liskula, are you -- >> no, i'm not surprised at all.i believe that justice madden did what she felt was right, and i believe the general population also agrees with me. >> let's bring in perry, security, cyberspace lawyer. arewhat are your thoughts on the ruling? >> this is nts a surprise. we've been bringing these actions for 12 years, and sometimes the sites will put up a fight and sometimes they won't. we need to recognize, though, they weren't really suing google. they were suing google in order to get the information. and google won't turn it over without a subpoena or valid legal process. and if you read their privacy policy, they'll tell you that. so they needed to sort of cover their own butts on turning that information over. >> now, the blogger's attorney said this about the ruling, that it has potentially damaging implications, and i'm quoting here, for free speech on the internet. perry, do you agree with that? >> this is ridiculous. free speech has to do with what governments can regulate. people can't do things that they h

liskula, let me start with you.give people a little more of the back story, there was someone saying some awful things about you. anonymously. on a blog. and i guess my question is snarky language bordering on a cruelty? a lot of people would argue the language of blogs and the internet many ways. what made you decide to go after them and take legal action? >> i was grossly offended that i couldn't -- i couldn't do nothing. i wanted it gone and i didn't want it to be there the rest of may life. and i knew the only way to -- for it to be gone was to call my lawyer. >> and you actually had a conversation with the mother. a lot of people remember this story. young woman who committed suicide. >> yes. >> and she was very encouraging to you. >> absolutely. she dash. >> what did she say? >> a fight worth fighting. i believed that before. i still believe it. and i think that, you know, of course, her story is extreme. and my heart goes out to her. and, i mean, it is awful. but, you know, nothing really happened to the woma

here's the model, liskula cohen, she's the blonde on the left.he blogger rosemary port, the bruinette on the right. she says she is the real victim. and she is suing google for 15 million. how is that? here's jason keller, from our sister network cnn. >> it's the kind of photo spread no model would want, a feature on the blog called skanks in new york city. the former vogue cover girl, liskula cohen ended up on the blog telling cnn's campbell brown she was determined to find out who was behind putting her there. >> i wanted it gone and 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. >> reporter: she's not the only one calling a lawyer. so is the woman behind the blog, rosemary port, a 29-year-old fashion student and casual aquaintance of cohen. port's attorney saying she's the real victim. >> i not only feel my client was wronged but i feel now it sets precedent that anyone with money and power couldn't get the identity of anyone that decides to be an anonymous blogger. >> port's

or on the covers of "vogue," mags model liskula cohen is used to the spotlight and the scrutiny thatomes with it. but she says none of that prepareder if her for the vitriol at the hand of an anonwous blger. several postings, on the site blogger.com. cohen found not only defamatory, but hurtful words like "skanky," "ho," and whoring," describing her appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct. in one post, the blogger wrote, she's a psychotic, lying, skank. google, if own over the blogging website, took the blog down. but would not release the blogger's identity to cohen. so, she filed suit against google. and now, a new york court has sided with her, on grounds of defamation, ordering google to disclose the blogger's identity. the thrust of the blog is that cohen is a sexually promiscuous woman, the manhattan justice joan madden wrote in her decision. >> a lot of people are frustrating, thinking if they're attacked online, there's nothing you can do. but that's not true at all. you can reach out through lawyers or through police and find out who is behind that post. you can now bring a l

liskula cohen said she was determined to find out who put it there. >> i knew the only way for it to be gone was to call my lawyer. >> reporter: she is not the only woman calling a lawyer. so is rosemary port. swartz attorney says, she is the real victim. >> i not only feel my client is wrong but i feel it sets precedence that anyone with money and power could get the identity of anyone that decides to be an anonymous blogger. >> reporter: port's name released after a judge sided with cohen who sued google to reveal the name. they say blogs like hers serve as a modern day forum for conveying personal opinion and shouldn't be regarded as fact. >> the court said, look, there was specific evidence that this one person may have libeled another person. in that circumstance, we are going to disclose that name. >> reporter: google says it complies with court orders saying we have a legal team whose job it is to scrutinize these requests and make sure they meet the letter and spirit of the law. port says they should have kept her name private an plans on suing google for $15 million. cohen's

liskula cohen ended up there and was determined to find out who was putting her there. >> i wanted it gone. i didn't want it to be there for the rest of the my life. i knew the only way for it to be gone was to call my lawyer. >> reporter: she is not the only one calling a lawyer. so is the woman behind the blog, rosemary port, a 29-year-old fashion student and casual acquaintance. her attorney saying she is the real victim. >> i feel it sets precedence that anyone with money and power could get the identity of anyone that decides to be an anonymous blogger. >> reporter: cher name was released after a judge sided with cohen to sued google to reveal information about the anonymous blogger. blogger appeared on google's website. they say blogs like hers serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinion and shouldn't be regarded as fact. the court says, there was specific evidence that this one person may have libeled another person. in that circumstance, we are going to disclose that name. >> reporter: google says it complies with court orders saying we have a legal team whose j