Bookmark
 
 

Richard Roeper Blog

Some Port whine.

Rosemary Port is a blogger who anonymously called fashion model Liskula Cohen “a psychotic lying whore” and said the model should have “the first-place award for ‘Skankiest in NYC,” on Google’s blogger.com.

Cohen sought Port’s identity so she could pursue a defamation lawsuit, and Google was forced by court order to reveal Port’s name.

Now Port is saying she’s going to sue Google for failing to protect her privacy, saying in a statement she was “shocked that my right to privacy has been tampered with.”

“This has become a public spectacle and a circus that is not my doing,” Port told the New York Daily News.

“By going to the press, [the model] defamed herself.”

Interesting interpretation.

“Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me,” whined Port, who claimed in court that blogs are a “modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting.”

Sadly, that’s all too true. But you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t call someone a “psychotic lying whore” without leaving yourself open to possible repercussions. You have to take responsibility for your words.

Port’s lawyer fell back on the time-honored argument that says the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms. He’s also claiming the fashion model is defaming his client.

There’s no doubt the model’s pursuit of a defamation case increased media attention and public awareness of the incident about a zillion-fold. It’s similar to the recent story about the tenant who Twittered about an allegedly moldy apartment. The original Tweet was seen by a handful of people; the story about the lawsuit garnered worldwide attention.

And now the model has dropped the defamation suit, saying “It adds nothing to my life to hurt” Port.

But let’s follow Port’s thinking.

It’s OK for her to call someone all sorts of horrible names on her blog–but she’s horrified that her name is now out there in a negative light.

It’s fine for her to invade the model’s right to privacy by ripping on her on a blog called “Skanks in NYC”–but it’s an outrage that Google revealed her identity to the courts.

I don’t see Port winning her case against Google for complying with a court order. Besides, all Google users have to agree to a policy that says the company can share personal information if they’re required to do so by the courts, which is exactly what happened.

In the meantime, commenters on a number of sites are saying all sorts of nasty things about Port.

Anonymously, of course.

15 Responses to “Some Port whine.”

  1. Brian K Says:

    I’m somewhat disturbed by the court order. Under what pretence was the order issued? According to a quick search at expertlaw.com, libel is defined as a “A false and defamatory [written] statement concerning another.” If the post had read “Liskula Cohen was paid for sex with John Doe, and is also clinically insane”, then that is libel. But “psychotic lying whore” doesn’t make any factual implications, so it can’t possibly be libelous. What judge issued the order to expose the identity of someone engaging in constitutionally protected speech?

  2. Katie Says:

    I don’t really keep up with the scene but aren’t models famous? You can’t rip on famous people now? Yea, it’s not nice…but seriously.

    “Psychotic lying whore” isn’t really libel either. It’s like blogging saying Jon Gosselin is a scummy douchebag or that Heidi Montag is a brain dead waste of space.

    She dropped the suit because her lawyers finally convinced her she has no case.

  3. Barbara Says:

    I’m plain appalled at the audacity of the lawyers in equating this little blog tripe with the Federalist Papers, even on a legal level. Geez Louise.

  4. Sean Says:

    I’m confused about how “psychotic lying whore” doesn’t count as libel. I’d also like to see the full quote and some context. If Port said the woman *acted like* “a psychotic lying whore” that’s defensible but if she said she *is* “a psychotic lying whore” that’s a whole ‘nother ball game.

    There’s a significant difference between insulting someone and stating they have a specific mental illness or engage in prostitution.

  5. Brian K Says:

    Sean, you’re definitely correct that context would be important, but the burden of proof lies on Cohen to show that there was a charge of prositiution in that statement. Insults like “whore” are thrown around pretty freely these days and they seldom are literal accusations of illegal activity. Port would have had to in some way elaborate on the charge of prostitution for a reasonable person to infer that she was making an accusation, and not simply an insult. I just find it scary when people are legally victimized for unpopular speech, regardless of how mean-spirited that speach is.

    As an aside, you should watch “The People vs. Larry Flynt” some time if you haven’t. It’s a great portrait of how the constitution defends jerks just it does like the rest of us.

  6. Brian K Says:

    grr, I meant “speech”

    I really should use spell check more often, I lose too much credibility when I don’t.

  7. IrmaCMD Says:

    The internet has become the world’s largest forum for ring and runners who bomb front porches with flaming bags of dog crap. By allowing people to be anonymous, they are allowing them to say whatever whenever. For most people they are just getting thoughts out there and trying to find other likeminded people to discuss/debate/rant and rave about topics of the day. Then there is that population that’s seething and likes the private arena that’s afforded by the internet comments sections to mouth off ideas and ugliness they know would get them fired or arrested if they did so in a public way.

  8. Silk Just Silk Says:

    It’s all just stupid… really.

  9. Sean Says:

    Brian K- I have seen the Larry Flint movie and liked it very much (but shouldn’t it have been titled “Jerry Falwell vs Larry Flint”?).

    On the Rosemary Port thing what I can gather is that all that has actually taken place is a judge being convinced that the victim (or target if that’s more appropriate) made enough of a case that she deserved the opportunity to have a day in court.

    I do appreciate the importance of anonymity but don’t see this particular incident as ominous regarding free speech in general. I would have a very different opinion if it were a matter of political speech, whistle-blowing, satire, etc… but when one individual publishes accusations about another simply to attack their character and reputation why should the target be denied such a basic right as a court date? In this instance I see anonymity as well below the importance of several other issues involved.

    One thought I’m having is that perhaps Port should have been allowed the opportunity to make a case for why her identity should have been protected prior to releasing it. (“Your honor, it was a typo.”?)

    And of course my view might change if I get the chance to actually see the blog in question and what was said in full rather than just 3 word snippets.

  10. Allen Snyder Says:

    I agree with Brian K. The statement was obviously hyperbole to anyone with even a passing understanding of language and the language arts.

  11. Allen Snyder Says:

    Whoops, just want to point out the “…to anyone with even a passing understanding…” part was not directed at you Richard, though as a re-read it I thought how it could possibly be interpreted that way. Anyway, I don’t entirely disagree with this article either. But I do think that if a celebrity or pseudo-celebrity chooses to sue every blogger who says something unkind about him or her, that person is going to be in court 90% of the time–and will probably lose much of the time.

  12. Michael Says:

    It is wonderful when someone discovers their niche. Now that we know her name let’s credit Rosemary Port for her vast knowledge of skanks and whores. Apparently she is the authority in New York.

    A test of a society might be gauged by how rotten people can be with laws providing protection and an added boost to their disparaging activity. Are the worst people really equal to the best of people when your right to stink up my world overrides my right to breathe fresh air? It wasn’t long ago when non-smokers were the outcasts required to put up with stinky smokers in public. The quality of all life is being dragged down to the lowest UNcommon denominator…….in this case by a growing number of wusses seeking to be heard though not seen from their trash cans. I am wondering how long do we have to put up with crude public behavior before the guillotine drops?

  13. Brian K Says:

    Hopefully we will always have to put up with it Michael. Freedom has always come at the cost of enduring fools who abuse it.

  14. SkankQuestions Says:

    Does anyone on here actually know the whole story between these two women?

    In my opinion, people don’t just target a person without that person provoking or doing something to them.

    I wonder what it was exactly that Cohen said to Port’s boyfriend to inspire the blog, if that is even what inspired it.

    In one article a friend of Port’s says that she reacted out of emotion. It’s also fact that Port only made posts on the “blog” on one day. There were no other posts.

    In my opionion I hypothesize that Cohen, being a press hungry person (aka fame hungry) likes to search for herself online. She probably came across the blog and was wondering who would have done that.

    Maybe she thought: “Who did I screw over that would want to do this to me?”
    She may not be an angel to have to wonder who would do this to her?? Do people really have that many “frenemeies” to have to sue to find out?

    Now for some real questions:

    If Cohen said that Port was just someone she saw at restaurants and parties then how did Port get the pics for her blog?

    I suspect that it was from a social networking site (facebook, friendster, myspace) where people like to post pictures of themselves for the web users to see…..

    Why did Cohen drop the defamation suit?

    I suspect it’s because, in my opinion, she is not the person she wants to portray herself to the media as and doesn’t want all of her skeletons to come out of the closet to prove Port’s blog held truth or that she had started the “skank fight”.

    Just thinking…………

  15. Kaila Petry Says:

    And her dancing is terrible

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 
 
Related Links
Chicago Sun-Times  |  Rotten Tomatoes  |  Hollywood.com  |  perezhilton  |  IMDB.com  |  Filmmaking.net  |  Cinemedia  |  Reel.com  |  Filmspotting  |  Wikipedia  |  More Links...
©2008 Richard Roeper. All Right Reserved | Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com
Questions and Comments   |   Site Map   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Use   |   RSS