Pages: 1 2

 

2009-08-19 07:59:20
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7055|d
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. 

“I would have to say the first-place award for ‘Skankiest in NYC’ would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen,” the blogger “Anonymous” wrote in one posting. The blog, since removed, ridiculed the former Australian Vogue covergirl as a “40-something” who “may have been hot 10 years ago”, when she was actually 36.

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.

The model was looking forward last night to discovering the identity of the alleged acquaintance who insulted her. “Everybody is waiting to see who this coward is,” Steven Wagner, her lawyer, said.

Andrew Pederson, a Google spokesman, said: “We sympathise with anyone who may be the victim of cyberbullying. We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order.”
Src: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 801213.ece

This is a fuking joke right ? I find it disgusting that it has come to this. Your thoughts ?


P.S Quick, someone make an actual anonymous blogging service.

EDiT:
Interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8359356

Thanks to macbeth.

Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-08-19 09:27:14)

2009-08-19 08:03:16
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

I heard about this lawsuit awhile back and never thought any judge will be dumb enough to let her win. IMHO if you are a famous celebrity making millions for being famous you should expect this kind of stuff to happen.
2009-08-19 08:06:36
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5993|College Park, MD
That's not cyberbullying! Cyberbullying is constantly harassing someone over IM, email etc. Saying lewd things, giving death threats etc. Not calling someone a skank!

I find it funny that so many politicians, judges etc are Ivy League educated. You'd think they'd be smarter than to do stupid shit like this. Oh well, sieg heil to that Manhattan judge. He's obviously a fan of limiting one's free speech. Perhaps someone should build him a time machine so he can thrive in good old 1939 Nazi Germany, right?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-08-19 08:23:14
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

Justice Joan Madden
2009-08-19 09:50:15
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6515|Escea

https://images.ncix.com/forumimages/A98672EC-9EAF-409D-AA87FFED88F86086.jpg

Careful lads, don't say nothing bad about that judge, we might get pulled :whoa:
2009-08-19 10:49:31
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

M.O.A.B wrote:

http://images.ncix.com/forumimages/A986 … F86086.jpg

Careful lads, don't say nothing bad about that judge, we might get pulled :whoa:
Oh noes.

All I'm saying that in a case where a woman gets called a whore, slut, etc. over the internet a old woman maybe shouldn't have been the judge since she wouldn't be 100% impartial. But I then again, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-08-19 10:49:56)

2009-08-19 10:58:54
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6959

Actually, I agree with the ruling...













/hides
2009-08-19 11:06:18
Chorcai
Member
+49|6940|Ireland

Ilocano wrote:

Actually, I agree with the ruling...













/hides
Why ?
2009-08-19 11:23:58
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6959

Chorcai wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Actually, I agree with the ruling...














/hides
Why ?
If you are going to call-out someone, have the balls and don't go anonymous.
2009-08-19 12:41:45
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7055|d

Ilocano wrote:

Chorcai wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Actually, I agree with the ruling...














/hides
Why ?
If you are going to call-out someone, have the balls and don't go anonymous.
this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.

Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.

Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-08-19 12:43:21)

2009-08-19 12:52:13
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6959

mafia996630 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Chorcai wrote:


Why ?
If you are going to call-out someone, have the balls and don't go anonymous.
this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.

Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.
She wasn't suing for monetary reasons.  Just to find out her identity and contact.  When she finally called the person, she was very social about it.  Something like "I forgive you if I ever offended you.."  Some such like that. 

Slander is slander.
2009-08-19 13:19:16
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7055|d

Ilocano wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:


If you are going to call-out someone, have the balls and don't go anonymous.
this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.

Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.
She wasn't suing for monetary reasons.  Just to find out her identity and contact.  When she finally called the person, she was very social about it.  Something like "I forgive you if I ever offended you.."  Some such like that. 

Slander is slander.
Actually if you saw the video, at the end she says she will sue.
2009-08-19 13:22:28
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6959

mafia996630 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.

Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.
She wasn't suing for monetary reasons.  Just to find out her identity and contact.  When she finally called the person, she was very social about it.  Something like "I forgive you if I ever offended you.."  Some such like that. 

Slander is slander.
Actually if you saw the video, at the end she says she will sue.
2009-08-19 15:48:45
SplinterStrike
Roamer
+250|6703|Eskimo land. AKA Canada.
Oh for Pete's sake, you got insulted on the internet. Once.

Live with it dumbass

Well now that's twice.

Last edited by SplinterStrike (2009-08-19 15:49:51)

2009-08-19 16:08:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6697|North Carolina
All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.

Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
2009-08-19 23:11:26
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6937
https://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/liskula-cohen.jpg
not sure if we should remove this pic*** before she sues us 2 lol Mods its up 2 u to decide use ur powers wisely

I found this random pic of that chick online, not sure wth is going on there but yeah regarding the article, yeah she should of let it go, how many times people on bf2s get insulted or get into the argument, think of all the lawsuits there would be if everyone went into the court over other people posting stupid and irrelevant shit on internet.

Last edited by blademaster (2009-08-19 23:12:29)

2009-08-19 23:29:23
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|7072|Great Brown North
so she took a few skankish pictures and put them on the internet (or they were put there by someone else?)

getting called on it was bound to happen... fuck people have a thin skin these days
2009-08-20 00:21:21
PureFodder
Member
+225|6577
Well done, she is now going to be forever linked to a court precedent about whether people can call her a skank anonymously.

From some random website that few have heard about, she has now gained widespread publicity probably internationally as the woman who was called a skank. She has successfuly intwined herself with the word skank.

They should call it the Liskula Cohen skank precedent.
2009-08-20 00:53:05
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6616|New Haven, CT

Turquoise wrote:

All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.

Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.

With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-08-20 01:05:35)

2009-08-20 01:19:09
RavyGravy
Son.
+617|6697|NSW, Australia

SplinterStrike wrote:

Oh for Pete's sake, you got insulted on the internet. Once.

Live with it dumbass

Well now that's twice.
id totally laugh if you got sued
2009-08-20 01:31:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6943|USA

mafia996630 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Chorcai wrote:

Why ?
If you are going to call-out someone, have the balls and don't go anonymous.
this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.

Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.
I gotta disagree, there are laws against slander and libel. I do not see why the internet should be protected from those laws. If she is to be called a "skank" and a "whore", whoever says it should be obligated to back up their accusations. just like if it were written in the newspaper or spoken into a microphone.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-20 01:39:55)

2009-08-20 01:33:39
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6943|USA

nukchebi0 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.

Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.

With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.
freedom to express yourself or anonymity, does not give you the right to trash someone elses good name without proof that you are speaking the truth.
2009-08-20 01:36:14
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7008

lowing wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.

Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.

With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.
freedom to express yourself or anonymity, does not give you the right to trash someone elses good name without proof that you are speaking the truth.
Hate to say it but lowing is right... Libel lulz.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-08-20 01:38:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6943|USA

Turquoise wrote:

All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.

Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
So you really believe you have a personal right to discredit someone in the media without proof? Sorry you feel that way.

and before any of you say it, is your mom or adult sister a skank and a whore, cuz I guarantee this women has done no worse than they have.
2009-08-20 01:41:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6943|USA

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:


The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.

With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.
freedom to express yourself or anonymity, does not give you the right to trash someone elses good name without proof that you are speaking the truth.
Hate to say it but lowing is right... Libel lulz.
that had ta hurt.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard