Thursday, January 8, 2009

Opinion or Fact?


On January 26th the New York court system will be asked to judge the case of Cohen vs. Google. You may or may not know who Liskula Cohen is, but I doubt you have any idea what Skanks in NYC is. For all of (us) those who have managed to live their lives without any awareness of the site, let me explain.

The “Blog” site was created on August 21st 2008, and to date has only had 5 posts. All of these posts were posted on August 21st. There’s a picture forming, right.

The “Blog” details the personal life of Liskula Cohen, and her status as a ‘skank’ in New York. According to one of the posts, the site "would have to say that the first place award for 'Skankiest in NYC' would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen”. It goes on to say that she is a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank.".

Unfortunately for Ms. Cohen the site has had a seriously negative effect on her career. She stated that her current employers "mentioned the blog and expressed concern about my suitability to serve as a spokesperson and representative for the client's products".

As the site is hosted by Google's Blogger service, Cohen is asking the court to order Google to disclose information including the blogger's name, address, telephone number and email. Google’s policy is to not reveal bloggers' identities without a court order.

The difficulty here is that the court must be convinced that the site is defamatory (i.e. based on fact) and not just a statement of opinion. Should the court decide it is opinion, Ms. Cohen will not have any right to the “Bloggers” information.

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.

Interestingly, a Californian court previously held that calling someone a "skank" was not libel as it's not a factual statement.

2 comments:

Bob Shiner said...

IF one was clever and needed some publicity, one may even do a flog - even if it publicly destroys their character (but it the hope that naysayers will speak up and defend her truth and honour!).

Nudge nudge wink wink!

All hail the flog!

Christian Hughes said...

Well let's face it - she has gained huge publicity, I never heard of her before.