In papers filed last week in New York state court, the blogger's lawyer argues that the posts on the site Skanks in NYC are not libelous because they are "rhetorical hyperbole."

"No reasonable viewer of the blog would or could conclude that the statements referring to petitioner as a 'skank,' or 'skanky,' or 'acting like a ho' actually purport to convey verifiable statements of fact," the blogger's lawyer argued. "Even a cursory review of the blog compels the conclusion that these loose statements carry an unmistakable comic tone and constitute mere rhetoric." The blogger is represented by the New York-based law firm Guzof Ofsink.

The blog itself consists of five posts--all about Cohen and all dated Aug. 21, 2008. "I would have to say that the first place award for 'Skankiest in NYC' would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen," states one post, which goes on to call her a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank."

Cohen argues that she was libeled by the blogger and needs to learn the author's identity to pursue a lawsuit. In January, she asked a New York state court to order Google to identify the author of the blog, hosted on Google's Blogger service.

Courts generally protect Web users' right to remain anonymous online, but there are exceptions for libel. But it's not clear whether these posts defamed Cohen, because only factual allegations--and not opinions--can be libelous.

Some legal experts say the case will likely turn on whether the judge believes these posts imply that Cohen is promiscuous--which would be a factual matter--or merely express an opinion. Sam Bayard, assistant director of the digital rights group Citizen Media Law Project, previously told Online Media Daily that the determination was "a hard call" in this case.

Judge Joan Madden in Manhattan is expected to hold a hearing on the matter on March 11.

This news story is important. I recommend that everyone read it.