>>252919
This sets a dangerous precedent. Google must refuse to comply with this judge's order. I can understand if a threat of violence or some other illegal action was done, but leaving a negative review or opinion is not a violation of law.
Imagine if the government or political parties were granted this sort of power.
>implying that CIAniggers don't already have this power and actively using it right now
If I say that the Fairmont Police Chief is a fucking retard and too fat to be a cop, does this mean the Chief can call google up and say "What's the name and address of this anonymous faggot that just talked shit about me?" See where this could get you? Imagine Pepsi trying to sue you in court because you don't like their new flavor of soda.
If anything, we anons know that anonymity allows for free and open discussion, debate, and opinions without fear of persecution. That's the spirit of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Allowing businesses to van and dox people cannot be allowed.
I don't like Hungry Jacks. Their food is garbage and it looks like slop. What are they going to do? Sue me? Well, if this practice becomes law and normalized, in the future, they could sue me because I said their burgers are shit. Fuck that.