Let’s put this canard to rest– you sue a website you lose — you sue the person (as John Doe), you can have your day in court. Look it up.
Why are so many people commenting on her looks? Even if the specific case has no merit, do you believe that all anonymous posting should be allowed? That anyone can post anything online without any worry about the harm that they may cause?
Suppose that she was a fourteen year old girl with face like young Jessica Alba.
Suppose our young Jessica Alba has been emotionally traumatised by the recent death of her mother in a car accident. Jessica is in a very fragile state, since a year before her father left the family.
Someone decides that it would be fun to anonymously post messages online stating that her mother actually wanted to die because she was sick and disgusted with Jessica. All anonymously.
Lies have been told for eons, nothing new there.
I personally think anonymous posters are cowards. Indeed, I see that many people here have posted anonymously as well.
Cowards.
i’m not jealous that she has been modelling for many years BUT she (at least) deserves her day in court
there is a thin line between freedom of expression (personal attacks/venting and defamation (libel/slander)
I wonder which lucky defense lawyer is actually going to prove she is what the blogger claimed. The reverse of defamation should be a lawsuit by the blogger for the extra work she gets from the publicity.
“and a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding what people can say anonymously just because they’re using the internet to say it.”
Why? The court system itself limits any and everything unless you have the money to fight it, then it really doesn’t matter.
- Curtis
http://ShipItOnTheSide.com – Build a software startup as a side job.
“a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding what people can say anonymously just because they’re using the internet to say it.”
That’s bullcrap…
“do you believe that all anonymous posting should be allowed”
Short answer, yes. Long answer, go here and read this:
http://www.eff....ssues/anonymity
And besides, even if the law didn’t allow anonymous speech, THE TECHNOLOGY DOES. That isn’t going to change.
I’m not sure about the laws in Canada but in the U.S. we have this really cool constitutional right called “free speech” and I can call anyone I want a skank on my blog. There is nothing libelous about it because it’s my opinion and no one in the world can prove I don’t believe she’s a skank. And how can it hurt her career? Would my saying she’s a skank actually cause companies to stop hiring her? This is nothing more than a moronic publicity stunt.
Check your own laws then; they may not be as wide as you wish they were.
Blondes are great!
“a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding what people can say anonymously just because they’re using the internet to say it.”
Are you serious? If they started policing the internet (which would be impossible, but let’s speak hypothetical) you’d be out of a job. I could say you’ve offended me with this particular article and all kinds of crap would hit the fan. You’ve basically just said “Someone should keep people from writing things that hurt other people’s feelings!” As everyone else has informed you, that’s free speech. A journalist such as yourself should know better.
And if she says “If I had to deal with everyone who is jealous, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else,” but has the time to make this BS lawsuit, maybe she should be doing something else for a living rather than working in an industry that prays off the overly self-conscious.
As I understand it the courts will have to weigh up the public interest of disclosing that kind of information vs. her private interest as a citizen, and it’s likely her interests just won’t compare.
Canadian model Liskula Cohen is a SHE?
Maybe I just need glasses but I think… I’m not sure… but there maybe be a relationship here with cousin Itt from The Addams Family.
http://www.adda...dams/itt-08.jpg
If you are a public figure and put yourself out in the open – as Elmer Fudd says, “It’s Wabbit season!”
HH
Oh, my, God!
She is hot. And I mean H-O-T!
Can we have a TechCrunch gathering with her and some of her friends somewhere?
If she and her friends promise to be “nice” to us geeks, and show us some skin and some loooove, we wil volunteer our efforts, time, brain and kernel time to ID the worm that’s saying all those mean, mean things about her.
We will block his server with a DOS attack like you’ve never seen before. We will look at each and every IP address in the cloud until we find the MF. And if she promises amateur POV videos of herself riding a symbian, this can be done in less than 4 hours.
Promise!
come on babe … be a sport its just a comment, you come to london contact me ill treat u with a limo hire london trip FOC.
Seems like a poor use of the American legal system’s time to even litigate on this.
Besides, half of the comments on here underhandedly suggest how stupid and vain this woman is. Is her next step then to sue everyone on here, including TechCrunch?
She’s a n00b
“If I had to deal with everyone who is jealous, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else.”
Me neither. It’s sooooo hard being me. Stop the hate just because I’m red-headed, curvy, and much smarter than you – honestly, I can’t help it.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh…
That is pretty ridiculous. Wow is all I’ve gotta say.
Jacob
http://www.penn...grealestate.com
screw this noz if you dont like blogs or the internet dont read them like this one http://www.then...ress.com….