Another Revenge Site - Another Lawsuit

by Anna North



A New York attorney is suing two of his exes for posting about him on the website liarscheatersrus.com. We took a look at the website he claims is ruining his career.

According to FindLaw, Matthew Couloute, Jr. is suing Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz for posting on the site that he "Cheated on ALL of ex-girlfriends" and "lied and cheated his entire way through his 40 years of life." They also allegedly wrote, "BE FOREWARNED, HE'S SCUM. RUN FAR AWAY." Couloute is alleging that the posts have cost him clients, but FindLaw's Stephanie Rabiner writes that he probably doesn't have a case — she notes that "if true, these statements are not fraudulent misrepresentations or defamation." And Blitsch and Ryncarz are now suing Couloute with the help of Gloria Allred.

[A] review of some cached pages reveals an interesting — and disturbing — mix of rage, misery, and revenge. The homepage addresses infidelity victims directly:

Has anyone dated your spouse? Have you trusted and put yourself on the line for someone who turned out to be a player or a married person? Are you the victim of a home wrecker? You can not only find others that have been similarly victimized, but you can also report the perpetrators of these games to the world and save others from the heartache. Wouldn't you like to help others and prevent the people who cheated on you or tried to steal your husband and wife from doing it again?

Whether the posters on the site want to help others or simply vent is an open question. Some of the posts make serious allegations:

• This man has cheated on his wife with more women than is humanly imaginable. His looks get him anything he wants, and he lies as easily as most of us breathe. He has beaten his wife, is currently incarcerated, but will be out in one year, doing it all over again…. So sad….

Some mix the serious with the trivial:

This man is the worst person I've ever met in my entire life. He lied from the day we met. He said he was 31 years old, but he is 38. He said he was a physician at a local hospital, and when I found out he wasn't, he lied and said it was my misunderstanding, and he was in medical school currently working as a PA while he's in school. He's really just a lab tech at a local hospital. He said he has been divorced for 2 years, and has one son. He is STILL married, and has 3 children with his wife of 14 years. He claims to be 6′ tall, but he's only 5'10″.

And some seem to speak to relationship problems that have nothing to do with lying or cheating:

He will come on strong, the complete charmer for the first 3 months. After he has made his score, he will back off and run. Then if you ever remind him of all the things he said or wrote to you about love, he will not remember. He will blame you for every single thing that is wrong in his life even if you have poured out 100% of your life to support his dreams and goals. I know because I did for year.

As Rabiner says, if these statements are true, they fall well within the bounds of free speech. But liarscheatersrus also seems like a great place to smear your ex, whether or not he or she actually did anything wrong. The site doesn't employ any obvious fact-checking, and so it has the potential to become a sort of "slut list" for grownups, a place where people can anonymously bash others without any proof.

Don't Date Him Girl has already mined this territory — and a lawsuit against that site was dismissed in 2007. Still, Rabiner notes that "even though Matthew Couloute may not prevail on this claim, keep in mind that, with slightly different facts, a posting on liarscheatersrus.com (or any other such site) could form the basis of a successful and costly lawsuit." And even if alleged liars and cheaters don't find legal recourse, posting anonymously on a website may not be a particularly good response to infidelity. In response to a woman wondering whether to tell her ex's new lady that he was in the closet, Slate's Emily Yoffe recently wrote,

Let's say you were the happy young woman engaged to the man of your dreams. Would you want his ex to come along and ruin everything by telling you that he is a closeted gay man who is secretly having promiscuous sex? I sure would! It's always easier in cases like this to just let adults make their own decisions and find out (or not) what's really going on.

That's doubly true if you're planning on posting incriminating (or false) information on the internet. It may feel good at the time, but it's unlikely to sway somebody who's intent on dating your nasty ex. And it might get you sued.

original article can be found here

Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

There's a whole world of people out there, and boy, are they pissed off.

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling. Indeed, there are even whole sites devoted to venting, such as justrage.com (one screed there was titled, "I don't give a flying f***, so f*** you") and mybiggestcomplaint.com.

This is not a world Emily Post would want to be caught in after dark.

"The Internet can be a great tool," said Sara Black, a professor of health studies at St. Joseph's University who takes a particular interest in online bullying. "Like any tool, it can also be misused."

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim.

"In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people's moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. iReport.com: Second Life avatars grapple with reduced nonverbal communication

"It's hard to be aggressive when you're face to face," he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.

"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women's studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to "Mean Girls" or "Heathers."

"Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign," she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups -- which can be bad enough -- "they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it's as easy as clicking a button."

"Kids don't realize that one post can destroy somebody's life forever," she added.

Indeed, such incidents have made headlines. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier committed suicide after becoming attracted to a boy on MySpace who then turned on her. The boy turned out to be a hoax created by a neighbor family that included a former friend of Meier's.

In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.

Adults aren't immune by any means. A Japanese woman, angry at her online "husband," killed his avatar after he divorced her. A South Korean actress committed suicide after being harassed by online rumors following a divorce. Celebrity gossip sites are full of snarky comments about stars; reaction from readers is often brutal, turning the story into the online equivalent of a pile-on.

Markman is quick to observe that he doesn't believe there's more anger out there. But, he said, "there are more ways of expressing it on the Internet."

"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."

Indeed, though electronically transmitted anger has parallels throughout human history -- the bitter letter, the village gossip -- the speed at which it travels, and the number of people who may come in contact with it, is something new, says St. Joseph's Black.

"[Electronic] media can increase potential for violence in a number of ways," she said in an e-mail interview. "First, it introduces ideas (good and bad) that people may not have come up with on their own. Second, it is easier to depersonalize the victim, facilitating perpetration. Third, aggressive behaviors may be reinforced with points, attention or status, especially in games."

Withers has seen that first hand. She teaches a course on the "dark side of communication" at Central Michigan, involving "the mean or evil things we do on a day-to-day basis," as she describes it: cheating, for example, or lying.

As part of the course, several of her students work on a collaborative project with students at other schools, and they come together in Second Life, the virtual reality environment. If someone isn't pulling his or her weight, says Withers, others can be harsh in their judgments -- harsher than in real life, because the anger is expressed at the person's avatar. Sidebar: Dealing with anger in Second Life

Which led at least one of Withers' students to forget that the avatar was attached to a real person.

"One student went off on another student and she was sitting in the classroom a few rows behind him," she said. "He knew she was there, but didn't -- there was that distancing."

Is there a way to restore civility to the Internet? Among children and teenagers, say Dellasega and Black, it's up to parents to exercise control.

"I think parents need to take responsibility," Dellasega said. "They give kids computers and leave them alone. ... When a child is 8 or 9, the computer should be in a public place. Kids should understand that using a computer is a privilege, not a right."

Schools can also play a role, she says.

Black adds that parents should set clear rules on behavior and build empathy in their kids by having them reach out to those who are different.

As for adults, human nature dictates that people will always lash out at others, whether it's over a perceived insult or simply because of a power differential. Web sites may ban the worst offenders, but they'll almost always pop up elsewhere, using a different name, e-mail address or even computer.

"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

Whether the problem will get control of us, or we will get control of the problem, is in the way we face up to it, he says. Anger, he says, is rolled up with anxiety and fear, and nothing creates more fear like a lack of understanding.

"I tell patients that I'd rather know everything about people; information is powerful," he said. "When the climate of the world is more fear-based, it permeates everything."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

SITES BY VICTIMS OF CYBERPATHS
(we believe many of these people have a right to be upset and using writing as a healing & informational tool for them can be very empowering)

Cyberstalker: Felicity Jane Lowde

Marilyn McAboy

Jakob Maltese

The Laura Knight-Jadczyk Fraud

Nancy Lynne

Too Good To Be Real

Kim Stewart - Bink, Briesis, Allie

Victim of Gareth Rodger Speaks Out

One Victim of William Michael Barber Tells Their Story

Sandra Brown MA - No License


(readers -- if you know of others, please tell us!)

Being 'Anonymous' Online Changes People's Behavior

Faceless communication online or over phone often turns nice people nasty
By Diane Mapes


(excerpts)
One minute, they’re nice, normal people. The next, they’re frothing at the mouse.

“It’s mind-boggling the things people will say and even the things I will say,” says Catherine McIntyre, a 38-year-old medical billing specialist from Houston. “People who’d never say something horrible in real life will do it again and again and again online. It’s like the behavior of crowds, or those mass beatings where no one gets blamed because everyone’s at fault.”

Sheri Pineda, a 59-year-old customer service representative at the Daily Breeze in Torrance, Calif., encounters the same bad behavior in the after-hours messages left by her newspaper’s subscribers.

“It’s appalling the way people talk,” Pineda says. “They’ll rant and rave and cuss at us with extremely foul language. And I think a lot them specifically wait until we close the phones. They’re looking to let it all out and then get on with their day. And then they’re surprised when I get back to them. They’re like, ‘You actually heard that?’ and will be embarrassed.”

Hello. You have reached the split personality zone. Press 1 to melt down. Press 2 to hang up and act like a normal person again.

I, anonymous
Between out-of-control customers, vituperative online posters and road-raging drivers, it’s hard to find an individual who hasn’t succumbed to the siren song of faceless, consequence-free communication. Online boards are clogged with insults hurled by readers hiding behind deceptively mild screen names — (“I hope you rot in hell!” signed Kittyface) — and customer service reps endure blistering tirades from disembodied voices week in and week out.

These days there are a dozen ways to communicate without actually having to look somebody in the eye. As a result, not only have we developed an abrupt, abbreviated way to chat (IMHO), but our technological advances have spawned new psychological terms such as “online disinhibition effect” to explain our tendency to open up — in both good ways and bad — when we’re sitting in front of a screen.

In a February 2008 study published in the journal Psychological Reports, researchers found that out of four groups of participants, only those in the anonymous group took part in antisocial behavior — in this case defined as violating rules to obtain a reward.

“I definitely believe that anonymity affects the frequency of antisocial behavior among individuals to some extent, even when these individuals have a reasonable sense of morality — so-called ‘ordinary people,’” says study author Tatsuya Nogami of Nagoya University in Japan.

“In my personal opinion, people generally try to comply with social norms in everyday life, even when such compliance with norms and rules conflicts with their personal self-interests. However, if you can get what you want without receiving any punishment or negative evaluations from others, are you still 100 percent sure that you’ll always refrain from engaging in that kind of undesirable behavior?”

Rage against the machine
...
McIntyre, the billing specialist from Houston, says the online news forums she’s participated in over the years have led her down many a dark and dysfunctional corridor.

“People get sucked in,” she says. “You can be whoever you want, you can put out there whatever you want, and there are no consequences. I even got sucked in and was mean to people. I consider myself better than that, but I did it too, and that bothers me. I guess it’s just the dynamic.”

Rider University psychology professor John Suler wrote about this dynamic in his 2004 paper “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” In it, he describes both toxic disinhibition — angry, threatening behavior such as that seen in flame wars or cyberbullying — and benign disinhibition, in which people make overly personal revelations due to the intimate nature of the medium. (Think online daters who “fall in love” without ever meeting.)

A lot of this effect has to do with feedback — or lack thereof, says Wallace.

“The environment affects how you behave,” she says. “Any time you go to places where you’re not known — even if it’s a hotel in another city — you might be more aggressive. So when you construct an environment like the Internet or long-distance call centers with a help desk worker in Bangalore, you’re creating an environment that facilitates uncharacteristic behavior.

You’re not getting those nonverbal cues that calibrate your behavior and give you feedback if you’re going off track. Those people who do customer service for Comcast probably need double doses of Zoloft.”

Cherise Oleksak, a 35-year-old cable TV customer service representative from Fife, Wash., says dealing with people’s disinhibited side can definitely be a challenge. Some scream and rage; others get a little more, uh, personal.

“You’ll get people who will turn into perverts,” she says. ”They’ll ask you out or ask you to do (FREE) phone sex. They’ll be like, ‘Can you read those pay-per-view adult movie titles out loud to me again?’”

Robin Taylor, 42, a customer care representative from Nashville, Tenn., says she’s seen this split, as well.
...

“I guess they feel they can say whatever they want because they’re anonymous, but the funny thing is we have all their information: their name, their address, their phone number, even part of their Social Security number.

Not that I would ever retaliate, but if we ended up with some psycho (employee), it could happen.”

Going public
Interestingly enough, some folks are starting to retaliate.

Surreptitious tape recordings of outrageously bad customer behavior have started to pop up on YouTube in all their profanity-laced glory.

In 2004, comedienne Margaret Cho posted dozens of hateful e-mail messages she’d received in response to a monologue on her Web site, along with each sender’s full name and e-mail address. Shamed — and deluged with their own hate mail from Cho’s fans — some posters sent in abject letters of apology.

In the online world, abusive users hiding behind anonymous screen names are being outed, sometimes to huge public embarrassment as when Whole Foods chief executive John Mackey was unmasked as the sock puppet responsible for posting numerous attacks against competitors on a Yahoo! financial message board.

And media sites from Sacramento to Soho are stepping up their moderation of anonymous comments in an attempt to keep the incivility down to a low roar.

“When we first started with online blogs and that sort of thing, people weren’t aware of how much the environment could affect their behavior, but now people are getting much more savvy about it,” Wallace says. “But the issue that needs to be considered now is there’s no privacy. People need to recognize that they just can’t send out these blogging responses and e-mails and expect their anonymity to be preserved. It probably won’t be.

Recording devices are everywhere and Web 2.0, with its user-generated content, greatly amplifies the Net’s power to expose and publicize.

“It also archives forever.”

(full article found here)

(please see our far right column for a few of the VICTIMS of Exposed Predators and how they fought back against smear and lies from the Exposed Predators)

Hate & the Internet

Does the internet encourage insidious and bullying behaviour?

I remember the first time I logged into a chatroom. It was 1996, and I was using my mum's AOL account to mooch around the world wide web, which was still very much in its infancy. I was in that glorious, unrestricted period of life between college and reality, and the web seemed to offer splendid, unrestricted access to the outside world in a way that no generation had known before.

So it was with cocky confidence that I joined the "general" room as "Dan" (of undisclosed gender) and instantly discovered the thrill of anonymity. Behind my digital mask, I began a brief but satisfying tirade of mockery, contrariness and antisocial behaviour. Of course, compared with the stream of epithets that Xbox Live users encounter playing online, my efforts were pretty tame – I didn't question anyone's sexuality, make any racial slurs or say anything particularly negative about anyone's mother. But the sense of release I experienced in 10 minutes of childishness has remained at the back of my mind ever since I started studying the web; it helps define our behaviour online.

For some, this new technology not only facilitates, but actively encourages insidious and novel social ills. Blogs and forums are no-go zones for people who hope for rational conversation; cyberbullying has been blamed for several recent suicides; and white power, homophobic and jihadist organisations have colonised the web, preferring its potential to old-fashioned pamphleteering. It looks as if the web makes it possible for us to hate one another more easily, more efficiently and more effectively.

My mantra is that the web is an agnostic communication platform: it can do nothing to us except reflect who we are. However, as my own little descent into cyber-trollism attests, there are aspects of it that do encourage antisocial behaviour.

The biggie is anonymity, according to Dr Karen Douglas from the University of Kent, who studies the psychology of hatred online. We can log into a forum under a pseudonym, lob a hate bomb and then fade away into the digital ether. It's like playing a trick on Halloween; it's childish, it seems insignificant, and it's kinda fun. Unfortunately, such actions can have real-life consequences depending on who the hatred is directed at, how often it happens and whether there's support in place if the victim needs it.

But is anonymity alone the issue? Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus at Stanford University, has been studying why people do evil since the 60s, and he says that environmental social cues are equally as important. In his famous Stanford prison experiment in 1971, a random selection of psychologically stable subjects were transformed into brutal prison guards after being given mirrored sunglasses and uniforms and told to play the role.

To reindividuate anonymous members of online crowds, forums, blogs and news sites – including the Observer's – are increasingly asking commentators to register their real names before posting any material (even if they then do so using a pseudonym). It's believed that the forging of this simple link between the virtual and offline persona is why relatively few counter-normative attitudes are expressed on sites such as Facebook, where exposing yourself as racist can turn you into a social pariah. Unless, of course, your friends are racists too. And that's a more difficult problem to solve.

Data traffic indicates that, online, we are increasingly talking to people just like ourselves, relying on our friends' directions to navigate the web. It's ironic that, rather than opening us up to an ever-greater number of opinions and attitudes, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter may actually be narrowing our worldview, confirming what we already believe and reinforcing attitudes we hold already.

So what happens when we only communicate with people like ourselves, and the messages we share only reinforce our mutual hatred? It's a technique radical religious and racist organisations have always used to make sure their members conform, but now they're employing technological tools to create global communities of like-minded ideologues.

Groups such as Stormfront.org and GodHatesFags.com use the web for networking, self-promotion and recruitment. They give support and intellectual ammunition to existing members, rarely explicitly inciting violence. Thankfully, it appears that efforts to convince non-believers to convert to their cause are rarely successful – although we have yet to see the impact of their children's zones (with links to games, and alternative information for schoolwork, that reinforce their ideologies).

It's not all bad news, however. Just as the web is a powerful tool to get the message out, it's also a good vehicle to expose its flaws. The rampant opinions that dominate online life challenge users to be critical of the content they consume, and considerate in how they construct effective counter-arguments.

Online hatred is real, and it can have a very real effect. But we are in command of the technology; it's not in charge of us. And as for anonymity, back in 1996, even though I hid behind a false name, I didn't throw a hate bomb into that chatroom and run away; no, I was booted out. And frankly, my moment of humiliation was exactly what I deserved.

original article here

Cyberharassers: You Can Hide, But You Can Not Run

If you think using a false identity will allow you to slander or harass people online, think again. Anonymity will not save you.

By Dan Tynan

You gotta love the InterWebs. You can get away with saying practically anything about anybody-- and if you hide behind a fake identity, nobody will ever be able to tell it’s you. Right?

Well, no. You can’t just say slander or harass someone without repercussions. If what you say or do would break a law in physical space, it will also break laws in cyber space. And I don’t care how anonymous you think you are, your identity is only a subpoena away.

(REMINDER: Every victim who's predator/ harasser has been exposed on EOPC has to sign a legally binding document that holds EOPC harmless. The post(s) is the FULL responsibility of the victim who sends the information to be posted.)

William Lawrence Cassidy found this out the hard way after he posted some 8,000 nasty, threatening, and disturbing tweets directed at one woman: Alyce Zeoli, a Buddhist leader in Maryland.

Cassidy, who also went by a variety of aliases including Tulku Urgyan Tenpa Rinpoche and Marshal Jim Duncan, probably thought he was being clever by posting the tweets via fake names. He wasn’t. He's now cooling his heels in a Maryland jail cell, awaiting trial for cyber harassment.

Per the New York Times:

… in response to a subpoena, [Twitter] revealed the Internet protocol address of the computer used to post the messages. The authorities found Mr. Cassidy at home in a small Southern California town called Lucerne Valley. Similar rants were posted on blogs that law enforcement authorities say they traced to him.

I had a tiny taste of something similar myself recently, after I made a joke about the Tea Party in a blog post. I said that before I friended anyone on Facebook I always make sure they’re not ax murderers or Tea Party members. After this lone comment prompted a handful of “news” stories on right-wing sites, I tweeted out a formal apology – to ax murderers.

You’d think I’d bitch slapped Sarah Palin while strangling a puppy. I cannot repeat here most of the nasty NSFW things these people said about me in blog comments and on Twitter.

But the worst one was the pseudonymous a**clown who made a “joke” by tweeting about my alleged fondness for kiddie porn. I informed him that he was flirting with a defamation suit, but he didn’t care – he seemed to think he was immune.

I’m not sure what these people thought they’d achieve by this campaign, but I think they proved my point about why I wouldn’t want to friend them.

Some free speech advocates argue that Twitter is a public forum where all voices should be heard. In Cassidy’s case, his alleged harassment of Zeoli seems to go well beyond free speech and into threats against her physical safety.

In my case, well, I’m a big fan of the First Amendment – I use it every day -- but I don’t think it gives you a license to slander or knowingly spread falsehoods. And I’m not alone.

“There is a whole litany of things that are not protected by the First Amendment, including illegal activity and copyright violations,” notes Bennet Kelly, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in cyber law who’s also an award-winning blogger for the Huffington Post.

Kelley often represents people who’ve been harassed or stalked online, typically by people posting anonymously or via a fake identity.

“These people think they’re immune, that they can hide their identity and get away with anything,” says Kelley. “But the victims usually have a pretty good idea of who these people are, and if not, we can investigate and find out.”

The simplest route: Take the account information and/or IP addresses used by the harasser, and demand their real identity and contact info from their service providers.

Once Kelley approaches the harassers, they usually take the offending material down to avoid further legal consequences.

Unfortunately, cyber harassment doesn’t get the attention it deserves, says Kelley. “People get all upset about cookies invading the privacy,” he says. “When’s the last time someone committed suicide over a cookie?”

TY4NS blogger Dan Tynan hasn’t sued anybody yet, but there’s still time. Visit his snarky, occasionally NSFW blog eSarcasm or follow him on Twitter: @tynan_on_tech.


original article here

You've Got H@TE MAIL!

Remember the time when new netizens were discovering the joys of e-mail and chat? When we watched Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail log on and send messages to Tom Hanks. That was cool, way back in 1998, when that film was released. It explored the concept of what happens when the virtual world and the real world intersect at some point.



All that is old hat now. We send emails, we chat, we message, we scrap, we follow each other on Twitter, we scribble on Facebook's wall. We have SecondLife. The possibilities are endless. Your gmail inbox could be an excellent pointer. "Where are you now? I'd like to add you to my travel network”, says one mail. “XXX added you as a friend on Facebook” says another. There are join-us requests from at least three other social networking sites. And then, some blog comments that you have to moderate. So, cleaning the inbox could well take up an hour or two of your working day. All thanks to social networking. We live in an over-connected world, you see. Everyone's connected to everyone else and their cousin, thrice removed.



So, what's wrong with being connected? Nothing, except that we tend to lose perspective on who's a friend, who's not, and how much of our emotional investment needs to go into all this. Benign, harmless scraps, blog comments and messages are still tolerable. All you need to do is hit the delete button. But then, what about hate? What about those comments that hurt? What happens if there’s a sensitive person on the other end, who takes the hate personally?



Out of sheer curiosity, I log on to my Orkut account, and check out the hate communities. There are harmless "I hate to wake up early" to "I hate rain"communities. Soon, it turns ugly. And scary, if one may add. Take "Kill me, I'm fed up of my life" It had a whopping 3,000 members when one last checked. There's “Guns n Guts”, there's “I hurt myself; so you can't” with 7,000 members.



A web of distrust

One of the communities even suggests various methods to commit suicide. This community has a whopping 2,000 members at last count. Isn't this hate reflective of society itself? Surely, something's gone wrong somewhere.



According to psychologist Sonali Nag of the Promise Foundation, "Hate is a fundamental human emotion. As most other emotions, it is neither negative nor positive. It could be generated in response to something strongly repugnant to oneself and one's values. It could also be born from a sense of inadequacy. Both forms are seen on the Internet. It provides a screen to one's identity and offers a medium to express emotions with lower levels of restraint. ‘Snarking’ is an example of using the anonymity that the Internet provides to be snide and unrestrained in one's responses to someone else's postings. I would suspect that if one examined the personality of a 'snarker', one would find a sad, unfulfilled and frustrated person hiding behind his or her snarks."



There are hate communities directed at individuals and some very respected personalities at that. And then, countries. There was legal trouble when a ‘We hate India’ community was set up on a social networking site.



Omar Abdullah’s ‘alvida’

Social networking was also held responsible for the death of 16-year-old Adnan Patrawala from Mumbai, who was kidnapped and murdered by his Orkut friends. While social networking sites and blogs are excellent platforms for celebrities like an Aamir Khan or an Amitabh Bachchan to put across their points of view, they also make them vulnerable to hate comments.



You only have to check out Ram Gopal Varma's blog to see the kind of comments his posts elicit. But RGV blogs on, undeterred, responding to his readers sharply. But, then, it could get very serious.



Take the case of politician Omar Abdullah, who used the blog http://jknc.org/blog/ to air his views on Kashmir. He started his blog in mid-April, but by August, the comments and the hate got to him. His last post, titled 'Alvida' says it all. Sample this:

"Last night as I finished my last post I realised that I was filled with dread at the heap of personal abuse I was expecting when I logged on this morning and I was not wrong. We truly are a bunch of intolerant people. We want to be heard but do not have the strength to hear, we want to have an opinion but do not believe anyone else is entitled to one. So after almost 42 posts from me and more than 900 comments from all of you I am signing off and I will not be coming back."

Faceless dread

A clear case of cyber harassment. The nature of the Internet, as it is evident now, is that it is an open, free world, where everyone has the right to vent their views, or form communities without much social responsibility. The very fact that the bully is a faceless, unknown person, adds to the helplessness of the victim. Terror too, has spread its scary shadows on the Internet. Terror mails are sent from random IP addresses. As recently as September 2008, newspapers reported that a community called 'Indian Mujahideen' was banned from a social networking site, following the blasts in Delhi.



A presentation on 'Tracking terrorists in cyber space' made by J Prasanna, an Information Security Consultant, at a seminar organised by Digital Society Foundation of India, in Bangalore, acknowledges that most terrorists and spies indeed use the Internet. They use the Internet to leave a message on a website like orkut, Linkedin or a matrimonial website that looks normal. Only they understand where to look and what to read and it's difficult for others to find out. This is called a covert channel. Also, terrorists use anonymous proxy (with encryption) to transmit messages.



So, do we regulate the internet?

According to Na Vijayshankar, cyber law campaigner, the police are supposed to monitor any anti-social activities in society and can take action on their own. Vijayshankar, who is also the Chairman of the Digital Society Foundation of India, says the organisation proposes to act as a vigilante unit. He points out that his organisation even filed a PIL in connection with denigration of Gandhi on You Tube. "I personally try to keep the police informed. I strongly feel the police should maintain contact with voluntary organisations to act as cyber informers."



But does this not infringe upon freedom of expression and privacy? Agrees Na Vijayshankar, "It is a fact that sometimes privacy interests conflict with law enforcement."



However, Naavi cites a India Supreme Court judgment, which says “that the person’s ‘right to be let alone’ is not an absolute right and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.”



During the seminar on Privacy Rights and Data Protection in Cyber Space, he expressed the need for balancing the Privacy and Data Protection legislation with law enforcement and suggested that the forum would collect the opinion of experts and forward it to the government for necessary action when the Personal Data Protection Bill 2006 and ITA Amendment Act Bill would be taken up for discussion in the Parliamentary session.

“What the ITA 2000 fails to protect are cases such as 'cyber stalking' where privacy intrusion through e-mails or SMS messages creates problems for individuals. If such messages can be brought under "Obscenity" then it may be covered under Section 67 of ITA 2000. If it is indecent or threatening, it may be brought under IPC. This is essentially the protection that is available,” he points out in his presentation.

However, there is the issue of what constitutes privacy rights. When the police on a crime trail end up on a social networking site , there are commercial interests that try to block the police from accessing information which may be vital to solving the crime. Often the defense put up by the sites is that the information is protected by the ‘Privacy rights’ of someone else or that they are to be treated as ‘Intermediaries’ and should not be harassed, explains Naavi.



Which brings us back to that old question of freedom and responsibility. Particularly so, with reference to democracies, where one’s rights cannot be divorced from one’s responsibilities. Where there’s freedom, there’s responsibility. Now, if only those hate mongers understood.



Impact on children

As with all other aspects of helping children learn to live life completely, shielding them from cyber bullying is not an effective answer. An emotionally secure home environment that allows exploration and experimentation constantly backed up by support and introspection, would help them develop strong identities. A strong, self-accepting identity, would neither bully or be bullied, the psychologist explains.



The bullies and their victims

• In March 2007, high-profile technology blogger Kathy Sierra of the United States became a victim of cyber bullying. She received anonymous death threats on her blog and violent comments were made against her. Kathy was so scared that she stopped blogging. The incident triggered a movement in cyberspace, and hundreds of bloggers reported to have been victims of cyber bullying at some point in their online lives. An Anti- Cyber bullying Day was observed on March 30 that year, in protest.
• Another American citizen, Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl committed suicide in October 2006, when personal comments on her looks and appearance got to her on a social networking site.
• Not many Indian bloggers would have forgotten the vicious personal comments and washing of dirty linen on the blogosphere, when a noted youth blog (youthcurry.blogspot.com) had a post about a management institute.
• Ironically, the Internet is also an excellent resource for parents who are worried about their children becoming targets of vicious attacks. There are websites dedicated to cyber bullying. Some of them include: http://www.cyberbullyalert.com/blog/ stopcyberbullying.org.

Stand up to a bully!

According to psychologist Sonali Nag, “It is an extension of the bullying that seems to be integral to the human predicament, be it on the school playground or between countries. The only difference between the school bully and the Internet bully, perhaps is that anonymity allows the cyber bully an easier chance of getting away. The bully is usually a coward who melts away when confronted.



Here again low self-esteem and deep feelings of inadequacy seem to characterize the bully. Interestingly though, the bullied sometimes, want the relationship with the bully to continue. For the price of being bullied, they gain the reward of being the bully's protege and of being protected by the bully. However, for those who want to be released from this form of abuse, the bullied can be empowered to stand up to a bully.

original article here

CYBERBULLIES

CYBERBULLIES

"Cyberstalkers are often driven by revenge, hate, anger, jealousy, obsession and mental illness. While a cyberharasser may be motivated by some of these same feelings, often the harassment is driven by the desire to frighten or embarrass the harassment victim.



"Sometimes the harasser intends to teach the victim a lesson in netiquette or political correctness (from the harasser's point of view). Often the cyberharassment victim is merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, or has made a comment or expressed an opinion that the cyberharasser dislikes.



We have even seen cases where the victim is merely being targeted because they are the first ones the cyberharasser encounters when they are in a "bad mood."



Excerpted from wiredsafety.org.

The World's largest online safety and help group.



CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO CAPTURE AND STORE ONLINE EVIDENCE OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBERPATH-ING.

Court Protects Anonymity

By Evan Brown

ShareSandals Resorts Intern. Ltd. v. Google, Inc., — N.Y.S.2d —, 2011 WL 1885939, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., May 19, 2011)

(U.S.A.) Some unknown person sent an email to a number of undisclosed recipients containing information that was critical of the hiring and other business practices of the Caribbean resort Sandals. Irritated by this communication, Sandals filed an action in New York state court seeking a subpoena to compel Google to identify the owner of the offending Gmail account.

The trial court denied the petition seeking discovery. Sandals sought review with the appellate court. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the petition for discovery.

Under New York law, a person or entity can learn the identity of an unknown possible defendant only when it demonstrates that it has “a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong.” In this case, the court held that the petition failed to demonstrate that Sandals had a meritorious cause of action.

The court found that nothing in the petition identified specific assertions of fact as false. It also found that the lower court did not err in reasoning that the failure to allege the nature of the injuries caused by the statements in the email were fatal to the petition.

It went on to find that even if the petition had sufficiently alleged the email injured Sandals’ business reputation or damaged its credit standing, it would still deny the application for disclosure of the account holder’s identification on the ground that the subject email was constitutionally protected opinion.

In discussing this portion of its decision, the court said some interesting things about the nature of internet communications, apparently allowing a certain characterization of online speech to affect its rationale:

The culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such a newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a “freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.” [...] [T]he e-mail at issue here . . . bears some similarity to the type of handbills and pamphlets whose anonymity is protected when their publication is prompted by the desire to question, challenge and criticize the practices of those in power without incurring adverse consequences such as economic or official retaliation. [...] Indeed, the anonymity of the e-mail makes it more likely that a reasonable reader would view its assertions with some skepticism and tend to treat its contents as opinion rather than as fact.

The court made clear that these observations were “in no way intended to immunize e-mails the focus and purpose of which are to disseminate injurious falsehoods about their subjects.” The real cause for concern, and the thing to protect against, in the court’s view, was “the use of subpoenas by corporations and plaintiffs with business interests to enlist the help of ISPs via court orders to silence their online critics, which threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas.”



original post here

Court Protects Anonymity

By Evan Brown

ShareSandals Resorts Intern. Ltd. v. Google, Inc., — N.Y.S.2d —, 2011 WL 1885939, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., May 19, 2011)

(U.S.A.) Some unknown person sent an email to a number of undisclosed recipients containing information that was critical of the hiring and other business practices of the Caribbean resort Sandals. Irritated by this communication, Sandals filed an action in New York state court seeking a subpoena to compel Google to identify the owner of the offending Gmail account.

The trial court denied the petition seeking discovery. Sandals sought review with the appellate court. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the petition for discovery.

Under New York law, a person or entity can learn the identity of an unknown possible defendant only when it demonstrates that it has “a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong.” In this case, the court held that the petition failed to demonstrate that Sandals had a meritorious cause of action.

The court found that nothing in the petition identified specific assertions of fact as false. It also found that the lower court did not err in reasoning that the failure to allege the nature of the injuries caused by the statements in the email were fatal to the petition.

It went on to find that even if the petition had sufficiently alleged the email injured Sandals’ business reputation or damaged its credit standing, it would still deny the application for disclosure of the account holder’s identification on the ground that the subject email was constitutionally protected opinion.

In discussing this portion of its decision, the court said some interesting things about the nature of internet communications, apparently allowing a certain characterization of online speech to affect its rationale:

The culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such a newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a “freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.” [...] [T]he e-mail at issue here . . . bears some similarity to the type of handbills and pamphlets whose anonymity is protected when their publication is prompted by the desire to question, challenge and criticize the practices of those in power without incurring adverse consequences such as economic or official retaliation. [...] Indeed, the anonymity of the e-mail makes it more likely that a reasonable reader would view its assertions with some skepticism and tend to treat its contents as opinion rather than as fact.

The court made clear that these observations were “in no way intended to immunize e-mails the focus and purpose of which are to disseminate injurious falsehoods about their subjects.” The real cause for concern, and the thing to protect against, in the court’s view, was “the use of subpoenas by corporations and plaintiffs with business interests to enlist the help of ISPs via court orders to silence their online critics, which threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas.”



original post here

Facebook = Breeding Ground for Harassment

by Saffron Howden

Cyberbullying a major problem.

POLICE are investigating allegations an Australian mother has been harassed, stalked and bullied on the social networking site, Facebook.


The accusations coincide with the release of a new a report into cyberbullying, which found that social networking sites were the most common online vehicle for bullying - ahead of chat rooms and email.

The woman, from just outside Lismore, has become so distressed by the experience, she is considering taking her children and leaving.

She told The Northern Star she was approached in December through Facebook by someone using a pseudonym.

They tried to ingratiate themselves with her by sharing information they knew would interest her.

When she became suspicious, it turned nasty.

The woman blocked the person as a friend on her Facebook profile, but they had already identified all the people listed as her friends on the site and began sending messages to them.

“They said: 'I'm closer than you think' and 'I'm watching you'.

“Quite serious stuff, like everybody hates me and I should kill myself.”

She formally reported the matter to police on Friday.

The experience has been upsetting for her and her young children, she said.

“Facebook is going to be a huge vehicle for bullying and stalking because of the anonymity they've got and they can do this bullying on a massive scale,” she said.

“It needs to be made fairly clear, as far as policing goes, that it's not appropriate behaviour,” she said.

If the perpetrator was positively identified, she said she may be able to take out an apprehended violence order (AVO) against them.

Richmond Crime Commander Inspector Steve Clarke said it was difficult for police to take action in bullying cases, online or otherwise, until the actions constituted criminal behaviour.

“Bullying itself is not an offence,” he said.

“It's something that we're aware of.

“A lot of the service providers would have some sort of system in place that would allow you to change your contact details,” he advised.

NSW Youth Minister Graham West yesterday released a report by the state Youth Advisory Council which found that cyberbullying could be more damaging than face-to-face bullying.

“The fact that the insults, comments or footage can be preserved either by the person who was bullied or others means that the target may read or view them repeatedly, re-inflicting harm with each reading or viewing,” the report said.

It also found that the anonymity of cyberspace may embolden young people to bully where they may not have otherwise.

It recommended the government educate people about the issues and impacts, target existing services to deal with cyberbullying, and work with Internet service providers to create a central body for processing complaints.


“I don't know what drives bullies to do what they do, or how we can help defeat them but I do know one thing, we MUST do something to stop them and we MUST do it now!!”

“I've had all kinds of things - from text messages and abusive calls (which were private calls and so therefore could not be tracked) all the way to emails, comments, and other such basic bullying tactics … a friend from school … pretending to be me in several instances.”

“Over the course of three years one girl has fueled the cyberbullying against me by writing defamatory blogs about my fiance and me… and by convincing her friends to send not only myself, but my other friend rude comments. There have been threats against me.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Facebook = Breeding Ground for Harassment

by Saffron Howden

Cyberbullying a major problem.

POLICE are investigating allegations an Australian mother has been harassed, stalked and bullied on the social networking site, Facebook.


The accusations coincide with the release of a new a report into cyberbullying, which found that social networking sites were the most common online vehicle for bullying - ahead of chat rooms and email.

The woman, from just outside Lismore, has become so distressed by the experience, she is considering taking her children and leaving.

She told The Northern Star she was approached in December through Facebook by someone using a pseudonym.

They tried to ingratiate themselves with her by sharing information they knew would interest her.

When she became suspicious, it turned nasty.

The woman blocked the person as a friend on her Facebook profile, but they had already identified all the people listed as her friends on the site and began sending messages to them.

“They said: 'I'm closer than you think' and 'I'm watching you'.

“Quite serious stuff, like everybody hates me and I should kill myself.”

She formally reported the matter to police on Friday.

The experience has been upsetting for her and her young children, she said.

“Facebook is going to be a huge vehicle for bullying and stalking because of the anonymity they've got and they can do this bullying on a massive scale,” she said.

“It needs to be made fairly clear, as far as policing goes, that it's not appropriate behaviour,” she said.

If the perpetrator was positively identified, she said she may be able to take out an apprehended violence order (AVO) against them.

Richmond Crime Commander Inspector Steve Clarke said it was difficult for police to take action in bullying cases, online or otherwise, until the actions constituted criminal behaviour.

“Bullying itself is not an offence,” he said.

“It's something that we're aware of.

“A lot of the service providers would have some sort of system in place that would allow you to change your contact details,” he advised.

NSW Youth Minister Graham West yesterday released a report by the state Youth Advisory Council which found that cyberbullying could be more damaging than face-to-face bullying.

“The fact that the insults, comments or footage can be preserved either by the person who was bullied or others means that the target may read or view them repeatedly, re-inflicting harm with each reading or viewing,” the report said.

It also found that the anonymity of cyberspace may embolden young people to bully where they may not have otherwise.

It recommended the government educate people about the issues and impacts, target existing services to deal with cyberbullying, and work with Internet service providers to create a central body for processing complaints.


“I don't know what drives bullies to do what they do, or how we can help defeat them but I do know one thing, we MUST do something to stop them and we MUST do it now!!”

“I've had all kinds of things - from text messages and abusive calls (which were private calls and so therefore could not be tracked) all the way to emails, comments, and other such basic bullying tactics … a friend from school … pretending to be me in several instances.”

“Over the course of three years one girl has fueled the cyberbullying against me by writing defamatory blogs about my fiance and me… and by convincing her friends to send not only myself, but my other friend rude comments. There have been threats against me.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Facebook Harasser Hounds Woman from her Home

By Karon Kelly

(U.K.) A TERRIFIED mum was hounded out of her home by threats made on a social networking site by a woman who had already attacked her.

Danielle Rodgers took her children out of school and moved away from her family and friends because of her fear.

Newcastle Crown Court heard Miss Rodgers had been attacked by Roxanne Fox during a night out with friends in South Shields on January 31.

During the incident, Miss Rodgers was punched in the face up to five times and kicked in the legs as she shouted for help.

The day after the attack, Fox turned up at the home of Miss Rodgers's father and warned she was still "going to get her", the court heard.

In the 48 hours which followed, Miss Rodgers – who was "friends" with Fox on Facebook – received a series of threats on the Internet site.

James Adkin, prosecuting, told the court: "They were arguably vitriolic and definitely contained threats of further violence.

"She said it was going to be a 'hospital job' next time. She would find out where she was living, and that she had been looking for her and that it was not over, essentially."

Fox had attacked Miss Rodgers and her friend Danielle Taylor after a chance meeting as they all left Vogue nightclub in Anderson Street turned into a row.

While Miss Rodgers was punched and kicked, her friend Miss Taylor tried to intervene but was poked in the eye when Fox grabbed at her face.

Meanwhile, Fox's pal Louise Seales hit Miss Rodgers's other friend Judith Elliott over the head with a wine bottle, causing a lump and a cut.

Miss Elliott's daughter Kirsty Laing was also injured in the alteraction.

Fox, 28, of Prince Edward Road, South Shields, admitted affray and harassment.

Seales, 28, of Steward Crescent, South Shields, admitted assault causing bodily harm and common assault.

Gavin Doig, defending mum-of-two Fox, said the Facebook messages continued for just two days after the incident.

Mr Doig said: "They were empty words and nothing more, unpleasant words, but no actions followed from the threats."

Kevin Smallcombe, defending Seales, said the mum-of four has shown remorse.

Mr Recorder Richard Woolfall sentenced Fox to 20 weeks' imprisonment suspended for two years with supervision.

He also made a restraining order banning her from having any contact with Miss Rodgers for five years.

The Judge told Fox: "So bad was the impact on her, she has left her home, her family and her friends because she doesn't feel safe anymore living where she has been for some time."

Seales was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for two years with supervision.

The judge said: "The pair of you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves."

Facebook Harasser Hounds Woman from her Home

By Karon Kelly

(U.K.) A TERRIFIED mum was hounded out of her home by threats made on a social networking site by a woman who had already attacked her.

Danielle Rodgers took her children out of school and moved away from her family and friends because of her fear.

Newcastle Crown Court heard Miss Rodgers had been attacked by Roxanne Fox during a night out with friends in South Shields on January 31.

During the incident, Miss Rodgers was punched in the face up to five times and kicked in the legs as she shouted for help.

The day after the attack, Fox turned up at the home of Miss Rodgers's father and warned she was still "going to get her", the court heard.

In the 48 hours which followed, Miss Rodgers – who was "friends" with Fox on Facebook – received a series of threats on the Internet site.

James Adkin, prosecuting, told the court: "They were arguably vitriolic and definitely contained threats of further violence.

"She said it was going to be a 'hospital job' next time. She would find out where she was living, and that she had been looking for her and that it was not over, essentially."

Fox had attacked Miss Rodgers and her friend Danielle Taylor after a chance meeting as they all left Vogue nightclub in Anderson Street turned into a row.

While Miss Rodgers was punched and kicked, her friend Miss Taylor tried to intervene but was poked in the eye when Fox grabbed at her face.

Meanwhile, Fox's pal Louise Seales hit Miss Rodgers's other friend Judith Elliott over the head with a wine bottle, causing a lump and a cut.

Miss Elliott's daughter Kirsty Laing was also injured in the alteraction.

Fox, 28, of Prince Edward Road, South Shields, admitted affray and harassment.

Seales, 28, of Steward Crescent, South Shields, admitted assault causing bodily harm and common assault.

Gavin Doig, defending mum-of-two Fox, said the Facebook messages continued for just two days after the incident.

Mr Doig said: "They were empty words and nothing more, unpleasant words, but no actions followed from the threats."

Kevin Smallcombe, defending Seales, said the mum-of four has shown remorse.

Mr Recorder Richard Woolfall sentenced Fox to 20 weeks' imprisonment suspended for two years with supervision.

He also made a restraining order banning her from having any contact with Miss Rodgers for five years.

The Judge told Fox: "So bad was the impact on her, she has left her home, her family and her friends because she doesn't feel safe anymore living where she has been for some time."

Seales was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for two years with supervision.

The judge said: "The pair of you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves."

Her Ex is Getting his Revenge - Online

Woman Says Her Name, Number Posted Online Inviting Sex

(MISSOURI, USA) She wanted him out of her life, but had no idea he would drag their breakup onto the Internet.

That’s what a Raytown woman said happened after she ended a relationship a month ago.

She said her former husband sent her a text message telling her to check out Craigslist. When she did, she found her name, address and phone number on the Internet site, inviting people to drop by her home for sex. (our cyberpath YidwithLid/Dunetz did this to his Target #1)

So many people responded that she was forced to change her phone number, leave her home and now she is seeking a permanent restraining order against the 44-year-old man.

KMBC's Bev Chapman reported that people who use Craigslist know that it's a place to buy, sell, trade and meet people. For this woman, it's apparently a vehicle for revenge.

"I think it's insane," she said. "I feel like I'm losing my mind over the whole deal. I'm not safe. I'm constantly looking around."

The woman, who did not want her identity revealed, said that she just learned of the posting last weekend. Her ex-husband's post was under the Kansas City list page, in the column for personals, in the casual encounters section.

The posting was crude and explicit. It described her as fit, disease and drug-free.

"Within 45 minutes, I had 17 to 18 texts and phone calls," she said. One man even showed up at her home while a police car was parked in the driveway.

This was not the first incident with her ex-husband in the more than five years since their divorce. The couple reunited for three months last year, and ended it again a month ago.

"He goes through cycles," she said. "He loves me, he hates me."

The post was removed from Craigslist. The site's operators sent a message that said they believed the post was clearly harassment.

A spokeswoman for the Jackson County Prosecutor's office said they have seen a few cases of Internet harassment, but they can do nothing for the woman without a police report.

SOURCE

Her Ex is Getting his Revenge - Online

Woman Says Her Name, Number Posted Online Inviting Sex

(MISSOURI, USA) She wanted him out of her life, but had no idea he would drag their breakup onto the Internet.

That’s what a Raytown woman said happened after she ended a relationship a month ago.

She said her former husband sent her a text message telling her to check out Craigslist. When she did, she found her name, address and phone number on the Internet site, inviting people to drop by her home for sex. (our cyberpath YidwithLid/Dunetz did this to his Target #1)

So many people responded that she was forced to change her phone number, leave her home and now she is seeking a permanent restraining order against the 44-year-old man.

KMBC's Bev Chapman reported that people who use Craigslist know that it's a place to buy, sell, trade and meet people. For this woman, it's apparently a vehicle for revenge.

"I think it's insane," she said. "I feel like I'm losing my mind over the whole deal. I'm not safe. I'm constantly looking around."

The woman, who did not want her identity revealed, said that she just learned of the posting last weekend. Her ex-husband's post was under the Kansas City list page, in the column for personals, in the casual encounters section.

The posting was crude and explicit. It described her as fit, disease and drug-free.

"Within 45 minutes, I had 17 to 18 texts and phone calls," she said. One man even showed up at her home while a police car was parked in the driveway.

This was not the first incident with her ex-husband in the more than five years since their divorce. The couple reunited for three months last year, and ended it again a month ago.

"He goes through cycles," she said. "He loves me, he hates me."

The post was removed from Craigslist. The site's operators sent a message that said they believed the post was clearly harassment.

A spokeswoman for the Jackson County Prosecutor's office said they have seen a few cases of Internet harassment, but they can do nothing for the woman without a police report.

SOURCE

Exposure: Good -- Harassment: Bad

Doing this sort of thing can get YOU arrested!


A 22-year-old sailor told police Tuesday he’s not happy about getting what he called “harassing” phone calls after his information and photo were posted under the “gay section” of Craigslist, according to Bremerton, WA Police reports.

The man, stationed aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, told police he doesn’t know who’s responsible, but said two ads have been put up on the Kitsap County, Washington portion of the site and another ad has been put up on an out-of-state portion of the site.

Police are still investigating. Anyone with information is asked to call 911.

Exposure: Good -- Harassment: Bad

Doing this sort of thing can get YOU arrested!


A 22-year-old sailor told police Tuesday he’s not happy about getting what he called “harassing” phone calls after his information and photo were posted under the “gay section” of Craigslist, according to Bremerton, WA Police reports.

The man, stationed aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, told police he doesn’t know who’s responsible, but said two ads have been put up on the Kitsap County, Washington portion of the site and another ad has been put up on an out-of-state portion of the site.

Police are still investigating. Anyone with information is asked to call 911.

Website Criticizing Business Wins in Court

Web sites are a great way to spread the word about a business.

As for spreading the bad word about one? That can have mixed results.

A Web site dedicated to criticizing a Lorain County home builder won a court battle last month to stay on the Internet. Just as significantly, the owner maintained his ability to run the Web site anonymously.

But the owner, listed as "John Doe" in the court filings, warned that taking on a person or company in such a Web site can bring a cost. He and the builder, Powermark Homes Inc., fought over the site in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for more than a year and a half.

"If there is a lesson in this, it is to be careful, be very careful what you say or put on the Internet," he said through his lawyer. "Even if you are only making innocent comments on a blog, you can wake up one day and find out you are being sued simply because someone didn't like what you wrote, and the nightmare begins."

The first Web site targeting Powermark was disconnected before the man started a second, www.powermarkhomessucks.com.

Powermark lawyer Bruce McLain, who handled parts of the defamation and invasion of privacy suit, said it matters who owns the Web site.

"We are quite sure this person is not a consumer at all but another business," he said, but he conceded: "We can't prove it."

Powermark Homes Inc., based in Columbia Station, builds large homes throughout Greater Cleveland, according to the company's Web site.

The site www.powermarkhomes.net caught the attention of the company in 2007 with the words "Powermark Homes Alert: Do you really want to do business with this Ohio home builder?"

The site also had a photo, taken from Powermark's official site, showing owner Mark Powers and his wife, Lisa, with several messages superimposed over it, including, "The Truth Exposed."

That site was taken down by the hosting company after McLain filed a copyright infringement claim because the photo was used without permission.

The site later returned under the new name. Although it contains a few comments about the builder, it mostly lists links to entries in local courts for lawsuits involving Powermark.

Lawyers for John Doe stated in court filings that consumers have a right to know about problems with the home builder. They noted that most of the material on the site is part of the public record anyway.

Powermark's lawyers did not go into detail about statements they found objectionable, other than the Web site's address. Instead, they tried to compel the site's creator to testify.

At a 2007 hearing, Lisa Powers objected to the site's owner remaining anonymous.

"Why don't they say it directly to my face personally?" she asked, according to a transcript. "That's what I don't understand. They can hide under a John Doe shield, but they can post my face over something that I had nothing to do with."

The case sat mostly quiet for more than a year before Judge Timothy McCormick dismissed Powermark's claims on Dec. 15. He did not issue a written ruling and declined to comment this week.

Greg Beck, a lawyer who backed the Web site through the public interest group Public Citizen, said that barring an appeal, the site will remain up.

He said that preserving the right to anonymous speech -- whether to avoid harassment or firing or retribution or simply by preference -- was key.

"It shows that in Ohio, what you say anonymously online will stay, unless someone has a very good reason to take that anonymity away," Beck said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE