(Originally written for Ma’ariv as an opinion column, published as my legal commentary in the original article).

Magistrate Judge Oren Schwartz ordered Google to reveal a blogger’s IP address two days ago (OCR 4470/07 Barlomanfeld v. Google). The Anonymous Blogger, blogging at What’s going on at Sha’arei Tikva” allegedly slandered three town committee members. Those members addressed the court in request to sue the Blogger; however, being identified by an alias only, they were in desperate need for other personal details.

The plaintiffs first filed the request against Google Israel, however the claim moved to Google Inc. and the parties reached a procedural settlement: Google, who possesses various personal information regarding the blogger shall address him in request to answer the claim, and he shall have the right to present his reasons for indisclosure. However, the account holder did not address the court nor did he choose representation in court. Therefore, being unanswered, the court weighed the plaintiffs request through easier standards and granted motion to disclose the Blogger’s IP address.

It is important to note, that like the decision in OCR 173154/07 Frisco v. Keshet, the decision was to grant the IP address only. Unlike other desicions in Israel, including the last major decision by Judge Michal Agmon Gonen in SM 541/07 Sabo v. Yedioth Internet, the blogger’s true identity was not revealed and this is only a preliminary stage to full disclosure.

Following the disclosure of the IP address, the Blogger’s ISP may object to the motion to disclose personal details and the next judge may consider the same constitutional considerations which Judge Oren Schwartz did not consider when granting motion to disclose without considering John Doe defendant’s rights for anonymity and privacy, but only noting they exist.

Needless to say that there is also dispute regarding the jurisdiction Issue: In a recent case, the Magistrate court decided that it is not authorised to grant motion to disclose and that this motion may be presented only in District Courts. (א 44885/06 Ploni (Doe) v. Akerman), and there still is a chance that the court may not disclose all information.

Still, Political bloggers need not to panic: This claim against the Doe defendant was due to his alleged slander when stating that Plaintiffs were involved in municipal tax fraud, a harsh claim when stated anonymously. However, in the recent Sabo decision, the anonymity of alleged slanderers against politicians was protected and I believe that this may be the same result later on.