So…is Liskula Cohen a skank?
If you googled your name and using a standard Google search on the first page was a result from an anonymous blogger claiming you were a skank, would you care?
If you did care would you bother to start legal proceedings in an attempt to identify the anonymous blogger?
Recently Liskula Cohen who from what I gather was on the cover of Vogue magazine once and did some modelling way back when (I’m confessing I know stuffall about her just in case that wasn’t clear), managed to convince a court to order Google to hand over the identity of one of it’s Blogger.com bloggers.
The author of ‘Skanks of NYC’, a now defunct blog claimed that Cohen was the biggest skank in NYC.
A random person posting on a free blogging platform called somebody else a skank over the internet. No, really? THAT’S OUTRAGEOUS!
Being a blogger myself I could harp on about freedom of speech and the fact that opinions are just that, opinions but instead I thought I’d be a little more constructive and discuss just what court decisions like this potentially mean.
When taking a blogger to court, much the less someone who is faceless posting anonymously you are always risking the potential of whatever it is you’re trying to silence, be it an opinion, news piece or leaking of information blowing out all over the internet.
Case in point a quick google search for ‘Liskula Cohen‘ is now pages and pages of articles and blog posts about her with the word skank plastered all over them. Meanwhile had she of just ignored the ranting of the blogger I’m sure the blog post would have disappeared into search engine obscurity.
Unless the blogger was running a site devoted to Cohen or was specifically targeting her (I believe she was mentioned in a single post) then I doubt a free blog mentioning her in one post, even if it’s owned by Google, is going to rank well.
Now be aware I’m not suggesting people ignore everything ever posted on the internet, for example I was quite vocal when Whozadog.com was running a virtually unmoderated anonymous posting board full of claims and the personal details of potential innocents.
This I have a problem with and rightfully so action should be taken. Calling someone a skank however is wildly different to posting unverifiable claims and someones complete personal details online.
I can’t help but wonder why Cohen took offense to this particular blogger. Not familiar with the blog and unable to view it I can’t help but wonder if it was simply a one post blog or a regularly updated blog with a skanks of NYC theme.
If it was a one post blog solely dedicated to slagging off Cohen then it’s probably a safe bet to say whoever posted it knew her or had at the very least interacted with her offline somewhere.
A lawsuit seems to be a lot of trouble to go to just to find out who’s writing about you but if you look at the other reasons none of them seem to make sense. News.com.au cites “defamation” as the official reason but cmon seriously, skanky defamation?
Financially it’s a good bet someone using a free blogging service to host a casual blog isn’t going to be loaded. So putting your kids through college at the expense of a blogger isn’t a smart business plan.
Random offense to the remark doesn’t seem to sit squarely either. I mean once you’ve found out who it is, what then? Are you seriously going to try and sue someone for defamation because they called you a skank? The US has pretty strong freedom of speech and besides, how the hell do you prove you’re not a skank?
Skank n. – One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.
“Well then, that’s good enough for me. GUILTY! I hereby order the defendant to pay eleventy billion dollars to Ms. Cohen”
Good luck proving skankyness or the lack of in court or that people were likely to believe what was written about you on an anonymous blog about your skankiness.
Other then that I can’t really see what other possible motivation Cohen could have had. I mean she might just have wanted it taken down but wouldn’t you then just send off an email to Google and if they didn’t do anything just let it die out.
I mean how important do you think you are, were millions searching ‘cohen skank’ daily or something before the lawsuit?
Instead what we have now is Google being ordered to hand over the bloggers details and the words ‘Cohen’ and ‘skank’ forever partnered in internet history – quite the opposite effect she was going for I’m sure.
If some random ex-model can do it and a precedence has been set, then what’s stopping others from doing it in the future over anything? What if say a certain government wanted to know the indentity of a blogger posting about a certain recent election?
Launch a court case and before you know it that blogger and their entire family have dissapeared off the face of the Earth. Sure it’s a step up from protecting a models vanity but really it’s where court decisions like this inevitably end up taking us.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am Missy(Quote)
I say good on Cohen for standing up for herself against some anonymous loser (no doubt jealous) who is in fact bullying her online.
You shouldn’t write stuff about people if you wouldn’t be prepared to put your name to it (security reasons aside).
Once upon a time, I wouldn’t need to explain this concept. People were a lot more respectful and polite – what has changed?
The internet can be used as a vicious tool by nasty people to defame others – and that’s unfair.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm Martin(Quote)
Yeah… I agree with Missy. You’re a shocker Oz.
Imagine using your own soapbox to actually vent your own opinion on something.
How you forced me to read it I’ll never know.
What is the world coming to?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:34 pm Scribbler(Quote)
”Case in point a quick google search for ‘Liskula Cohen‘ is now pages and pages of articles and blog posts about her with the word skank plastered all over them. Meanwhile had she of just ignored the ranting of the blogger I’m sure the blog post would have disappeared into search engine obscurity.”
This is a great point. Even if she wins this battle she will have lost the war. She may have been right but the smart thing to do would have been to ignore it and not add creedence to the accusation.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Is having an opinion defamation though? How exactly are you going to prove you’re not a skank in court?
You can’t just rock up, scream defamation and then expect a guilty verdict. You’ve got to prove it isn’t true and that it was being presented as fact.
It’s like trying to sue someone for defamation for calling you an arsehole. How are you going to disprove that?
August 24th, 2009 at
[...] Blogspot so Cohen launches a 3 million dollar defamation lawsuit against the blogger. Last week I wrote about the US courts decision to order Google to reveal the name of the [...]
August 26th, 2009 at 11:22 am Van Santos(Quote)
So, my very first question (after seeing some woman with her ass in the air in that picture) was who is Liskula Cohen and why should I care?
I think the big problem here is the how something is stated. For example “Oz Soapbox is a God” is stated by the writer as a fact. If it was “I think Oz Soapbox is a God” it’s more of an opinion.
Now, can an opinion be defamation? I would say no and I don’t know how one can be guilty for having an opinion.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:54 am Citizen-D(Quote)
Yes it can when published in a public form. Defamation laws, in Australia at least, are a little all over the shop (I think it might still be state based, not sure), but essentially defamation is damage to your reputation in the eyes of others or your peers. The specifics of the damage and whether they are based on facts etc. will undoubtedly come into play in a defamation case, but it being someone’s opinion does not exclude it.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Yeah the US is slightly different, in that unless Port’s comments were being presented as fact rather then opinion Cohen would have a hard time winning the case in court.
This is why I believe the whole excercise was just an expensive game to find out who it was, undoubtedly Cohen knew it was someone she knew as Van pointed out she was a nobody prior to this.
In Australia it’s kind of different, there is that Gutnick case but as far as I know internet defamation is a grey minefield that hasn’t been tested.
2clix threatened to take Whirlpool to court over online defamation but went bust before they could (can’t remember if they pulled out before going bankrupt but it never went anywhere), then more recently Greg Smith launched a 42 million dollar case against z-geek, although last I heard it wasn’t going anywhere.
Until somebody actually goes to court over it and sets a precedence online publishers in Australia have no idea. Usually the plaintiffs are single parties and threaten rather then actually launch any action as it’s quite costly to do so.
The big players have enough money to drag it out so nobody really goes after them, only the small publishers. What happens then is either the publisher complies and retracts or the plaintfiff realises they don’t have enough money (read: it’s not worth it) to launch fullscale legal action over.
The big players won’t launch anything against anyone because they know it’s the quickest way to kill your reputation and there’s little to be gained as any action against an opinion 9/10 times means widespread exposure of the information.
Ideally we need legal guidlines outlining content publishing rather then this ‘wait and see’ approach but I don’t think that will be happening anytime soon.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:31 am lgcohen(Quote)
Jeez you seem to get your “facts” from other blogs and clearly not from reputable news sources. Of course I had no clue that the daily news was going to run a story based on me wanting to know who did this blog (of which was not one single post, it was an entire blog, with a whole lot more than the press has written about). And the only way I could have it removed was to get a court order from Google… That is Google’s policy, not mine. Was it expensive? not at all. It was totally worth every dime. The media likes to print that I sued because someone called me a name, that sells papers, that gets people to look at your blog… I am sure you understand what a headline is…That was not the reason I sought out help from my lawyer and the courts. If the blog was available you would have a better idea of why I went forth with this lawsuit. Lets just say that it was defamatory, Google agreed and the judge agreed. So why can’t you just leave it at that. I am sorry that the American media has to use these silly words to get your attention, but that is the way they manage to sell papers. I suppose the Internet and the free news web sites are hurting the sales of these papers, so they do what they can. So no I will not sue you for calling me names, I always take into account who is the name caller before I fight back. Hence why I stopped the suit to begin with. I cannot hurt my anonymous blogger more than she has hurt herself, it does nothing for me.
But I will kindly ask you to remove the picture of me that you have posted. I have already submitted my DMCA notice to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Maybe you don’t know what that is, but it has something to do with Intellectual Property Rights. This photo you have posted does not belong to you, you are not the photographer of this image, you have zero rights to use it. So please remove it. And no, this is not a legal issue, no need for me to sue you to get it removed, but the search engine that you use will remove it, and possibly your blog at the same time. So just to protect your right to voice your opinion on this matter, and to keep it on the web for as long as you want it there, it is better for you to use a picture you actually own.
Have a wonderful day.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Uh if I’m understanding correctly, Rosemary called you names you thought those names were defamatory.
Because Google certainly didn’t agree, hence the defending themselves in court and the judge didn’t agree with anything. The judge ordered Google to hand over the bloggers details so that you could then pursue a defamatory case. The judge nor google agreed anything was defamatory.
After soothing your own ego you chose not to pursue the defamatory case remember?
Yet you launched legal action against an “anonymous blogger” for calling you a skank?
Either you then knew who the blogger was before launching legal action and decided to waste everybody’s time anyway or you didn’t. Which one was it?
Uh, you do know that the DMCA is to stop people from removing DRM from digital media right? Best of luck pursuing a DCMA case against Google, Yahoo and Bing (lol). I’m not sure exactly what a search engine has to do with me hosting the file on my own server but nonetheless as a gesture of good will I’ve removed the offending photo.
Please in the future stay off the internet Liskula, people like you are like a digital holocaust against common sense.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:12 pm Mollie(Quote)
lgcohen; Whilst you’re looking through the literally thousands of websites that are breaching your “Intellectual Property Rights” and posting pictures that “do not belong to” them, you might wanna go to,
http://10thlife.com/244/the-skank-precident-liskula-cohen-vs-google
And ask that they remove the photo of you kneeling on a table top at a night club and another of you kneeling doggie style with a man with his pants down leaning in behind you.
Just trying to help…….don’t sue me, I’m just the messenger!