Miss Cohen, 37, went to the Manhattan supreme court to discover who had attacked her so she could sue for defamation.
The Skanks in NYC blog featured photos of Miss Cohen and described her in a series of unflattering terms.
Under the pseudonym “Anonymous”, her critic wrote: “I would have to say that first place award for ‘Skankiest in NYC’ would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen.”
Miss Cohen, a former Australians Vogue covergirl, was a “40-something” who “may have been hot 10 years ago”, said the blogger.
In what may prove a far-reaching ruling, Joan Madden, a New York supreme court judge, rejected the blogger’s claim that the blogs were a “modern day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting” and should not be treated as factual assertions.
The judge quoted a ruling by a Virginia court in a similar case that said that anonymous online taunters should be held accountable when their derision goes too far.
Steven Wagner, a lawyer for Miss Cohen, said he was “happy that the court recognises that the internet is not a place where people can freely defame people”.
Google said it had complied with the ruling by supplying the blogger’s IP and email addresses to Miss Cohen’s lawyers. The blog was removed as soon as Miss Cohen took legal action.
Mr Wagner said the blogger would now be sued for defamation.
However, Anne Salisbury, a lawyer who represented the blogger in court, had accused Miss Cohen of bringing the case to attract publicity rather than restore her reputation.
She pointed out that the blog had attracted little notice and would have languished in obscurity if Miss Cohen had not sued.
The lawyer warned that the ruling on Monday has “potentially damaging implications for free speech on the internet”.
Her client’s language was not unusual on the internet and that such name-calling was rampant on some comments sections, blogs and Twitter, she said.
Google said it sympathised with the victims of “cyberbullying” but also respected privacy concerns. As a result, it only divulged user information when ordered by a court to do so. — Telegraph