In a lawsuit filed in state court, Cohen alleges that she was defamed by the blog Skanks in NYC. The entire blog consists of five posts, all dated Aug. 21 that jab at Cohen.

"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."

Because the site is hosted by through Google's Blogger service, Cohen is asking the court to order Google to disclose identifying information including the blogger's name, address, telephone number and email.

As a policy matter, Google does not reveal bloggers' identities without a court order. "We sympathize with anyone who may be the victim of cyber bullying. 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," a spokesperson said.

Cohen, who in the past appeared on the cover of Australian Vogue, alleges in the complaint that the blog has drawn the attention of other people, including a current client. "These people mentioned the blog and expressed concern about my suitability to serve as a spokesperson and representative for the client's products," she alleges. Cohen is represented by New York attorney Steven Wagner.

But convincing a judge to unmask the blogger might prove difficult, because courts often protect Web users' right to remain anonymous online. While there are exceptions for libel, it's not clear whether the posts in this case would qualify. That's because only facts can be defamatory, and the statements at Skanks in NYC might be deemed opinions rather than facts.

Sam Bayard, assistant director of the digital rights group Citizen Media Law Project, said the circumstances of this case defy easy predictions. Bayard said that courts have sometimes viewed words like "skank" as opinions. But, he added, the posts here could also lead the judge to conclude that the blog is implying that Cohen is promiscuous, which is a factual matter.

"It's a hard call," he said in an email to Online Media Daily, "but we're beginning to think that a judge might be reluctant to rule as a matter of law that these statements aren't capable of a defamatory meaning."

At least one court in California has held that calling someone a "skank" isn't libel because it's not a factual statement. In that case, Jennifer Skeelig, a contestant on "Who Wants To Marry a Multimillionaire," sued talk radio hosts Sarah Clark and Vinnie Crackhorn for calling her a "big skank," "local loser" and "chicken butt." The court dismissed Skeelig's lawsuit, ruling that the phrase "big skank" is "too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" to form the basis of a libel claim.

In New York, a court ruled last year that Web users had the right to remain anonymous even though they wrote disparaging comments about someone. In that case, the blogger "Orthomom" wrote that Pamela Greenbaum--a Lawrence, Long Island School Board member--had "no interest in helping the private school community." In addition, an unnamed commenter on Orthomom's blog wrote that Greenbaum was a "bigot."

Greenbaum sought to identify both Orthomom and the commenter. But a New York state judge found that neither had libeled Greenbaum because their statements were opinions. Therefore, the court held, they were entitled to remain anonymous.

The next hearing in the Cohen case is scheduled for Jan. 26.

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