Menu
pop-law

Skank suit?

A VOGUE model is suing Google for defamation, and is calling on the search engine giant to reveal the identity of a blogger who has dubbed her an “old hag” and a “skank” on the Internet.

Liskula Cohen filed a defamation suit in New York City, in an effort to force the search-engine giant to reveal the blogger’s identity, which remains anonymous according to US reports.

The anonymous offender made the claims on the blog “Skanks in NYC” on Blogger.com, which is owned by Google.

Cohen was also dubbed “#1 skanky superstar.”

“I can’t begin to imagine why someone would post these things then hide behind a screenname,” her lawyer, Steven Wagner said, according to the New York Daily News. “I guess we’re going to have to find out.”

Cohen, who hails from Canada, has modeled for Giorgio Armani, Versace and Elle magazine.
Maybe they’re nicer in Canada – but in the US, and the rest of the world… if you take certain pictures without underbritches then someone will call you a skank. It happens. People are mean. That doesn’t mean we sue Google over every mean, anonymous person on blogspot.

Although the pictures on the offensive blog look pretty personal. And that’s creepy. (And a whole other issue.) Time for someone to check her facebook friends!

Liskula is no stranger to drama. Last year Liskula was in the news because of an interesting night in a club:
Samir Dervisevic, 25, got into a drinking-tossing dust-up with model Liskula Cohen at Ultra on West 26th Street on Jan. 14, 2007, that ended when he cracked a bottle of vodka across her face, she tearfully recalled yesterday.

She rushed to the hospital, where she received 46 stitches – 30 inside her mouth and 16 on her face – to close the gushing wound. She said she has had trouble finding work since then because of the scars. (Rest of the story here)
Although not as interesting or glamorous as Kate or Naomi, I think the tabloids have found a new lawsuit model.

3 Comments

  • Guy Fawkes
    January 8, 2009 at 2:00 am

    This is BS. Commercial speech is a different deal (assuming this guy makes sufficient money off his blog…:), but we as a society still protect it outside of genuine defamation and/or libel. I smell a grant of summary judgment or an incredulous judge/jury.

    Reply
  • Jansen
    January 8, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    The blog has no ads and only 3 posts. I don’t think it’s commercial speech.

    Reply
  • Guy Fawkes
    January 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    Gotcha, that’s where the assumption I made was incorrect, which tears down the rest of my point. The 1st Amend. still applies regardless, it’s still BS.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.