XAF226 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Is this a f*cking joke?! Models like that make a living by showing of their bodies - that is the product/service they are providing. And as much right as people have to scrutinise the products or services they recieve from anywhere else - like food at a restaurant - they have to scrutinise the service these models provide - their apparantly attractive bodies. He never made a personal insult against her, but rather was expressing his disatisfaction at how he was expecting an attractive woman to fap over - what he recieved instead was a skank. If anything, it should be the cheap, bad-quality skank who should be sued to compensate the man for the massive turn-off that happens to be her ugly mug. Oh, and have they not forgot that this is the internet? This is the last bastion of completely uncensored media and expression, people here say all sorts of crap - even criminals, murderers, terrorists, Jap freaky fetishists, extremists groups like the KKK and even goddamn cannibals have their own websites where the express their views. They aren't seriously gonna hunt someone down and demilish his privacy over a silly thing like that? What right do they have - it is his blog, and the publication of his most intimate thoughts. I couldn't have said it better. Liskula Cohen is a whining, skanky, whorish, slutty, bitch. Edited August 22, 2009 by XAF226 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1066ant Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Video etc, etc... I can't belive this, it was treat like she had been physicaly abused for years rather than being called a few nasty names on the internet, I can't belive somebody would be so petty.I want to smack her in the face with a spade, although she'd probably prefer it if I used my dick... I wouldn't link to ED on this forum btw, its pretty nsfw and doesn't really give out reliable information! The list of blogs at the end made me lol though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1066ant Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Video etc, etc... I can't belive this, it was treat like she had been physicaly abused for years rather than being called a few nasty names on the internet, I can't belive somebody would be so petty.I want to smack her in the face with a spade, although she'd probably prefer it if I used my dick... I wouldn't link to ED on this forum btw, its pretty nsfw and doesn't really give out reliable information! The list of blogs at the end made me lol though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XAF226 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Ok I removed the link. Search Google images and you can see her whorish photos. Her accusations make no sense. It's like calling a rapist a pervert, and then he sues for defamation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeTi Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Lol, I find this quite funny. She is a skank, a whore and general slut, who sells her body granted not in the physical form, but still she makes money off of it, yet she doesn't accept that someone can have an opinion on her, or her services, someone mentioned it earlier in this thread (I'm too lazy to look up who), but she offers a service, a service of supposedly looking pretty, she doesn't look very pretty, yet when someone complains about this service they get sued. She obviously doesn't understand the internet very well either, by doing this all she has done is brought it to the attention of the masses, and the internet can be a cruel place. I invite the skanky, slutty, worthless piece of sh*t person whore to sue me, come on bitch try it. You won't even have to sue Tank (sorry dude) to get my identity, any idiot with ten minutes could find out my name and address. R.I.P. Chi Shingi Meiyo 21/09/2005 - 07/03/2007 Andolini Mafia Family 16/08/2008 - Current Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Fandango Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 why is defamation (not sure if it´s the right word) illegal? Well, if you are simply making up BS about someone who is in business, you can very well put them out of it (somewhat of a challenge for the invisible hand). Although, I agree that calling someone a skank on the internet is, well, extremely unimportant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtathebest4ever Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 well basically everything i was going to say has already been said by others. this is just plain stupid. SKANK SKANK SKANK SKANK SKANK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
860 Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 Although that´s the thing. you cant really draw a line anywhere and thus it is upto human judgement which isn´t flawless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed Bratton Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 She only made it worse for herself. Internet is full of people calling her a skank now. I think about it, and I enjoy that, a lot. She's a whoring skank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seachmall Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 She only made it worse for herself. Internet is full of people calling her a skank now. I think about it, and I enjoy that, a lot. She's a whoring skank. The Streisand effect at it's best . that´s the thing. you cant really draw a line anywhere and thus it is upto human judgement which isn´t flawless. Mine is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anuj Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Hey, guys, when someone is temporarily banned it's not the intention that others post their posts for them. FYI. FYI, banning sucks. It should be illigal, becausel like this topic, it prevents us from giving our opinion to a certain topic. You're a guest on a free service. You don't have rights to anything here. You're not entitled to post anything. What gave you the idea that there was some sort of internet constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingvercetti Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 If she cares so much about what people on the internet think of her, she should perhaps have thought twice about, y'know, acting like a skank in the presence of a camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 it's called defamation of Character. If there is no truth to the matter and she can prove the defamation is publicly damaging to things such as potential income from her line of work, or is costing her financial or emotional distress than she has every right to sue. Freedom of speech only goes so far. I don't see how having the right to call someone you don't even know a skank should be a huge "must have" right. Doing so in private or a small group, yeah you're totally within your legal standards because it is an opinion not being wide spread with malicious intend. But as soon as you start blasting such stuff online or around public in the hopes of getting the word spread as to what you thin, then you're starting to cross the line. The law protects people though to a certain extend, saying public figures (celebrities and politician alike) should expect and be able to put up with public opinions on their actions or beliefs (both negative and positive), but there are still boundaries. Obviously she was able to prove that these two guys took it beyond the normal scope of opinion. Yeah, but they can't really think that him calling her a "skank" is equal to defamation of character. I'm starting to think that defamation of character lawsuits have more to do with how much money you can throw at your lawyer than how much of a valid case you have. For example... If I called Donald Trump a bleeding asshole, that's not really defamation of character. No one really knows what an "asshole" is aside from an anus, and everyone knows that Donald Trump is not really an anus. However if I called Donald Trump a walking, bleeding asshole with sh*t spewing from his mouth, I would bet that he and his lawyers could construe that into me calling him an "actual" anus, and then win the suit for defamation of character. The reason I use Donald Trump for an example, is he's probably the only person with enough money and stupid enough to take a defamation of character suit that far. What about that statement? Am I off the hook because I said "probably"? That's where I see this going. They're going to decide that "skank" on its own doesn't mean anything and look for other parts of his writing to look for implications of prostitution, however vague and flimsy they are, just because she's got the money to throw at her lawyer to go dig around obscure laws to find some "gotcha" that turns it from a frivolous lawsuit into something valid. Never mind that the law was probably originally intended to prevent people from continually printing statements relating directly to their character, and not the one instance on someone's blog where someone calls you a name you don't like. But then people like this come along, get the right lawyer and judge, and just wipe their ass with the original intention of the law. Because I guarantee you it wasn't enacted to protect Vogue models from getting their feelings hurt--which is all that happened anyway. I don't see her career in shambles, I don't see the big rallying on this guys part to get people not to hire her, I see nothing but him modestly calling her a skank and stringing together some other pretty lame insults. Calling someone a "skank" shouldn't be a huge must have right, but saying something about a person without needing to worry about lawsuits should be. The next thing you know politicians will be suing citizens for what they say about them on the grounds that it will hurt their chance of being elected. Is that right? I know I don't have the same knowledge of law as you do, man, but you've got to admit that even if defamation of character laws can be stretched to fit this case, they were never intended for such trivial sh*t, and shouldn't be abused simply on the grounds that it's legal. I mean, it's like... With all of this in light, could I call Liskula Cohen a spoiled, pretentious troll of a woman who cares more about her ego than retaining the integrity of our right to free speech and defamation laws? Nah, I guess calling her a "troll" would be going too far, right? Wouldn't want anyone to think she lives under a bridge or anything! QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livejoker Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Hey, guys, when someone is temporarily banned it's not the intention that others post their posts for them. FYI. FYI, banning sucks. It should be illigal, becausel like this topic, it prevents us from giving our opinion to a certain topic. You're a guest on a free service. You don't have rights to anything here. You're not entitled to post anything. What gave you the idea that there was some sort of internet constitution? I'll just shut up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) I have some good news and some bad news. Itls Miller Time!...or er Miller Test Time! The Miller TestFor something to be considered "obscene," the Supreme Court uses what is known as "The Miller Test." Developed in 1973 in the case Miller v. California, the Supreme Court determined that the following types of works are not protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, can be prohibited. If the average person finds that when viewed as a whole, a work: * Appeals to the "prurient" interest (i.e., an unhealthy and degrading interest in sex) * Depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and * Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. All three parts of the Miller Test must be met before a material can be found to be obscene under the law. If just one of the parts is not met, the material would not be considered obscene under law and, in turn, would be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. The most controversial portion of the test is the question of creative or scientific value. Even though some pornography may appeal to an average person's prurient interest and depict sexual conduct in an offensive way, if some contend it holds an artistic or literary value, it fails the Miller Test and is not deemed obscene. A Citizen's Guide to Federal Obscenity Laws I guess calling someone THAT particular name could apply to those terms. Looks like everybody is going to jail!....For SOMETHING! That probably includes this very post considering it has little serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. ....Or does it? Is that all bad news? Hey, ALL of YOU! I DEMAND to know who the hell all of you are because of your fragrant disregard for the way I and others like to be treated! It has happened at last! Finally, someone has completely used to law to violate the very sensibilities in which a healthy emotional state are regulated in the very name of protecting those sensibilities. 1. I take responsibility for how I feel. 2. I do not take responsibility for how others feel. 3. I am sensitive to the feelings of others. (Without taking responsibility for them) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying Now, I am against amoral behavior just as much as the next person......yet if we are not careful then governments will control every aspect of "appropriate behavior" and the individual whom is out of sorts to the majority won't even be able to call someone else on it. I mean, what is the judge going to say? " Well, is she a skank?" Or to reintegrate "Is this female known for being promiscuous?" Being investigated and possibly arrested for name calling seems both insane and reassuring at the same time and in times like those I tend to think about Hegelian Dialectic to sort out the potential for abuse of so called "authorities" IN SUCH MATTERS. This is not because I think that it is proper to go around calling others "skank" or anything of the sort and quite the contrary. I do not believe that such juvenile behavior is appropriate most of the time and can only see such treatment acceptable during infighting amongst peers that have things to settle out in accordance with the terms being thrown about like stale confetti. Edited August 23, 2009 by HolyGrenadeFrenzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seachmall Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Looks like everybody is going to jail!....[For SOMETHING! That probrably includes this very post considering it has little serious literary, artistic, political orscientific value. ....Or does it? Is that all bad news? All posts in this thread contain poetic and humorous irony, an art in itself. Perhaps as a result of this law suit she has inadvertently protected anyone who may further comment on her skankiness. How ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Looks like everybody is going to jail!....[For SOMETHING! That probrably includes this very post considering it has little serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. ....Or does it? Is that all bad news? All posts in this thread contain poetic and humorous irony, an art in itself. Perhaps as a result of this law suit she has inadvertently protected anyone who may further comment on her skankiness. How ironic. Yeah, I have spent some time editing that post, cutting, revising and I am not sure that I am content with it even now. That would be an interesting end if she gave way too much credence by getting all upset about the remark and thus blowing it out of proportion makes it stick through her behavior. That is not even poetic justice and is something more for the behavior analysis experts. Shoot, criminal behavior specialists will really get a chuckle and a sigh out of the whole ordeal if it blows up in her face for the rest of her life. Edited August 23, 2009 by HolyGrenadeFrenzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braindawg Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 she sewed her mom? skank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaunr Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 they also wanted to be anonymous. their 4th amendment right to privacy was violated. they are going to show his identity which no one would want if you consider giving your name or face would cause people to possibly go after you, like maybe even harm or kill you, as the person i'm guessing also talked about other models, and maybe someone would be like "hey that's the person who said mean things about my favorite model *blah blah blah* I'm going to beat them!" or something. Maybe i think she's a skank. but it's just words. and on the internet for christ sake. so what? "oh someone is calling me names *waaah* I'm going to sue them and violate their privacy!" She's a bitch. oh no, i hope i don't get sued now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asimov Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 It's funny, I was just looking at this article on wikipedia the other day. Now everyone is going to know her more for the fact that she is so insecure about being called a whore by a stranger on the internet than...wait, I don't even know who this "celebrity" is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GtaHitmanStrikesBack Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 If she cares so much about what people on the internet think of her, she should perhaps have thought twice about, y'know, acting like a skank in the presence of a camera. My thoughts exactly. She is taking this too far i mean if someone said f**k you on youtube or some other place filled with trolls or spammers would you try and win a court case to unmask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Grudge Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 From Wikipedia: In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant). Then further down the same page: Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege. This seems unfair to me (and a little on the oppressive side). While I don't condone calling somebody a skank, if that is your opinion then you should be able to express it freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarinc Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 What a skank. Thats some bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 If she cares so much about what people on the internet think of her, she should perhaps have thought twice about, y'know, acting like a skank in the presence of a camera. My thoughts exactly. She is taking this too far i mean if someone said f**k you on youtube or some other place filled with trolls or spammers would you try and win a court case to unmask them. As case in point, remember Jay and Silent Bob when they did? I was so on their side, it was howls of laughter fun to imagine cornering mr. tough guy on the computer! hahaha Anyway, I don't think she's Skanky, but I do believe you have the right if the courts rule on it, meaning they don't throw it out and dismiss it for it's frivaloty <sp?> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epoxi Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 As Thumper says: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Thumper was a troll, should have been shot instead of Bambi's mum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceedj Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Thumper was a troll, should have been shot instead of Bambi's mum. That is probably the best thing I've seen posted on this board in years. Well played. I'm actually not against democracy though. I'm against things I think are f*cking stupid. I think this is f*cking stupid. - Sweets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joemcg15 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 in 2007 she got a bottle thrown at her. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07312008/news/...past_122359.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now