Vogue model sues Google over 'defamatory' blog Canadian model Liskula Cohen is demanding Google reveal the identity of the Blogger.com user whose Skanks in NYC blog is entirely dedicated to calling her a "skank", an "old hag" and other flattering descriptions. Grab of blog describing Liskula Cohen as Mr. Ed's wife Mrs. Ed According to the New York Daily News, 36-year-old …
that's right! After you hit 24 you should never set foot in a club again and should sit at home, alone, getting drunk by yourself or with the partner you should have by then- and if not, you're clearly a skank and a failure in life.
What a twat that blogger sounds.
You Brits might be able to call this libel, but here in The States, the court doctrines on libel specifically exclude criticisms of professional performances. She's a model, the photos are professional performances, therefore while the anonymous poster may be a cretin, he or she is protected by US law, and Cohen shouldn't be wasting public resources on such idiocy.
Seriously, the lady should either suck it up or fade into the background ... for as long as there have been celebrities there have been people talking smack about them - the internet just makes it easier and faster to do so and allows them to express their displeasure to a MUCH wider uncaring audience.
If I were her, I'd just laugh off the entire matter as some no-life troll with a computer and an internet connection and get on with life.
shes a model, a public figure, she would not be suing if said blogger had called her a beauty.....
from used picture shown she looks nothing special to me, she should just give up.
if blogger had aimed comments at mrs school run mum, then i would suggest a case did exist, but when you parade your body for money, like a work of art, you have to accept the critics.
A mature person would simply dismiss the remarks as "jealous" and move on.
Indeed she makes reference to not having the time to deal with every person that throws an insult or two her way, so why is she pursuing this rediculous case?
The remarks are the viewpoint of one individual, I'm sure there are many thousands, tens of thousands of people that like her and have made positive remarks about her in the media.
I suppose it's an opportunity for the Jewish lady to make money out of suing someone.
Think she needs to get a life and stop worrying about the petty non-important issues in life.
Correct me if I'm wrong, if she's suing for deformation she will have to prove that said comments will have to have had a negative impact on her. Gonna be hard to prove that, when almost certainly they haven't.
I think she is suing Google for the name of the person who hurt her feelings / reputation and then will have her goons do a little tap dance on that person. Frankly it's just a likely this is all a tempest in a teapot to get publicity as if you search even Google images; there were only 77 hits. For a "famous model"; you would expect to find more.
Since she has apparently found employment in relative obscurity I can't understand why she would be opening up this can of worms.
Once again: "free" speech has consequences. How hard is it to understand?
Now, I don't know if she has a chance of winning this. Wouldn't harassment be a more appropriate term? I think there are laws against that. Maybe not. I mean, some idiot insulting you here and there, whatever. But a blog dedicated exclusively to do that to someone on a regular basis (that's what the article said, at least) sure is a different matter, no? IANAL, so maybe not.
You are free to say whatever you want, but you're also responsible for the consequences. If the consequences are something that can be sued over, that's a different question, of course.
remember, in the USA you can sue for anything and rarely have to pay anyhting but your own lawyer, who will often work for a percentage of the settlement, if any....
that's why there is a CRIMINAL CHARGE for malicious lawsuiting in the US, the suER doesn't have to pay the court costs of the suEE
Paris 'cause suEE sounds like "squeal like a pig"
Oh yes, that one got by me. Well done, asshat. Now I'm watching you.
Incidentally, regardless of the merits of the legal case here, it might be nice if people remember that she's been physically and career-endingly scarred by a senseless attack and could do without some smug internet tit taking the piss out of her.
she should stop looking at the blog. this case will not hold up in court. there are no threats made against her in this blog. someone is simply offering their opinion about her. she has not been harrassed in any way. she should be thanking this person for the exposure.
@sarah bee: the fact that she has been "physically and career-endingly scarred" in a completely unrelated incident has nothing to do with this, and she should be afforded NO special treatment in light of it. i'm glad more people don't operate under such flawed logic... we would have mentally retarded people as CEO's just because people felt bad for them. too bad, she can't model anymore. and if her career was in fact ruined by that, why is she still referring to herself as a model?
and i have to admit, she does indeed have some horse-face action going on.
Said blogger did not critique her performance or her photo, he (she?) attacked the person directly (assuming the extract from the blog is correct).
As far as I am concerned, this person has no "moral high-ground" to hide behind: it was a personal attack, not a professional critique.
This poor woman had her life ruined by some animal in a bar. An animal, by the way, who recently repeated his "outburst".
For those of you who think this lady "doesn't look that special" maybe you'd like to consider how you'd feel if this was your friend, your sister, your daughter or your girlfriend. Whatever we might feel about the "value" of a modelling career, she is a human being.
Her entire career was based on how she looks, and she lost it in a second. As somebody who would never make a career from my looks the nearest comparision I could make is if that stupid git of a doorman had whacked me on the head and left me brain damaged.
Is a legal challenge the right way to deal with this? Well, personally I think it's overkill. But what other response does she have? Free speech is one thing, but when that argument is used to justify everything from ignorant insults through to right wing neo-nazism, maybe there ought to be a way to ask blog sites to just take the offensive content down.
The problem is, of course, who decides what is offensive? In this case I think it's clear cut. this entire blog is a callous tirade against an innocent individual. It has no value. Take it down.
The blog in question has a grand total of 5 posts on it, the last one written four months ago, and would no doubt have languished in well-deserved obscurity without Ms Cohen splashing it round the papers.
It's a lesson for her NOT to go ego-surfing through google for every mention of her name - not everything you find is going to please you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
