Blogger Rosemary Port made a career posting defamatory rants about model Liskula Cohen, Ms. Cohen obtained a court order to force Google to reveal the Blogger's name. Ms. Port sued Google for complying with the judge's order. What do you think? See LINK:

Comments

• Very true Alec, +6

  • Report
  

  by Perryman on August 26th, 2009

• I'm suspicious the lawsuit is just a lawyer's bad counsel trying to extract some money from Ms. Port. I am sure the court will agree Google simply complied with a legal requirement and cannot be held liable for doing so.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• True Rosie. +6

  • Report
  

  by Perryman on August 26th, 2009

• Hiya! How are you Perryman? Happy Wednesday m'dear! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on August 26th, 2009

• Excellent point, Rosie.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

• Thank you Jim! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on August 30th, 2009

Comments

• My guess is Google acted on the advice of very competent counsel.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

• I'm sure they did, but I wonder why the advice was given. I always like to learn more about how the law works.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on August 29th, 2009

• Wish I could tell you. I'd love to know too.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

• Hey, Dr_Dredd! You're correct that Google has no free-standing obligation to appeal the decision, unless there's something in their terms of service agreement with the trash-talking blogger lady.
  .
  Who appears to be not all that bright. TTBL should have had a lawyer in the courtroom who could have intervened in the lawsuit (in other words added his or her client as a party in interest on the defendant's side). She could have done that anonymously and would have had the right to seek an appeal whether Google wanted one or not.
  .
  Oh well. You snooze, you lose.
  .
  One quirk of the New York state court system, just in case anyone wasn't aware -- in New York the Supreme Court is actually the trial court level, intermediate appeals are heard by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and appeals from their decisions are heard before the Court of Appeals (which in every other state is called the Supreme Court).

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on August 30th, 2009

• Thanks for the expert counsel, ChrisDC.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 30th, 2009

• Thanks, Chris! I knew you'd give us a good explanation. (As an aside, TTBL? I love it!)
  .
  I guess the lesson is that one should always have one's own attorney. I've never been involved in a malpractice suit, thank goodness, but if I am, I'm not just going to rely on the hospital's attorney.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on August 30th, 2009

• You're welcome, guys. And Dr_Dredd, you're unfortunately correct. A hospital might seek a settlement that reduces the damage to their bottom line, but could have the effect of maximizing damage to yours.
  .
  I don't know how this works -- do doctors have clauses in their agreements with hospitals about who makes the call on settlement v. fighting malpractice suits?

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on August 31st, 2009

• Yup -- the hospitals do.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on August 31st, 2009

• Gee, what a shock. ;-)

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on August 31st, 2009

• Especially with the giant hospital chains taking over. Individual physicians, and even small groups, cooperate or get eaten! :-)

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on August 31st, 2009

Comments

• Good question Jim +6.
  You already have a nice discussion going here.

  • Report
  

  by Perryman on August 26th, 2009

• I agree. I do my best not to read them.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• I guess it depends on the lies. For a celebrity, it usually just means more publicity. As the saying goes, "There is no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell the name right."

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• I agree with that!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Rollie on August 26th, 2009

• Amen. Well said.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• We have free speech and within it the freedom to lie. If we misuse our rights, we need to subject to the consequences.

  • Report
  

  by Rollie on August 26th, 2009

• I guess freedom of speech includes the right to speak out against defamatory speech.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• That's where I find myself in the dispute too. Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 27th, 2009

Comments

• Sure seems so to me. Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• Thankfully. +6

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• Sorry, I do not know the locale.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

• LOL... it was a joke honey.

  • Report
  

  by anothergrl on August 29th, 2009

• Doh! And a good one. But I had just gotten back from a day of moving. Anything at ground level or above went sailing right over my head at that time.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• I sure hope so. It would be a tough world if you had to choose between contempt of court of liability for complying with a judge's order.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments

• Ha! Careful she doesn't sue you too. :)

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

• She'd have to put an address down on the paperwork, which would means I'd go talk to her in person.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on August 29th, 2009

• Ha! Great.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 29th, 2009

Comments