S. P. adds this point about Google's role in the whole affair:

If Google really wants to give bloggers anonymity, then they don't have to capture bloggers' IP addresses and require email addresses as a condition of using the blog creation service. BUT, Google voluntarily makes itself a prospective witness and a holder of information that others (who are not suing Google for damages) might need for separate litigation.

It's a fair point, and one that's been raised by others in the past. Why does ? If it has the power to simply wipe a blog out of existence (and it does), does it really need to record the blogger's IP address and e-mail?

The second response comes from B. R., who has quite a bone to pick regarding my "callousness" in reporting on this case. If I understand it correctly, in the following excerpt I am both "Mr. Anonymous" and "Mr. Whatever his name is."

Not withstanding Mr. Anonymous missed the point; the victim lost bookings, the callousness displayed by Mr. Whatever his name is, likewise failed to mention the misogynistic tone of the attack. Worse, Mr. Anonymous' callous disregard of the victim was displayed in what I suspect he imagined to be "lighthearted" or "cheeky" reporting, was just icing on the cake.