LibriumArcana.Games

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Her identity revealed, a blogger who posted rants about model Liskula Cohen said she was the real victim in the case and plans to sue Google for violating her privacy.

Rosemary Port and her lawyer said Monday that they will file a $15 million lawsuit against the search engine giant for not doing enough to protect her identity.

"I not only feel my client was wronged, but I feel now it sets precedent that anyone with money and power can get the identity of anyone that decides to be an anonymous blogger," said Salvator Strazzullo, Port's lawyer.

A New York Supreme Court judge ordered Google to reveal Port's identity after Cohen sued the company to acquire information about the anonymous blogger.

"I wanted it gone," Cohen said. "I didn't want it to be there for the rest of my life. And I knew the only way for it to be gone was to call my lawyer."

In August 2008, Port, a user of Google-owned Blogger.com, created "Skanks in NYC." The site assailed Cohen, 37, a cover girl who has appeared in Vogue and other fashion magazines. The blog featured photos of Cohen accompanied by derogatory terms.

The judge rejected Port's argument that blogs on the Internet "serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions" and should not be regarded as fact.

Cohen's attorney, Steve Wagner, said he couldn't believe Port's nerve in suing Google.

"Her being a victim here? I have trouble understanding that in its entirety," he said.

Legal experts said Port is not likely to win her case.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst, said Google was complying with a court order and that disclosing Port's name cannot be viewed as violating her rights.

"Google never promises anyone absolute anonymity," Toobin said. "There are all sorts of circumstances when Google cooperates with law enforcement."

Blogger.com requires only a valid e-mail address to register for a blog. After the court demanded Port's identity, Google handed over her e-mail address to Cohen's lawyers so they could track her down.

In response to CNN's request for an interview, Google issued a statement:

"Google does comply with valid legal processes, such as court orders and subpoenas, and these same processes apply to all law-abiding companies. At the same time, we have a legal team whose job is to scrutinize these requests and make sure they meet not only the letter but the spirit of the law."

Online activists have closely followed the model blogger's case.

Nick Thompson of Wired magazine said the case will force people to recognize that the blogosphere, however anonymous, is not above the law. On the other hand, it could deter some bloggers who fear the cloak of anonymity could be lifted at any moment.

"There will be people who won't publish things that maybe they should publish or that would be good for society," Thompson said.

Model-slag blogger sues Google for blowing her cover

'Skanks in NYC' catfight hots up

By Lester Haines

Posted in Bootnotes, 24th August 2009 15:07 GMT

The woman behind the "Skanks in NYC" blog dedicated to putting the boot into model Liskula Cohen is suing Google for $15m after the search monolith bowed to court pressure to reveal her identity.

Student Rosemary Port, 29, apparently knew Cohen from the NY fashion scene and the pair "reportedly quarreled after Cohen badmouthed Port to her ex-boyfriend", the New York Daily News explains.

Port subsequently laid into Cohen on her now-defunct Blogger.com presence, calling the clotheshorse a "psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank", and crafting unflattering captions for snaps of the catwalk-stalking Canadian:

Cohen responded by filing a defamation suit in Manhattan Supreme Court, in the hope of finding out who was behind the outrage. The court obliged, rejecting Port's defence that blogs "serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting", and therefore shouldn't be regarded as fact.

Google duly obeyed the court's direction to unmask Port, and now finds itself the target of further litigation from the rather indignant net bitchslapper.

According to the New York Daily News, Port reckons the whole sorry affair is Cohen's fault. She said: "By going to the press, she defamed herself. Before her suit, there were probably two hits on my website: One from me looking at it, and one from her looking at it.

"That was before it became a spectacle. I feel my right to privacy has been violated."

Regarding just why Google should cough, Port elaborated: "When I was being defended by attorneys for Google, I thought my right to privacy was being protected.

"But that right fell through the cracks. Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me. I would think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate would protect the rights of all its users."

Enter stage left "high-powered" attorney Salvatore Strazzullo, who's prepared to claim that Google has "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity".

He declared: "I'm ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers wrote 'The Federalist Papers' under pseudonyms. Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously. Shouldn't that right extend to the new public square of the internet?"

Doubtless many of you are keen to see photographic evidence of how Cohen and Port measure up. Obligingly, the New York Daily News has fetching snaps of the opposing forces right here. ®

The Minx wrote:Obviously the court order made Google legally obligated to hand over her identity. Perhaps she feels that this is her best shot to be heard, but her approach to the whole thing is pretty silly.

My thoughts were mainly on the principles of the issue, and to what extent people should be allowed to have their identities protected (and Lady Tevar has responded to that point).

fgalkin wrote:

The Minx wrote:Obviously the court order made Google legally obligated to hand over her identity. Perhaps she feels that this is her best shot to be heard, but her approach to the whole thing is pretty silly.

My thoughts were mainly on the principles of the issue, and to what extent people should be allowed to have their identities protected (and Lady Tevar has responded to that point).

To the point where a court of law deems that your privacy is no longer protected? I mean, if you start there, you might as well conceal the identities of criminals from the police.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin