Interesting technique, and I see how the behaviour of the opponents can be annoying. But the lawsuit threat is ridiculous. Is youtube required to provide free anonymous video hosting to this person? Perhaps she should ask for her money back instead.
Just because she is not paying money, doesn't mean she has no rights. YouTube are still under contractual and moral obligations regardless of how much money she gave them.
Contractual obligation? What contract? I guarantee you that the clickthrough agreement the blogger signed explicitly said that Google might do what it's doing now.
Moral obligation? If you start saying that someone providing a service has a moral obligation to open themselves to civil suits on behalf of the people they serve then you'd see a lot fewer people offering free services.
YouTube is (inadvertently) aiding other people in an attempt to harass her, and the only recourse they provide requires her to reveal her full name to her attackers, thus opening her up to offline harassment. Seems like a good reason to sue.
I don't know american law, but to me that would be just as silly as suing the post office because someone sent you a postcard with the message "fuck you".
Anyway, if she sues, won't her name be on the public records of the case?
IMHO she should just host her videos elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how many similar cases of internet drama goes on over at youtube every single day.
