Tearful Model Claims 'Skank' Blog Damaged Her Reputation

Skanks In NYC blog siteA lawyer representing the blogger who insulted model Liskula Cohen told a Manhattan judge on Wednesday that the posts aren't libelous because they were written in the "youthful, obnoxious, bantering" style that's typical of the Web and isn't meant to be taken seriously.

Cohen sobbed in court and put her face in her hands while her lawyer, Steven Wagner, read aloud from the blog.

"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 went on call her a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank."

The blog, Skanks In NYC, also has pictures of Cohen and others in suggestive poses. The photos were taken at a private party and later posted to Friendster and Facebook.

Cohen sued in January to learn the identity of the anonymous blogger. In New York, courts have held that people have the right to speak anonymously online, but there are exceptions for libel. At the same time, only factual assertions and not opinions can be defamatory.

In this case, whether the judge will order the blogger unmasked is likely to turn on whether she believes that blog readers would view the posts as rhetorical hyperbole--as the blogger's lawyer argued--or whether she thinks they imply that Cohen is promiscuous, which would be a factual matter.

Cohen, who has appeared on the cover of Australian Vogue, alleged in her lawsuit that the blog had drawn outside attention and prompted at least one client to express concern about whether she was a suitable spokesperson.

Salisbury said outside of court that her client's blog garnered little traffic until news of the lawsuit broke. The blog remains available online because no one has requested that it be taken down, Salisbury said.

Madden didn't issue a decision Wednesday. She told the attorneys she was reserving judgment and would mail them her order.

1 comment about "Tearful Model Claims 'Skank' Blog Damaged Her Reputation".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Frank Goad from Asbury College, March 12, 2009 at 8:24 a.m.

    I guess it turns on opinion vs. fact - the standard libel/slander basis. Then again, is it permissible to publicly defame someone simply because you feel like it? Then there's the money issue: When it falls over into vocational aspects - regardless of real vs. potential monetary loss - is that where the line is drawn? That means that financial loss is most the turning point.

    What makes me uneasy is the defense claim that it's okay because it's a typical social style. That asserts that the law and your reputation are subject to fashion or current social behavior, or even second to it. I think the woman has a right to face her "accuser." That's fairly standard in our legal system.

Next story loading loading..