Liskula Cohen: Genius, Idiot, or Skank?

In case you haven't yet heard the news, former model Liskula Cohen (who?) is suing Google. Why? Because a Blogger blogger called her a 40 year old skank. The name of the blog: Skanks in NYC; the poster: anonymous. 

As I see it, there are three possible reasons that she may have done this.

1) She is a complete genius. As many other bloggers have pointed out, no one has heard of this woman. Do a google search for her name and one of the first things that pops up other than this "news story" is her friendster profile, a true sign of fame and success. Who uses Friendster? Didn't that exist when hotmail was still popular? Apparently, some dude threw a bottle at her face in the past couple of years and ruined her career. When your profile page on an ailing social networking site isn't boosting your career, you know what will? A lawsuit so inane that everyone will pay attention and wonder, "Is she serious?" 

2) If she takes this lawsuit seriously then she is a total idiot. She claims that she wants to know the identity of the blogger who has "defamed" her and believes that he or she is just "jealous" and "envious" of her. She wants to know who her "enemies" are.

First of all, if you choose to be famous, you have to accept the consequences. Not everyone is going to like you. And what exactly has this anonymous blogger done? Written gems like this:

"OK so there are so many nasty bithces in the NYC scene, so now we can write about them...She's (Liskula) a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank." 

So Liskula, are you mad that he/she called you a "psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank" (wtf does that phrase mean?), or that he/she implied that you were a "bithce?" 

I'd like to sue you for making the blog famous. If you do succeed, you'll probably have jump started some sixteen year old's career. 

Besides littering the interwebs, he or she hasn't really done anything lawsuit worthy. Unless Liskula, you are opposed to freedom of speech? Let's see, which of Blogger's terms of use has he/she violated?

a) Posted pornography: nope (unless you include the photos of you acting fairly skanklike)

b) Hateful content that promotes "hate towards groups based on race, ethnic,origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity: nope. If it is hateful, it's directed towards your pleas for attention rather than at your gender.

c) Violent content: nope

d) Copyright: nope

e) Private and Confidential Information: nope

Impersonation: nope

f) Unlawful use of services: nope

g) Spam, malicious codes and viruses: nope

So basically, you want to sue him/her for remaining anonymous and for being "jealous" and/or "envious" of you. 

3) She is indeed a skank. According to www.dictionary.com, skank means:

a) A rhythmic dance performed to reggae or ska music, bending forward, raising the knees, and extending the hands: So Liskula, what do you have against reggae or ska? Perhaps someone should be suing you for defaming the word "skank."

b) Disgusting or vulgar matter; filth.

c) One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.

I have no idea whether she is actually sexually promiscuous, but she has gone to quite great lengths to make herself famous. She has proven, quite well actually, that she is not a classy lady. A classy lady would have either ignored the blog postings or responded by creating her own blog. A disgustingly lame lawsuit and filthily immature behavior? At this point I'm not really convinced that she's not a skank. Oops, maybe I'll be sued too now.