Sunday, August 23, 2009

Unlike Rosemary Port, when I criticize someone, I don't post anonymously... as Port did in writing not-so-nice things about model Liskula Cohen.

And now Port is angry at Google for having revealed her name to Cohen's attorneys and is threatening to sue Google for violating her rights.

What a goof... her and her attorney, Salvatore Strazzullo, who claims that Google violated its fiduciary responsibility to "protect her expectation of anonymity".

What part of 'ordered by the court' do Cohen and Strazzullo not understand? It isn't as if Google rushed out and volunteered the information; Google tried hard to protect the identity of the jerk who took anonymous (and allegedly libelous) shots at someone she had had a previous bad experience (and how brave of Port, that rather than confront Cohen openly, she decided to slam her via a blog posting?). It was only after the court ruled Google had to provide Cohen with Port's identity that Google did so.

Is Strazzullo going to argue that Google should have defied the court? How can an attorney, supposedly an agent of the court, argue that a court order is something that can be ignored?

And (ignoring the impossibility of Strazzullo winning) if Strazzullo does win the $15 million in damages that he is seeking, what would he think of Google ignoring that court order?