What is Digg?311 Comments
- vertimber, on 01/07/2009, -9/+272“I’m tall, I’m blond, I’ve been modeling for many years, and people get jealous,”
Sounds pretty skanky to me. - timmymmit, on 01/07/2009, -4/+181pretty sure you're a skank if are caught on camera like this
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oTqE6aTCcNA/SK28yOmRkdI/ ... - Ghostalker, on 01/07/2009, -2/+163I love the caption "Not a Skank"
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -9/+149***** skanks.
- AnotherDiggGuy, on 01/07/2009, -4/+116Freedom of speech you skank
- sleepysteve, on 01/07/2009, -19/+128Judging by the picture, the blogger in question is right on.
- pintomp3, on 01/07/2009, -0/+65She has served more people than the server.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -6/+71The hip-hop dude with the blog sounds like an even bigger skank.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -7/+64Good luck *****.
- ileftfark, on 01/07/2009, -2/+58"I am a human being like anyone else, with thoughts and feelings", the skank revealed.
- maz2331, on 01/07/2009, -1/+53This is a particularly stupid move.
The reason it is a stupid move is that truth is a nearly-absolute defense to libel and slander in just about every US jurisdiction. By taking it to court, she will be open to discovery that basically can probe every aspect of her life in whatever level of detail that the defendant's lawyer wants to go into.
Another is that just giving an opinion on a celebrity is generally not defamation if it can reasonably be seen to be just opinion.
Is she really sure that she'd want her entire life exposed in a public court of law? - Leviathan433, on 01/07/2009, -2/+49it's an apostrophe!
- MrFisty, on 01/07/2009, -3/+49The blonde chick in the thumbnail.
- jba68, on 01/07/2009, -2/+44This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota
- crashbang, on 01/07/2009, -2/+43Sounds like an ***** to me.
- robdiggity, on 01/07/2009, -2/+38Correct. For instance, I now know that you are:
a) enormous, and
b) 433 years old. - inactive, on 01/07/2009, -6/+40fta:
“She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, STILL-GOING-TO-CLUBS-AT-HER-AGE, skank.”
. . . and . . .
“[Cohen] is no stranger to public controversy: In `07JAN, she got into an argument AT AN NYC CLUB with a man who cut her face open with a broken glass bottle.” - jun2san, on 01/07/2009, -0/+34I'm almost positive this is all going to backfire on her.
- jason210, on 01/07/2009, -6/+39its not defamation.
- nuss45, on 01/07/2009, -1/+34wtf? that's skanktastic!
- patricks, on 01/07/2009, -3/+34Various Photo's of her here: http://skanksnyc.blogspot.com/
Looks pretty skanky. - trafficlight, on 01/07/2009, -1/+32This best part about this is that before the news coverage only a few people knew that she was a skank.
And now, the whole world knows she's a skank. It's delicious. - sheeplescareme, on 01/07/2009, -8/+38if you require a lawsuit to deny an allegation like that...
- Topher06, on 01/07/2009, -8/+36I know they probably don't have freedom of speech over there in Aussie land, but in North America you can call any bitch a skanky ho and its A-OK, just not to their faces.
- EricSchC1, on 01/07/2009, -2/+29She may not be a skank, but she definitely hangs out at their H.Q.
- Fuckmypooplease, on 01/07/2009, -4/+30Not now chief...
- danwallace, on 01/07/2009, -0/+25How about the fact that as soon as she made news with this she will henceforth be known as a skank who files frivolous lawsuits by more people than will remember her as a model.
- ayeroxor, on 01/07/2009, -1/+24And you shouldn't do whatever the ***** you just did with the first two apostrophes.
- davidg11, on 01/07/2009, -3/+26Definite skankage going on there
- mnemy, on 01/07/2009, -1/+23No, she's a skank for not remembering who that was she was with in the picture.
- SamusAu, on 01/07/2009, -3/+24Well you never know, she might prefer the term 'ho'.
- Xscooterx, on 01/07/2009, -4/+25yea, that skank needs to get off her skank horse and wuit her bitching
- diggerpleez, on 01/07/2009, -1/+22case dismissed.
- imdidactic, on 01/07/2009, -2/+20If she's doing what she is in those pictures, with a guy who isn't hiding his face, and she needs to sue Google to find out who he is, she is most definitely a skank.
- blake711, on 01/07/2009, -2/+20Welcome to Digg.
- d0ctaew, on 01/07/2009, -0/+17I'm in the ******* zone
- robme, on 01/07/2009, -0/+17...or give her all the publicity she ever wanted
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -9/+25Could have been worse - she could have been called a cum-guzzling ***** with more semen in her stomach than Rod Stewart.
- davidrools, on 01/07/2009, -1/+17Under United States law, people considered celebrities or public figures aren't entitled to the same protection from defamation of character that normal citizens are. Freedom of speech allows us to make fun of and slander celebrities, politicians, and the like.
- stopbrorape, on 01/07/2009, -4/+19AMERICA ***** YEAH!!
- Gr00ver, on 01/07/2009, -2/+17Welcome to Digg.
- stopbrorape, on 01/07/2009, -5/+20Thinking a skank is a skank= Mormon?
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -2/+16Look at her cheeks,she almost looks like a skeleton.Damn skank.
- ukblacknight, on 01/07/2009, -2/+15Welcome to Digg.
- petebot, on 01/07/2009, -2/+15When I saw the headline, i thought she was suing Google because she thought they owned the Internet.
- SamusAu, on 01/07/2009, -0/+13.... but wasn't this one submitted first?
- ayeroxor, on 01/07/2009, -0/+13"I am a skank like any other skank, with skank thoughts and skank feelings."
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -2/+14look at his "blog", if you could even call it that. She let that moronic scumbag near her, so i'd say, yeah, major skank.
- latin69, on 01/07/2009, -3/+15Mirror?
- serendipitously, on 01/07/2009, -0/+12You are correct. In the US, they do regard celebrities and well known public figures as not being entitled to the same level of protection from defamatory (in this case libellous) commentary. Libel is something that is first perceived by the eye, as in served up on a website and read, rather than spoken. The courts in England and Australia are going down a different path, when you consider some of the cases such as Naomi Watts, Zeta Jones. Although they all differ slightly, they do offer celebrities some protection. Celebrities have tried to invoke everything from copyright and privacy to defamation to seek protection.
In Australia, lawyers for Gutnick, a famous internet libel case involving an online newspaper, wanted his case to be heard in Melbourne where the allegedly libellous article was first served as opposed to where the material was held on the server.
There were sophisticated arguments relating to the place of publication for jurisdictional reasons. Gutnick's lawyers knew that he had a far better chance of proving defamation in Victoria, Australia than in the US.
The journalist who published the story about Gutnick, much of which was actually true, took his case to a world body to seek a ruling as to whether his right to free speech was violated. That is how strongly he felt about the ruling which resulted in the newspaper being held liable for defamation. I have a bit of sympathy for the WSJ in that case, as I believe that you should be able to express strident views without being sued.
Not only are there stronger free speech rights in the US, but there is also a safe harbour defence in the US. There are also privacy issues at stake, in terms of the divulging of the identities involved by intermediaries such as content hosts, publishers and other third parties, which are far more important than the supercilious nature of the discussion here. -
Show 51 - 100 of 314 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 