Comments on: “NYC Skank” Sues Google

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:18:58 +0000

She gonna sue the makers of bathroom stalls next? The makers of Diaries and journals?

It’s hard to state just how much scorn this destroyer of the last bastion of free speech deserves. This is how the reality of 1984 society arrives then? America’s founding fathers should really anally impale this big nosed anorexic waste of skin. (I know the skank is Canadian, but still.)

So I’ll just say, from the bottom of my anonymous American heart, fu*k you skank!

By: liskula

liskula — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:54:26 +0000

I am not suing Google for any financial damages. And I did not put this story in the press. Jose Martinez from the Daily news did. I in fact asked him not too. It is Google’s policy that if someone wants the name of an annonymous blogger they will only give it with a court ordered subpeona. As for my job, it tool a long time to get my cheek back to “normal” I still have a little scar, but I am working and am happy with what I am doing. Hopefully one day the laws of the internet will be enforced. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Oh as for the bloggers photos, first of all, they are not all of me, secondly in the one picture I am simply showing my friend Jimmy’s girlfriend how people were dancing at Caribana in Toronto….Hence me laughing…

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:05:41 +0000

Sorry but I don’t believe in anonymous blogging. If this woman is famous and the slanderer is anonymous, then does that not mean that the famous woman is in the losing position because the hate-blogger knows all about her whereas she does not know a single thing about the blogger? Isn’t it fair that the blogger’s identity should be revealed? Anonymous bloggers, no matter how you slice it, are a bunch of cowards and the best weapon against anonymous hate-bloggers is the exposition of their identity.

By: Mel

Mel — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:28:18 +0000

While I don’t disagree that the poster was pretty harsh, the whole situation seems a bit suspect.

This woman, who is in fact staring down the barrel of 40, had a disfiguring “mishap” about 2 years ago. An altercation over some vodka ended with the bottle being smashed in her face.

She claimed after that incident she couldn’t get any work, so why say now that the petty rantings of some Internet loon are harming your work? Seems to me the damage to her career was done more by that incident in the bar than anything some snot-nosed little punk behind a laptop could dream up.

The whole lawsuit thing just makes her look like she’s grasping at straws, not that she’s trying to teach anyone a lesson. And you have to admit, even if the poster never said a word, the pictures that were posted are pretty damning on their own.

To each her own, but if that were me, I wouldn’t want to be known as the one who sued Google because someone called me a bad name.

By: Casey

Casey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:16:31 +0000

Well, I don’t agree with suing for any stupid little thing but, I think she’s just trying to stand up for herself and make a point that name calling is hurtful and maybe this will get us one step closer to eliminating the hurtful name calling. It may be a freedom of speech issue, but seriously, who should have the right to emotionally hurt someone else.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:54:22 +0000

Way bitter….what’s the probability that future employers will read that blog? If Ms. Cohen can’t handle a little bit of name calling, it’s hard to see how she’s going to survive in the real world.

By: D

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:45:36 +0000

Because blogs are always such 100% accurate and unbiased sources of information they TOTALLY should be held to the same standards as major news sources! Riiiight. Ugh this chick needs to grow up. If she found a notebook with the same insult and there was no name would she sue five star?