Judge Says Blogger Who Called Model A Skank Should Be Unmasked

from the anonymity? dept

US courts have generally been pretty good at protecting the anonymity of online speech from forced exposure — in fact, as we’re posting this story, we’ve come across yet another ruling protecting anonymous speech online. However, every so often a judge goes in the other direction. Earlier this year, we wrote about a case involving a model, Liskula Cohen, who was so upset about a blog that had a grand total of four posts insulting her, that she filed a lawsuit to uncover the anonymous blogger, claiming that it was defamatory to call her a “skank.” Of course, most of us would never have heard of the blog, its posts, Liskula Cohen or that anyone thought she was a “skank” until this lawsuit was filed. But that’s another issue for another day.

However, CitMediaLaw alerts us to the news that the judge in the case has ruled that calling Liskula Cohen a “skank” is potentially defamatory, and not just an opinion or an everyday insult, and thus the blogger should be unmasked:

But Madden found that use of the terms “skank,” “skanky,” “ho” and “whoring” defamed Cohen because they appeared in captions near photos of the model in provocative poses. “Under these circumstances,” Madden wrote, the words combined with the suggestive photos “carry a negative implication of sexual promiscuity.”

Madden also rejected the blogger’s contention that the words were vague insults. “In the context of this specific blog, such words cannot be reasonably viewed as comparable in meaning and usage to the word ‘jerk’ or any other loose and vague insult,” Madden held.

While certainly not the most high brow of insults, it’s difficult to think that anyone reading the blog posts in question would take from it that it is somehow factual that Cohen was actually sexually promiscuous. I would imagine that the very small number of people who actually saw the site would conclude, accurately, that some unknown, anonymous blogger didn’t like Cohen very much and posted a very small number of silly blog posts about her. And then they’d get on with their lives. Hopefully, the still (for now) anonymous blogger decides to appeal. Yes, the speech may have been nasty and obnoxious. But that doesn’t warrant the gov’t and Cohen forcing the blogger to be revealed.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Judge Says Blogger Who Called Model A Skank Should Be Unmasked”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
75 Comments
Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Sigh

“Judge Says Blogger Who Called Model A Skank Should Be Unmasked”

First, masks are for pansies. Helmets are where it’s at.

Secondly, I seem to remeber a magical time my father, Papa Helmet, described to me occasionally. In this far gone time, if someone insulted you, your choices were thus:

1. Ignore them, particularly if they’re just being a lying asshole.
2. Stick up for yourself and fight back.

Where did we get this idea that the United States court system was our personal grieving tool? Some kind of ultra-innefficient soap box? Seriously, civil suits in this country are completely out of control. Free speech aside, this broad is a thin-skinned intellectual and emotional weakling that would have been naturally unselected long ago if it weren’t for our overprotectionist society.

Here’s to hoping the blogger appeals after finding online picture upon online picture of the girl acting in promiscuity, thereby getting the photos in the public record and hopefully into the nat’l archives.

Idiots.

mithrandir9x says:

Re: Sigh

@Dark Helmet-True that! Whatever happened to “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

Gotta answer this question for you, though. (Where did we get this idea that the United States court system was our personal grieving tool?)

It’s all in the name of protecting the children. Waa, somebody hurt my feelings. Waa, somebody looked at me wrong. Waa, that’s not fair! There’s this mythical idea of childhood in this country that has no connection to reality.

The great and powerful “IS” put this lovely mechanism into the universe we call “natural selection.” If you can make it through that, well, then you deserve to be an adult.

We (The societal we.) coddle to the point of narcissism and then can’t figure out why our kids are so rude/stupid/weak/whatever as adults.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: i don't know

“Free. She is a skank, not a prostitute.”

Well, you might have dig up ten or fifteen beers or an 8ball, but otherwise…

*GASP*, now some guy named Dark Helmet is telling people I’m a COKEHEAD!!!! Whatever will I do?

*As a side note, I would agree to attend any such lawsuit with zero resistance….if they allowed me to attend all proceedings in a full Dark Helmet outfit…

Anonymous Coward says:

Wow… wow… I don’t think the courts understand AT ALL what can of worms they plan on opening by entertaining this lawsuit for more than 10 seconds.

“He said mean words about me, sue him! *wah wah*” Great, so instead of people randomly threatening to report another person to an administrator in online chat room, forums, games, blogs, news sites, etc they are going to threaten to sue for defamation.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Interestingly, this site points out that although the media is focusing on the “skank” comment, the lawsuit is really about other, less nebulous remarks: “psychotic,” “liar,” that sort of thing.

It still sounds like a very, very misguided lawsuit, but less frivolous than if it were just because someone called her a skank.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I see what your saying and it douse put this in a different light. But, “psychotic” can be defended because she definitely is not, it was obviously said in jest. “Whore” is just like “skank” and isn’t vary well defined.

Now “liar” may have a real case, but isn’t she a liar anyways? All that makeup making her look like someone completely different, isn’t she lying about who she really is? Aren’t we all? Without more description on what the user meant with “liar”, it’s too vague to stand.

Ima Fish (profile) says:

While I disagree completely that a mere insult such as “shank” could be considered defamatory, that ruling is completely ridiculous, I don’t understand why anyone thinks they have some sort of right to anonymity for publicly made statements.

Anonymity is a lot like privacy. If you want privacy, don’t go out in public. If you want to retain your anonymity, don’t make public statements. To put it another way, once you put yourself out into the public sphere, any “right” of privacy or to anonymity disappears.

Almost Anonymous (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Mmmm, I kinda agree with you Ima, but if the forum that was used allows for ‘Anonymous’ posting, then there is (or used to be) a reasonable assumption that a user will remain anonymous regardless of ‘skanky’ comments.

A better argument might be that there actually is no such thing as ‘Anonymous’, especially as it relates to the Internet.

weneedhelp says:

read this again

But Madden found that use of the terms “skank,” “skanky,” “ho” and “whoring” defamed Cohen because they appeared in captions near photos of the model in provocative poses.

“appeared in captions near photos of the model in provocative poses”

“provocative poses”

Skank!!!!
Case closed.

Dont want to be called a skank? Dont let yourself be seen, possibly drunk, with your ass in the air on a table at what appears to be a crappy basement club, and that’s all I am willing to risk doing searches at work.

Anonymous Coward says:

In order for it to be considered defamatory the plaintiff should have to prove that the defendant KNEW their statement was false and willfully lied knowing better.

How is an anonymous person supposed to anonymously appeal?

The judge should also consider context, it should be clear by the context of the statement that the defendant didn’t mean what s/he said literally.

In all seriousness this ruling is unacceptable and should be resisted. Furthermore, the judge should be replaced by another judge and be banned from being a judge (or from any other position of public authority) for a year.

HolaJohnny (profile) says:

Oh great... now we are all accessories to this

Had to get us involved. No I didn’t comment on her but I hang around on here with you guys. Momma always said be careful what friends you keep… Oh who am I kidding I was thinking a lot of much more negative comments and connotations when I viewed the picture. Thank god thinking them is still legal. Right? Or is that the next case?

weneedhelp says:

Re: Re: By me

Repugs, democRAT. I love when Dems hate Repugs, and vice-versa. What a foolish position. Both are parts of the same coin. Neither party represents the people anymore. BOTH parties worship the almighty dollar, and can be bought and sold like the disgusting prostitutes they are. America has long been bought and paid for. As the late great Carlin said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Anonymous Coward says:

some people don't think

My guess is she has not thought this through and will drop it once she does. In order to defend the “skank” comment, defense will probably be permitted to do discovery on her sexual history. What has she done, with who, and how many times and all of that. Of course any tid bits that come to light will get a lot more press than a few blog postings.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: some people don't think

Nope, you have it wrong.

Defence has to prove based on the knowledge the used to write the article that she is a skank. They would have to show that they know she is a skank. They cannot go on a fishing expedition on her sex life to try to show her as a skank.

Otherwise I would call every celeb in the book skanks, and then use all the discovery to write million seller books.

Anonymous Coward says:

Anonymous testimony?

The standard of evidence for a civil suit like defamation is merely more likely than not. I agree it seems unlikely to me to be factual, but I don’t think it’s so unlikely the case should be thrown out. Maybe a good balance would be to let the suit go forward but allow the blogger to testify anonymously.

TW Burger (profile) says:

Definition of Skank

According to the Princeton WordNet Search ():

skanky – Adjective
* S: (adj) disgusting, disgustful, distasteful, foul, loathly, loathsome, repellent, repellant, repelling, revolting, skanky, wicked, yucky (highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust) “a disgusting smell”; “distasteful language”; “a loathsome disease”; “the idea of eating meat is repellent to me”; “revolting food”; “a wicked stench”

skank – Noun
* S: (n) filth, crud, skank (any substance considered disgustingly foul or unpleasant)
* S: (n) skank (a rhythmic dance to reggae music performed by bending forward and extending the hands while bending the knees)

skank – Verb
* S: (v) skank (dance the skank)

I would assume the person making the comment was using the term skank to express that Liskula Cohen’s behavior or another atttribute is arousing aversion or disgust in the person. I do not think that this is libelous, just accurate. I believe the entire modeling industry to be very skanky.

Cyanid Pontifex (profile) says:

How is this any different that the case of Hustler v. Falwell? A disreputable source (in this case, one without an audience nearly as large as that of Hustlers) makes ridiculous statements about a celebrity. Since Ms. Cohen is a Public Figure, a higher standard must be used for defamation cases against her. An anonymous, not particularly credible, individual posted something untrue about a Public Figure. The chance of showing “actual malice” are fairly slim to none. This judge is wrong, and if the appeals court has even the semblance of justness, it will side with the anonymous coward.

Anonymous Coward says:

It has just occurred to me that we are all assuming she is embarrassed by the name calling and will regret the publicity. Its quite conceivable that she is overjoyed by this opportunity as it gives her a chance to get her name into the press. Before long many people (in particular modelling agencies etc) will have forgotten the story but the name will still sound familiar. I expect she will benefit from this even if the defamation case is thrown out.

Pete Austin says:

It's about the following false comments, not the word "skank"

“She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.”

“She may have been hot 10 years ago, but is it really attractive to watch this old hag straddle dudes in a nightclub or lounge?”

http://tbm.thebigmoney.com/blogs/feeling-lucky/2009/03/11/obscenities-fly-during-skank-hearing?page=0,1

Chris R (user link) says:

who's the skank here?

I happen to agree with the judges decision. Too many people are hiding behind anonymity as an excuse to be very cruel.

It kind of reminds me of my ex. She was so sweet and nice in person, but when you get her behind the wheel of a car, she became the biggest ©unt you’re likely to meet.

It would seem that peoples true nature come out behind the mask of anonymity.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...