Thursday, 20 August 2009


Maybe, there was an interesting yarn on Stuff today about a model, Liskula Cohen using the court get google to out a blogger who was defaming her.

It was a pretty ugly blog incident.

Stephen Franks, has a considered piece on the issue.

We reckon it is only a matter of time that defamation proceedings are bought against a blogger.


Cactus Kate said...

I think if you genuinely defame somebody causing financial loss to them or through their loss of reputation that's fair enough but getting an age wrong and honest opinion of calling her a skank? Come on.

Anonymous said...

Is sexual promiscuity - the judge's term -a matter of fact or opinion? Unless this woman is in a monogamous relationship the judge does seem to be setting herself up to decide what level of sexual activity constitutes promiscuity. Which would be an interesting decision to see.
But - if she is in a monogamous relationship - then I think it is a matter of fact that she is not a 'skank' (as I understand the term) and is not 'whoring'.

Cactus Kate said...

I think the generality of slang rather than literal meaning is more important.

Calling someone a skank or a whore, while rude and possibly defamatory surely isn't actionable wasting court time over.

Anonymous said...

Depends on the circumstances. Not if you are independent, self-assured and successful. But it's not hard to imagine circs that would make this a worthwhile case.
Defamation is not trivial.

Anonymous said...

If defamation is to be measure in just financial damage! Does that make Katie Prickles a ho for the dough?