Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen is entitled to learn the identity of the person who slammed her on the blog Skanks In NYC, a judge in New York ruled Monday.

Judge Joan Madden agreed with Cohen that the blog, which referred to Cohen as a "skank," potentially defamed her.

"The thrust of the blog is that petitioner is a sexually promiscuous woman," Madden wrote, rejecting the blogger's argument that the comments were mere opinion and hyperbole.

The entire blog consisted of five entries, all made Aug. 21 2008, and was devoted to trashing Cohen. "I would have to say that the first place award for 'Skankiest in NYC' would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen," stated one post, which goes on to call her a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank."

In March, the person behind the blog took it down following settlement negotiations.

Cohen filed papers in January asking the court to order Google, which hosted the blog, to identify the author. At the time, Madden ordered Google to notify the blogger so that he or she could retain counsel and object to being unmasked.

A lawyer for the blogger subsequently appeared in the case and asked Madden to reject the request to identify the author. The attorney argued that the blog was not defamatory because it expressed opinions, not facts. Only factual assertions can be libelous.

But Madden found that use of the terms "skank," "skanky," "ho" and "whoring" possibly 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. Cohen, Madden wrote, "has sufficiently established the merits of her proposed cause of action for defamation" and is therefore entitled to learn the blogger's identity.

In general, people have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, but there are exceptions for libel. Sam Bayard, assistant director of the digital rights group Citizen Media Law Project, said that this particular blog might have crossed the line from protected speech to libel. "I think it's really close," he said. But, he added, the comments combined with the photos might be enough to constitute defamation. "It's probably the right call at this stage of the lawsuit."

A spokeperson for the blogger's lawyers said they are still analyzing their options.