I don't see any bullying in this. Just another person who had their feelings easily hurt because someone didn't like them.

Tip: Unless someone has some real connection to you or is important enough to affect (effect?) your life...who cares what they think. They are inconsequential and your life will not be ruined just because one person doesn't like you.

Things get interesting when the person you insult is knocking on your front door.

No, any anonymous comments are irrelevant. Simple remove them as you see them.

I believe it is a correct judgement and they had to turn over the information once the judge said to. I also believe that everyone must be accountable for their actions at some point. There should never be a way for someone to go on the internet with complete autonomy and just say what ever they want whether it is true or not. That does not fall under freedom of speech, even under the banner of freedom of speech you are held accountable for what you say in the fact that the person can seek damages from you. That should never be removed from the equation just because you are a blogger or because it's posted on the internet under an alias. When you sit in a virtual room in a crowd of millions, you should be treated as if you were standing at a podium in a room of tens or hundreds saying the things to the person face-to-face.

So valcron, why don't you give me your real name, pictures, address and list of fears and let me post it on Facebook?

I think google was right since they had to because of the courts. But I do think that this model shouldnt have taken this so far. Also what happened to freedom of speech? The blogger was not threatening in any way, just stating their opinion.

dheadley: I agree with you that even if it is online you must be held responsible. But I do not see anything that is not covered by freedom of speech. The point of freedom of speech is to voice your opinions without fear of prosecution, and as long as there is not a threat I consider this to be something freedom of speech covers.

Look busy, Jesus is coming

Pei-chen that is completely different from what i said. That would be invasion of privacy/private information. All this report said happened was someone posted picture of the "model" along with some remarks against her.

As for real name and pictures...people can find that on my myspace page and no i will not give that out.

It did not say her address or list of fears were given. That I would constitute one step short of a threat. Much like an earlier report on another new site about a women who did that on My Space to her ex boyfriend/husbands girlfriends daughter. Which is where you probably got the idea. All it said was the blogger called her names and useless. Neither opinion should matter to her from a stranger/unimportant person.

Sure they should let her know the name.
But they better NOT allow a defamation suit to go through. A blog by its very nature is a bloggers PERSONAL opinion.
If a suit was allowed where could it end? If you put your diary on an online backup storage site could anything written then be cited as slander?
Very scary Orwellian stuff.

I say if you don't have the guts to tell a person you hate them (or whatever) to their face, you shouldn't say anything at all...especially on the internet. Cowards should get off the net and "grow some balls" to face their challenges...or kill themselves (which is the coward's way out). As a side note, you'll notice that it is always a coward that will stir up shit behind people's backs.

Valcron, it became invasion of privacy the moment her pictures were posted online w/o permission. I think this would've taken a completely different turn had there been no photos of the model in the blog. The fact that there are photos, anonymity and strong dislike and apparent jealousy does constitute a level of threat too.

Props to the judge for taking this action. I'm all for freedom of speech but the photos definitely took it too far.

If you want TRUE free speech you need a site that doesn't give a crap about US laws. Otherwise you're just one lawsuit away from being sold out.

http://baywords.com/

Not true Niva. Invasion of privacy is not illegally distributing publicity available photos. Under that context every news site out there is invading peoples privacy and can be sued for it.

Liskula Cohen is a skank.

Legal Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are just that, opinions. They are in no way intended to represent fact. The poster, acting as an individual, asserts that this opinion is entirely their own, and is in no way tied to Tom's Guide or their parent company, Bestofmedia.

There, that ought to cover my ass. By the way, what is the legal definition of a skank? How can you sue someone for slander and defamation of character when skank doesn't really mean anything? It's slang for chrissake. Maybe the poster meant skank in a good way. Like "That woman is such a skank, I'm so jealous!". Total B.S.

"Also what happened to freedom of speech?"

There is no freedom of speech in Canada. Thanks to Richard Warman and his "Canadian Human Rights Commission." (How Orwellian!) This Jewess is so typical whining and kvetching and screaming, "Oy vey! The poysecution!" All in the name of chipping away at the 1st Amendment. Anonymity is crucial to protecting freedom of speech because sometimes important information needs to be outed anonymously. For instance, the Iraq War was outed in the New York Times well before they actually announced that it was planned. That information was crucial in planning counter rallies to oppose the war.

If I can't anonymously call a woman a skank without fearing possible legal repercussions than the Internet is useless to me!

Men aren't supposed to call a skank a skank under the reign of feminazis. However, when a woman calls the other a skank, it's chick fight. I'll grab some popcorns and enjoy while it last. Insulting non-political figures on any occasion is retarded. Trying to find who's maligning you is even more retarded. People who believe whatever posted on the blogs are the most retarded of the retards. Yeah, I've seen that the first hand, and the most retarded are usually the most educated.

Freedom of speech is a really funny thing. I personally don't agree with any rules governing it; if someone wants to call me a stupid asshole, I feel like that's their right as an American. And, though slightly unrelated, if it really bothers me that much, I feel like I should be legally allowed to show his face to my boot if he was asking for it.

The government plays parent too much. We're all fucking adults even if we don't act like it and the whole lawsuit bullshit that's become such a trend is the worst moral problem in our society.

In short, freedom of speech should mean freedom of speech, not "If I call you a skank you can sue me." Bleh.

I'm curious on the defense, on how she is NOT a skank. That should be interesting... Boyfriend testimonials on how she normally dresses conservatively, and doesn't sleep around?

Legal Disclaimer: In my comment, I was in no way insinuating that I believe the model in question is a skank. Don't sue me bro'.

i personally believe if someone is posting an opinion....it is just that, their opinion....falls under sticks and stones, etc etc.... but i believe when it is lies, slander, threats, and untruths that may have an effect on a career or life, then privacy policies do not apply.... and there are ways to make determinations between the differences of what falls into what category...

Well, what a fantastic precedent to set. Pretty soon we'll see people being sued because they hurt someone's feelings.

To the model: grow the fuck up. Not everyone on the planet has to adore you. Go get some counseling to deal with your myriad insecurities.

Good to see people making great use of the court system. Oh wait, no... no that was a waste of time. Now we can take people to court for hurting our feelings. What next? The death penalty?

A lot of people hide behind the anonymity of the internet because they are cowards. Its one thing if your blowing the whistle on an injustice, but its entirely different to abuse anonymity to do nothing my then trash talk people. Thats not freedom of speech thats just being a prick.

These people are mad because they have failed at life and want to blame other people they envy because they dont have the will to push themselves to achieve.

Just like Periz Hilton, he talks smack about everyone and then gets all whinny when confronted face to face.

"Do you think it was right for Google to turn over the information?"

Um, I don't think Google had a choice. Is your question "Did the judge..."

-"Skankiest in NYC" and "may have been hot 10 years ago" are opinions and not a threat or necessarily an untruth statement.
-The blog is no longer online.

However, she (the blogger) or anyone really, should have
-kept her mouth shut (ie: not post that blog).
-kept that in her head.

In my opinion:
-Cohen needs to grow up albeit her being 36 yr old already. What does this no-longer-online blog do to you, ruin your career? no.
-Cohen needs to know that she cannot make everybody loves her.

Then again, I may get sued by commenting. So I will just shut the fuck up. There is no freedom of speech in this world.

Is it just me, or does this whole thing sound like a real bad episode of sex in the city meets desperate housewives?

Every little crybaby celebrity that complains when their feelings get "hurt" by someone because their useless lives are "insulted" because someone said something they didn't like to hear should be subject to the first 3 days of any type of basic training.

The moral: Thicken your skin you worthless celebrity whore.

If a blog is just a personal opinion doesn't that put it on par with a newspaper editorial or an opinion piece written by any reporter? There are a lot of similarities. Both represent an opinion, both are published for others to read, etc. Shouldn't we attach the same minimum level of personal responsibility to the author of all three items?

Anonymity and the internet should not be excuses and shields for inappropriate behaviour.

Being called the "skankiest in NYC" is by no means worthy of a slander-libel lawsuit, but i do think people need to man up and not do these stupid anonymous crap

I am going to start a blog of my own about how big an idiot and "skank" Liskula Cohen is. I am more than willing to give this idiot woman all of my information and dare her to sue me. The woman is fugly and an obvious skank.

Check this out: http://internetdefamationblog.com/ [...] acohen.jpg

If someone calls me an asshole, I cannot turn around and sue them. They are actually right, I am an asshole. Seriously though, the courts have gotten out of control if they will allow people to sue someone for saying something they dislike.