Don't Shoot the Messenger: Google Can't be Held Responsible for Defamatory Blog Posts

by Tom Gardner

A High Court judge has likened Google to a graffiti strewn wall in a landmark judgement which says it cannot be held responsible for libellous or offensive content.

Mr Justice Eady said the internet giant was not bound by laws governing publishers, giving the company widespread immunity from English defamation laws.

In the judgement, which will have huge implications for freedom of speech in this country, he said: ‘It is no doubt often true that the owner of a wall which has been festooned, overnight, with defamatory graffiti could acquire scaffolding and have it all deleted with whitewash.’

'We should never have liberated France': David Starkey courts yet more controversy by claiming nations should be left to free themselves from oppression. His case against Google Inc over reactions to a blog labelling him, without justification, as a drug dealer and a thief, is now dead in the water.

Mr Tamiz sued over eight stinging ‘comments’ made in reaction to a blog posted on Google’s Blogger.com platform.

Amongst other things, they accused him of being a drug dealer and having stolen from his employers.

The judge said the allegations could not necessarily be dismissed as ‘mere vulgar abuse’ and it was ‘not altogether surprising’ that Mr Tamiz chose to sue Google as most of the posts were anonymous and it would have been difficult to track down those responsible.

But the judge was stinging of Google's lateness in reacting to Mr Tamiz's compaint, saying there was a ‘considerable delay’ before the blogger was contacted and the posts were removed.

Payam Tamiz was forced to resign as a Conservative candidate in last year's local council elections after posting inappropriate comments on the internet referring to women.

Mr Tamiz said: ‘I understand that my Facebook remarks were inappropriate and I unreservedly apologise for the offence they have caused. However, I feel it is important to put the remarks into context. They were made long before I was a member of the Conservative Party and long before I entered the political arena. They were made at a time of personal trouble and difficulty and I never intended for them to be interpreted as an unfair generalisation for the women of Thanet. I am deeply saddened that they have been taken out of context and misconstrued. I have resigned from the Conservative Party in the hope that this affair, which is being exploited and distorted by the opposition, does not damage the Party's electoral success...'

Catrin Evans, for Google, argued ‘it has no control over any of this content’ and, far from being a publisher, is merely ‘a neutral service provider’.

The judge said: ‘Google Inc makes the point that it has no way of knowing whether the comments complained of were true or not, or subject to some other defence in law.

‘It argues that it cannot reasonably be expected to investigate and determine the truth or falsity of allegations made by bloggers’.

He added: ‘One needs to be wary of analogies when considering modern technology, but it may perhaps be said that the position is, according to Google Inc, rather as though it owned a wall on which various people had chosen to inscribe graffiti. It does not regard itself as being more responsible for the content of these graffiti than would the owner of such a wall’.

Mr Justice Eady added: ‘I would be prepared to hold that it should not be regarded as a publisher, or even as one who authorises publication, under the established principles of common law. As I understand the evidence, its role, as a platform provider, is a purely passive one. I would rule that Google Inc is not liable at common law as a publisher.’

Google Inc sought almost £28,000 in legal costs against Mr Tamiz, but the judge said that figure was ‘somewhat disproportionate’ and cut it by one third.

He added that Mr Tamiz had been ‘confronted by allegations about drug dealing and stealing from his employers which no one suggested were remotely true’ and could not be blamed for going to court to remove the smear from his character.

The court heard Mr Tamiz is ‘not a man of means’ and the judge acknowledged that he ‘may not be in a position to meet’ Google’s legal costs bills, £5,000 of which he was ordered to pay within 28 days.

original article here

Civil Servant is a CyberHarasser

By Nick Fagge and Christian Gysin

When Katherine Jenkins hit out this week at the ‘pathetic’ cyber bully who had harassed her for more than a year, she stopped short of naming names.

But an online trail followed by the Daily Mail leads inexorably to a 43-year-old former civil servant called Geraldine Curtis. From her run-down home in South London, Miss Curtis has repeatedly attacked and denigrated the Welsh classical singer on a personal blog.

She has now been blocked from the star’s personal Twitter page.

Miss Jenkins, 31, had kept quiet about the seemingly endless tirade of abuse to which she has been subjected – including attacks on her Twitter site.

But she broke her silence on Sunday after appearing on the BBC’s Something For The Weekend show, where presenters asked her questions supplied by the public. To viewers, the question: ‘What is the difference between a mezzo soprano and a bel canto?’ appeared inoffensive enough. However for Miss Jenkins the identity of its supplier - named as ‘KJMezzo’ - was the last straw.

Within half an hour, she issued a withering statement describing her anonymous attacker as ‘sad’ and a ‘bully’. Shortly afterwards KJMezzo’s Twitter account was shut down, apparently in response to a request by the singer, and a blog written in the same name also disappeared.

Miss Curtis, an accountant, who lives alone, is also suspected of having posted anonymously on the We Love Katherine Jenkins website. One recent observation read: ‘KJ is an over-hyped talentless slut with no discernible talent … she is despised by opera buffs.’ Moments later, another contributor asked: ‘Is it you, Geraldine Curtis?’

Interviewed by the Mail at her semi-detached cottage in Brixton, Miss Curtis insisted she is not the person behind the KJMezzo Twitter account and did not send in the question to the BBC show on Sunday which so enraged the Welsh star. ‘I did not watch it - I did not know it was on,’ she said. ‘I had a stinking hangover. Too much red wine on Saturday.’ She later admitted, however, that she had watched the show online on the BBC iPlayer.

And, with little prompting, she launched into a bitter tirade against Miss Jenkins.

‘She can’t sing,’ said Miss Curtis. ‘She is not an opera singer. She criticises opera singers. For years her website has said that opera singers are histrionic, overweight and frumpy. ‘She claims that she has “brought opera to ordinary people” who are too stupid to like opera, that’s her attitude. She is very critical of other people but she cannot take criticism. My comments about Katherine Jenkins are critical but she is in the public eye.’

In recent days, Miss Curtis has clashed on her Twitter account with Samantha Cox, a representative of Miss Jenkins’s management company. Claiming that if you criticise Miss Jenkins ‘her heavy mob turns nasty’, Miss Curtis tweeted: ‘If my Twitter account suddenly disappears, blame Katherine Jenkins … and check my blog for details!’

Earlier Miss Cox had tweeted to Miss Curtis: ‘The vile things that come out of your mouth! ... calling someone else horrible and nasty is like the pot calling the kettle black!’

The style of attacks by KJMezzo is similar to postings placed by Miss Curtis on her own blog in the past two years. Examples include an entry in which she says: ‘Dress is too tight … she’s a Barbie doll … she looks cheap/needs her roots doing.’ She claims Miss Jenkins exploits her appearance at the Remembrance Sunday service and the death of her father when she was 15 to sell records, adding: ‘She says, “Feel sorry for me my daddy died. Buy my album”.’

And she accuses Miss Jenkins of ‘jumping on the bandwagon of the abuse of female bloggers’ with her own claims that she is being bullied.

On her personal Twitter page less than 24 hours after Miss Jenkins’s outburst, Miss Curtis wrote: ‘I expect KJ & her entourage will now accuse me of cyberbullying. They’re on a roll, with traction. Criticism is not bullying.’

On her Facebook page, Miss Curtis has posted an album of 46 photographs showing her with opera stars including Placido Domingo, Erwin Schrott, Jonas Kauffman and Rolando Villazon. Its title is ‘Stalking’.

A spokesman for Miss Jenkins said she was glad the online hate campaign against her appeared to be over and added: ‘Katherine is pleased that the Twitter account that was sending the abusive messages has now been deleted. ‘She loves using Twitter and it’s great that she can continue using it without the constant hurtful and damaging comments made by that individual.’

original article found here

Blogger Fights for First Amendment Rights

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Lone Blogger Posting List of Unfaithful Wives

Brazilian police are hunting a blogger who claims to be waging a lone crusade against unfaithful wives.

The man, from a small rural town of Lagoa da Prata, in Minas Gerais, has so far posted the name of 300 supposed cuckolds on a popular social networking site.

Copycat lists including one entitled ‘The cuckolds of Lagoa da Prata’ have also emerged, according to the Guardian.

Some victims have spoken out to reject the accusations.

One unnamed man said: ‘My wife is a Catholic and a worker. I have never had cause to doubt her.’

Another woman confessed she had nearly split up with her partner after his name appeared on the list.

In 2004 a study by a Brazilian psychiatrist claimed the state of Minas Gerais had one of the country’s highest rates of infidelity among women.

Of the women interviewed as part of the study, nearly 30 per cent admitted to having had an ‘extra’ relationship.

Police officer Lieutenant Marcondes Couto said: ‘The military police are advising people to stay calm. We are investigating and we will catch this criminal. Justice will be done.’

One suspect has already been questioned after he was allegedly spotted leaving a copy of the list in a local bank.

original article here

Lone Blogger Posting List of Unfaithful Wives

Brazilian police are hunting a blogger who claims to be waging a lone crusade against unfaithful wives.

The man, from a small rural town of Lagoa da Prata, in Minas Gerais, has so far posted the name of 300 supposed cuckolds on a popular social networking site.

Copycat lists including one entitled ‘The cuckolds of Lagoa da Prata’ have also emerged, according to the Guardian.

Some victims have spoken out to reject the accusations.

One unnamed man said: ‘My wife is a Catholic and a worker. I have never had cause to doubt her.’

Another woman confessed she had nearly split up with her partner after his name appeared on the list.

In 2004 a study by a Brazilian psychiatrist claimed the state of Minas Gerais had one of the country’s highest rates of infidelity among women.

Of the women interviewed as part of the study, nearly 30 per cent admitted to having had an ‘extra’ relationship.

Police officer Lieutenant Marcondes Couto said: ‘The military police are advising people to stay calm. We are investigating and we will catch this criminal. Justice will be done.’

One suspect has already been questioned after he was allegedly spotted leaving a copy of the list in a local bank.

original article here

Ex-Model Fights Anonymous Online Defamation

EOPC does NOT agree with this sort of defamatory blog - Skanks in NYC. It is just hateful We check our information, get members to sign a release and don't purport to diagnose or do anything more than offer our opinion. We also openly offer help to the Cyberpaths we expose. Hopefully we can stop them from preying on others & get counseling while educating the public.

A former Vogue cover girl is standing up to cyber bullies - fighting to unmask the anonymous cowards who've turned to the Web to ruin her reputation in the modeling business with a "Skanks in NYC" blog.

Liskula Cohen, 36, is seeking a court order that would force Google to reveal the person or persons behind the postings so she can hold them accountable with a defamation lawsuit. The anonymous bloggers have "posted entries, including photographs, captions to the photographs and commentary solely about Liskula Cohen that describe her as a 'skank' and a 'ho,' " her filing in Manhattan Supreme Court says.

Cohen hopes to at least force a level playing field by exposing her tormenter.

"I was shocked and embarrassed" to see photo captions and commentary "that were used to describe me as a promiscuous woman who is filthy, disgusting, foul and a whore," Cohen said in an affidavit. "The statements and suggestions made on the blog are malicious and untrue."

The site also includes "other defamatory statements concerning her appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct," the filing says. "I would have to say the first-place award for "Skankiest in NYC" would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen," "Anonymous" wrote in one posting. "She's a psychotic, lying, whoring . . . skank . . . Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one."

Cohen's lawyer, Steven Wagner, said the former Australian Vogue cover model is "very upset" about the cyber attacks. "The law protects freedom of speech, including anonymous speech, but it doesn't protect defamation, and people should not think that they can defame others on the Internet or on blogs by hiding behind a screen name," he said.

Cohen is no stranger to pain.

In January 2007, she was at the club Ultra on West 26th Street when she got into an argument with a man named Samir Dervisevic, who'd tried helping himself to a bottle of vodka on Cohen's table. He ended the spat by stabbing her in the face with a broken glass, disfiguring her.

"I went to the bathroom and I saw my whole career go down the drain. I looked in the mirror and saw a hole in my face the size of a quarter. I've been a model my whole life, and I've never had another job," she told The Post last year.

Her career skidded to a halt while she had to undergo plastic surgery to repair the damage, and her filing says she doesn't need any more agony.

"Defamatory statements describing me as a 'skank' and a 'ho' affect my reputation and desirability for endorsing products," and are "hurtful, potentially damaging to my reputation, and, significantly, they are flatly untrue," her affidavit says.

Cohen isn't without her fans - one blog commenter wrote that the person posting the blog was a "silly, silly fat girl."

"[D]o you wait three hours in line at a club, when she breezes right in?" the person asked. ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Ex-Model Fights Anonymous Online Defamation

EOPC does NOT agree with this sort of defamatory blog - Skanks in NYC. It is just hateful We check our information, get members to sign a release and don't purport to diagnose or do anything more than offer our opinion. We also openly offer help to the Cyberpaths we expose. Hopefully we can stop them from preying on others & get counseling while educating the public.

A former Vogue cover girl is standing up to cyber bullies - fighting to unmask the anonymous cowards who've turned to the Web to ruin her reputation in the modeling business with a "Skanks in NYC" blog.

Liskula Cohen, 36, is seeking a court order that would force Google to reveal the person or persons behind the postings so she can hold them accountable with a defamation lawsuit. The anonymous bloggers have "posted entries, including photographs, captions to the photographs and commentary solely about Liskula Cohen that describe her as a 'skank' and a 'ho,' " her filing in Manhattan Supreme Court says.

Cohen hopes to at least force a level playing field by exposing her tormenter.

"I was shocked and embarrassed" to see photo captions and commentary "that were used to describe me as a promiscuous woman who is filthy, disgusting, foul and a whore," Cohen said in an affidavit. "The statements and suggestions made on the blog are malicious and untrue."

The site also includes "other defamatory statements concerning her appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct," the filing says. "I would have to say the first-place award for "Skankiest in NYC" would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen," "Anonymous" wrote in one posting. "She's a psychotic, lying, whoring . . . skank . . . Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one."

Cohen's lawyer, Steven Wagner, said the former Australian Vogue cover model is "very upset" about the cyber attacks. "The law protects freedom of speech, including anonymous speech, but it doesn't protect defamation, and people should not think that they can defame others on the Internet or on blogs by hiding behind a screen name," he said.

Cohen is no stranger to pain.

In January 2007, she was at the club Ultra on West 26th Street when she got into an argument with a man named Samir Dervisevic, who'd tried helping himself to a bottle of vodka on Cohen's table. He ended the spat by stabbing her in the face with a broken glass, disfiguring her.

"I went to the bathroom and I saw my whole career go down the drain. I looked in the mirror and saw a hole in my face the size of a quarter. I've been a model my whole life, and I've never had another job," she told The Post last year.

Her career skidded to a halt while she had to undergo plastic surgery to repair the damage, and her filing says she doesn't need any more agony.

"Defamatory statements describing me as a 'skank' and a 'ho' affect my reputation and desirability for endorsing products," and are "hurtful, potentially damaging to my reputation, and, significantly, they are flatly untrue," her affidavit says.

Cohen isn't without her fans - one blog commenter wrote that the person posting the blog was a "silly, silly fat girl."

"[D]o you wait three hours in line at a club, when she breezes right in?" the person asked. ORIGINAL ARTICLE

MEGAN MEIER - NO APOLOGY - EVEN IN DEATH

The debate over the fate of Lori Drew and getting justice for Megan Meier rages on. Bloggers have taken up the cause, despite what media sensationalists like Fox News does to us or other bloggers.

In reference to our earlier post "DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY LIED OR TWISTED THE FACTS?" now comes Lori Drew & company. Here's a copy of a letter she sent to the Meier family about a month after Megan's death:

A larger copy can be seen where it was originally posted, The Smoking Gun, by clicking here.

Does that note sound like a lot of schizophasia (aka Word Salad) to you? You know what that is: the kind of stuff a cyberpath says to get themselves out of the hole they have dug with you? Or does it sound like a whole pile of blame shifting? You tell us... we aren't quite sure. A least it was handwritten, not an EMAIL like this guy's.

Also sounds like the Drews' were attempting to do this:

People who are engaged in defending their internal grandiosity may become adept at giving ostensible apologies that really amount to self-justifications. Narcissistically driven people do not seem to understand that saying one is sorry represents an expression of empathy with the injured party irrespective of whether the hurt was intentional or avoidable.

A related substitute for apologizing is the practice of explaining. Unless the listener is particularly sensitive, an explanation can sound remarkably like an apology.

(original)

We urge you to read our prior post (click this text) and compare Drew's words & behavior to our other predators. Please. And then make up your mind

Is that an apology? Of any sort? Sounds like the cyberpath's favorite: HOW TO NOT APOLOGIZE WHEN YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY F**KED UP. (click text for article)

Many people are saying Mrs. Drew is a sociopath or at the least a destructive narcissist. (two incurable personality disorders along the same spectrum) We aren't doctors (like Dr. Ablow who implied EOPC & Fighter are "pathological" -- lol) But we can find some of the criteria out there for identifying someone with Destructive Narcissistic Pattern (from Joann Ashmun):

-- Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations -- though, again, this can be obscure to casual observation if you don't know what they think their reputations are, and what they believe others think of them may be way out of touch with reality. Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally. Anyhow, narcissists can't be counted on not to do something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't stop them or punish them (i.e., they don't care what you think unless they're afraid of you).

-- If you're like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.

-- Lacking empathy is a profound disturbance to the narcissist's thinking (cognition) and feeling (affectivity). Even when very intelligent, narcissists can't reason well. One I've worked with closely does something I characterize as "analysis by eggbeater." They don't understand the meaning of what people say and they don't grasp the meaning of the written word either -- because so much of the meaning of anything we say depends on context and affect, narcissists (lacking empathy and thus lacking both context and affect) hear only the words. (Discussions with narcissists can be really weird and disconcerting; they seem to think that using some of the same words means that they are following a line of conversation or reasoning. Thus, they will go off on tangents and irrelevancies, apparently in the blithe delusion that they understand what others are talking about.) And, frankly, they don't hear all the words, either. They can pay attention only to stuff that has them in it. This is not merely a bad habit -- it's a cognitive deficiency. Narcissists pay attention only to themselves and stuff that affects them personally. However, since they don't know what other people are doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really pissed off by being lied to or lied about.

-- Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice.... They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love.

Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation.

Here's more:

If [the narcissist] trying to rattle you, hurt you, undermine you or shock you, there is a good chance that they will come out with a blatant accusation. "You lied", "you stole", "you're having an affair". (original - click here) ...

When the mentor has failed to support the grandiose self of a narcissistically impelled student, he or she can count on paying for it. A response to the effect of "I'll confess that I acted that out, but I think you have your part in this, too," is typical (original - click here)

And more on DEFLECTING BLAME (click here to read)

We think this counts as playing victim, don't you?:

Again, a larger version is available for you to read by CLICKING HERE.

And one more:

Narcissists almost make a career out of being victims. So perhaps the Drews do have a fulfilling life ahead them. Because Megan Meier doesn't.

More great reading:

Death by 1000 Papercuts NAILS it on the HEAD! (great minds thinking alike)- click here

Now here's some press from just two days ago on this:

On Friday, attorney Jim Briscoe issued the following statement from the Drew family regarding the events surrounding Megan Meier's death:

"This week, Prosecuting Attorney Jack Banas issued his report concerning the death of Megan Meier. His investigation included a review of all reports of law enforcement agencies involved with this case and interviews with several of the individuals involved.

"During this investigation, the Drew family has not commented to the media. Now that the investigation is concluded, we wish to issue this statement.

"First and foremost, the Drew family mourns the death of Megan every day. They previously expressed their sympathies to the Meier family, but the Meiers have made it clear that they do not wish to speak to the Drews, and they have honored the Meier’s request.

"Contrary to statements reported in various news media around the nation in recent weeks, Lori Drew did not create or direct anyone to create the Josh Evans MySpace account.

"Although she was aware of the account, Lori Drew never sent any messages to Megan or to anyone else using this MySpace account.

"The MySpace account was in place for approximately 29 days. It is undisputed that all messages sent were positive until the last 24 hours.

"Lori Drew was not aware of any mean, nasty or negative comments made by anyone against Megan until after Megan took her own life. In fact, the first negative message was sent by a teenager from another residence, and several other negative comments were made by other teenagers at different locations. The negative comments that were sent by the teenage girl at the Drew’s residence occurred when Lori was not home.

"Lori Drew has been a high-profile target of extreme criticism for things she did not do. This has caused considerable damage to the reputation of the Drew family, both in our community and across the nation.

"The avalanche of criticism forced Lori to discontinue the advertising business she has had in the St. Charles County area for the past nine years. Lori is saddened that businesses that advertised with her company have been harassed in ways that have impacted them both professionally and personally.

"The Drew family is also sorry that their family, friends and neighbors have had to endure the stresses associated with the harassment directed toward the Drews.

"There are many accusations that various members of the Drew family have created Web sites or are participating in Internet blogs regarding this matter. The Drews have not and will not participate in any Website or blog regarding this matter.

"Any Internet message that purports to be a member of the Drew family is being managed by an imposter and undoubtedly is being done for the purpose of further damaging the Drew’s reputation."

SOURCE

That sounds like ALL of our cyberpaths!! damaging their reputation! You mean: their fabricated reputation which everyone sees through now. Didn't Mrs. Drew admit in her statement to police, admit to helping her daughter create the Josh Evans MySpace account and that mean things were said? Now she didn't? Are we missing something here? Are we wrong? Sounds like THIS (click here)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

EOPC continues to urge you to CLICK HERE (scroll to the bottom of this post for the pertinent information) and please continue writing the legal authorities to reopen this case and DO THE RIGHT THING for Megan and her grieving family. If the media is continuing to defend Mrs. Drew, its the least we can do for Meier family.

As Sarah Wells said on her blog:

Vigilantism is one thing, the legal expression of the conscience of the community is another.

We couldn't have said it better, Sarah!

PLEASE also take a moment to read Danny Vice's great post on another Predator victim: Nicki Catsourus - click here

MEGAN MEIER - NO APOLOGY - EVEN IN DEATH

The debate over the fate of Lori Drew and getting justice for Megan Meier rages on. Bloggers have taken up the cause, despite what media sensationalists like Fox News does to us or other bloggers.

In reference to our earlier post "DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY LIED OR TWISTED THE FACTS?" now comes Lori Drew & company. Here's a copy of a letter she sent to the Meier family about a month after Megan's death:

A larger copy can be seen where it was originally posted, The Smoking Gun, by clicking here.

Does that note sound like a lot of schizophasia (aka Word Salad) to you? You know what that is: the kind of stuff a cyberpath says to get themselves out of the hole they have dug with you? Or does it sound like a whole pile of blame shifting? You tell us... we aren't quite sure. A least it was handwritten, not an EMAIL like this guy's.

Also sounds like the Drews' were attempting to do this:

People who are engaged in defending their internal grandiosity may become adept at giving ostensible apologies that really amount to self-justifications. Narcissistically driven people do not seem to understand that saying one is sorry represents an expression of empathy with the injured party irrespective of whether the hurt was intentional or avoidable.

A related substitute for apologizing is the practice of explaining. Unless the listener is particularly sensitive, an explanation can sound remarkably like an apology.

(original)

We urge you to read our prior post (click this text) and compare Drew's words & behavior to our other predators. Please. And then make up your mind

Is that an apology? Of any sort? Sounds like the cyberpath's favorite: HOW TO NOT APOLOGIZE WHEN YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY F**KED UP. (click text for article)

Many people are saying Mrs. Drew is a sociopath or at the least a destructive narcissist. (two incurable personality disorders along the same spectrum) We aren't doctors (like Dr. Ablow who implied EOPC & Fighter are "pathological" -- lol) But we can find some of the criteria out there for identifying someone with Destructive Narcissistic Pattern (from Joann Ashmun):

-- Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations -- though, again, this can be obscure to casual observation if you don't know what they think their reputations are, and what they believe others think of them may be way out of touch with reality. Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally. Anyhow, narcissists can't be counted on not to do something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't stop them or punish them (i.e., they don't care what you think unless they're afraid of you).

-- If you're like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.

-- Lacking empathy is a profound disturbance to the narcissist's thinking (cognition) and feeling (affectivity). Even when very intelligent, narcissists can't reason well. One I've worked with closely does something I characterize as "analysis by eggbeater." They don't understand the meaning of what people say and they don't grasp the meaning of the written word either -- because so much of the meaning of anything we say depends on context and affect, narcissists (lacking empathy and thus lacking both context and affect) hear only the words. (Discussions with narcissists can be really weird and disconcerting; they seem to think that using some of the same words means that they are following a line of conversation or reasoning. Thus, they will go off on tangents and irrelevancies, apparently in the blithe delusion that they understand what others are talking about.) And, frankly, they don't hear all the words, either. They can pay attention only to stuff that has them in it. This is not merely a bad habit -- it's a cognitive deficiency. Narcissists pay attention only to themselves and stuff that affects them personally. However, since they don't know what other people are doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really pissed off by being lied to or lied about.

-- Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice.... They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love.

Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation.

Here's more:

If [the narcissist] trying to rattle you, hurt you, undermine you or shock you, there is a good chance that they will come out with a blatant accusation. "You lied", "you stole", "you're having an affair". (original - click here) ...

When the mentor has failed to support the grandiose self of a narcissistically impelled student, he or she can count on paying for it. A response to the effect of "I'll confess that I acted that out, but I think you have your part in this, too," is typical (original - click here)

And more on DEFLECTING BLAME (click here to read)

We think this counts as playing victim, don't you?:

Again, a larger version is available for you to read by CLICKING HERE.

And one more:

Narcissists almost make a career out of being victims. So perhaps the Drews do have a fulfilling life ahead them. Because Megan Meier doesn't.

More great reading:

Death by 1000 Papercuts NAILS it on the HEAD! (great minds thinking alike)- click here

Now here's some press from just two days ago on this:

On Friday, attorney Jim Briscoe issued the following statement from the Drew family regarding the events surrounding Megan Meier's death:

"This week, Prosecuting Attorney Jack Banas issued his report concerning the death of Megan Meier. His investigation included a review of all reports of law enforcement agencies involved with this case and interviews with several of the individuals involved.

"During this investigation, the Drew family has not commented to the media. Now that the investigation is concluded, we wish to issue this statement.

"First and foremost, the Drew family mourns the death of Megan every day. They previously expressed their sympathies to the Meier family, but the Meiers have made it clear that they do not wish to speak to the Drews, and they have honored the Meier’s request.

"Contrary to statements reported in various news media around the nation in recent weeks, Lori Drew did not create or direct anyone to create the Josh Evans MySpace account.

"Although she was aware of the account, Lori Drew never sent any messages to Megan or to anyone else using this MySpace account.

"The MySpace account was in place for approximately 29 days. It is undisputed that all messages sent were positive until the last 24 hours.

"Lori Drew was not aware of any mean, nasty or negative comments made by anyone against Megan until after Megan took her own life. In fact, the first negative message was sent by a teenager from another residence, and several other negative comments were made by other teenagers at different locations. The negative comments that were sent by the teenage girl at the Drew’s residence occurred when Lori was not home.

"Lori Drew has been a high-profile target of extreme criticism for things she did not do. This has caused considerable damage to the reputation of the Drew family, both in our community and across the nation.

"The avalanche of criticism forced Lori to discontinue the advertising business she has had in the St. Charles County area for the past nine years. Lori is saddened that businesses that advertised with her company have been harassed in ways that have impacted them both professionally and personally.

"The Drew family is also sorry that their family, friends and neighbors have had to endure the stresses associated with the harassment directed toward the Drews.

"There are many accusations that various members of the Drew family have created Web sites or are participating in Internet blogs regarding this matter. The Drews have not and will not participate in any Website or blog regarding this matter.

"Any Internet message that purports to be a member of the Drew family is being managed by an imposter and undoubtedly is being done for the purpose of further damaging the Drew’s reputation."

SOURCE

That sounds like ALL of our cyberpaths!! damaging their reputation! You mean: their fabricated reputation which everyone sees through now. Didn't Mrs. Drew admit in her statement to police, admit to helping her daughter create the Josh Evans MySpace account and that mean things were said? Now she didn't? Are we missing something here? Are we wrong? Sounds like THIS (click here)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

EOPC continues to urge you to CLICK HERE (scroll to the bottom of this post for the pertinent information) and please continue writing the legal authorities to reopen this case and DO THE RIGHT THING for Megan and her grieving family. If the media is continuing to defend Mrs. Drew, its the least we can do for Meier family.

As Sarah Wells said on her blog:

Vigilantism is one thing, the legal expression of the conscience of the community is another.

We couldn't have said it better, Sarah!

PLEASE also take a moment to read Danny Vice's great post on another Predator victim: Nicki Catsourus - click here

Calling In Pros to Refine Your Google Image

By Susan Kinzie and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers

At the height of the cyber-abuse, Sue Scheff, a consultant to parents of troubled teens, would type her name in a Google search box and brace herself: Up would pop page after page of attack postings.

Sue Scheff is destroying lives. She is a con. She takes kickbacks. She is the biggest fraud there ever was.

The stream of negative comments began in 2002 after a woman who had sought advice from Scheff turned on her. The postings appeared on PTA Web sites in Florida, where Scheff lives. On bulletin boards and online forums. There were even YouTube videos threatening her.

She sued for defamation and won an $11.3 million verdict, but the attacks only got worse. In December, Scheff turned to ReputationDefender, a year-old firm that promised to help her cleanse her virtual reputation. She no longer dreads a Google search on her name. Most of the links on the all-important first page are to her own Web site and a half-dozen others created by ReputationDefender to promote her work on teen pregnancy and teen depression.

"They created Sue-Scheff.net," she said. "They created SueScheff.net. They
created SueScheff.org. . . . They created my MySpace account, for God's sake. I didn't know how to do any of this stuff."

Google's ubiquity as a research tool has given rise to a new industry: online identity management. The proliferation of blogs and Web sites can allow angry clients, jealous lovers or ruthless competitors to define a person's identity. Whether true or not, their words can have far-reaching effects.

Charging anything from a few dollars to thousands of dollars a month, companies such as International Reputation Management, Naymz and ReputationDefender don't promise to erase the bad stuff on the Web. But they do assure their clients of better results on an Internet search, pushing the positive items up on the first page and burying the others deep.

Still, Google is continually refining its search methods, which means that today's fix may not work tomorrow.

"This is a game that nobody can completely win," said Chris Dellarocas, a University of Maryland information systems professor.

Dodging Mudballs
The e-mails from friends started showing up three years ago in the Washington lobbyist's in-basket: Have you seen this?

Over decades in the capital, she had developed a thick skin. But after she took on a foreign regime as a client, an online magazine bashed her. The story was factual, but the tone nasty. Then a blogger wrote that she slept with someone to get a big contract. A political blog posted an e-mail she had written about secret campaign strategy. Truth mixed with rumor. Rumor mixed with lies.

Concerned friends sent her the links. Potential clients would say they had read about her on the Web.

Like Scheff, she realized that the items that made her cringe came up high on the Google results page and stayed there, month after month. Her firm depended on her reputation. The lobbyist would speak only on condition of anonymity because she did not want the attacks to resume.

"There's no policing, no rules, no standards," she said. Bloggers are "cowboys," she said. "It's the wild, wild West."

Then one day she heard a talk by Nino Kader, founder of International Reputation Management (IRM) in Washington. His new company, he said, could reshape a person's online image.

She signed up.

IRM aims to get lots of information out there about clients, in various places, so that a search gives a more complete and nuanced profile of who they are. Kader started with a printout of the top 100 hits on a Google search and went through them one by one, asking whether individual results -- such as her campaign contributions -- were good, bad or neutral.

He asked what she wanted the world to know about her. Then he started digging for good things, like an op-ed piece she had written and television interviews she had given that he could post on YouTube. He pitched stories about her to various publications. And he created links from popular sites to those online stories to entice the search engine.

Now her firm's Web site is the first result and other good ones follow.

Still, a story she hates remains on the first page.

"I'm in the early stages," she said. "I've already seen progress."

Companies like IRM try to outthink Google. Search engines comb the Web with complex and ever-shifting algorithms, evaluating relevance and authority by looking at many factors: Is this a government Web site? How many people have linked to it? And so on.

The point is, said ReputationDefender founder Michael Fertik, "Google's not in business to give you the truth, it's in business to give what you think is relevant."

The goal is to get Google and other search engines to seize on relevant sites that contain positive information on their clients and to downplay the rest.

Google does not object in principle to people adding positive content to outrank the negative. But a spokeswoman said in an e-mail, "if you use spammy and manipulative techniques to get this positive content to rank highly, we may take action on it."

Some companies create promotional Web pages for their clients with coding that makes them appealing to Google or create blog pages linking to the client's own site, ensuring they'll rise to the top.

Image Makeover
Geoffrey VanderPal knew politics was a nasty game, but the candidate for Nevada state treasurer wasn't prepared for the blog attacks. Supporters of his opponent posted charge after charge. He briefly considered suing.

But many of his tormentors were anonymous. And U.S. courts have generally protected Web site hosts from civil actions such as defamation, though that may be changing. Besides, he knew as a public figure he'd have a higher burden to prove libel.

When VanderPal lost the Democratic primary last August, he returned to private life as a financial planner. But the blog postings lived on, prominently, at the top of the Google results page. Potential clients avoided him.

He wanted to suppress the negative information about him, both true and false, so he turned to ReputationDefender.

The firm at first tried a low-tech approach: a polite request to a blogger to remove a post about his personal finances. But the blogger declined, saying the item was a matter of public record. Asking politely has backfired in a small number of cases, Fertik said, with Webmasters sometimes posting and mocking the requests.

So Fertik's team, which works from a Silicon Valley office, offered VanderPal its premium service, using various techniques to promote VanderPal's own site and suppress the blogs. That service now starts at $10,000.

Within weeks, VanderPal began to see "a remarkable difference." Though a few nasty comments are still up there, the first three pages are mostly clean.

"Everything's wrapped up in your reputation," said VanderPal, 34. "If you don't have that, you don't have much."

The reputation firms won't take on everyone. Fertik says ReputationDefender won't work with clients who want to suppress violent crimes, for example.

The clients the firms accept are varied: a real estate mogul wanting to move past a decade-old transgression, a prominent academic falsely accused of murder, a hedge fund manager who doesn't like seeing his old New York Times wedding announcement on Google years after he divorced and remarried, a college student who regretted once dressing up as a prostitute at a Halloween party.

Then there was the businessman who paid a Securities and Exchange Commission fine a few years ago.

"Does a person in this situation have a chance to start again?" Fertik asked. "Should this be the first or second thing that shows up on the Internet? Is it fair?"

ReputationDefender decided to work with him.

Staff researcher Bob Lyford contributed to this report.
Hat Tip To "Survivor" for this find!

Calling In Pros to Refine Your Google Image

By Susan Kinzie and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers

At the height of the cyber-abuse, Sue Scheff, a consultant to parents of troubled teens, would type her name in a Google search box and brace herself: Up would pop page after page of attack postings.

Sue Scheff is destroying lives. She is a con. She takes kickbacks. She is the biggest fraud there ever was.

The stream of negative comments began in 2002 after a woman who had sought advice from Scheff turned on her. The postings appeared on PTA Web sites in Florida, where Scheff lives. On bulletin boards and online forums. There were even YouTube videos threatening her.

She sued for defamation and won an $11.3 million verdict, but the attacks only got worse. In December, Scheff turned to ReputationDefender, a year-old firm that promised to help her cleanse her virtual reputation. She no longer dreads a Google search on her name. Most of the links on the all-important first page are to her own Web site and a half-dozen others created by ReputationDefender to promote her work on teen pregnancy and teen depression.

"They created Sue-Scheff.net," she said. "They created SueScheff.net. They
created SueScheff.org. . . . They created my MySpace account, for God's sake. I didn't know how to do any of this stuff."

Google's ubiquity as a research tool has given rise to a new industry: online identity management. The proliferation of blogs and Web sites can allow angry clients, jealous lovers or ruthless competitors to define a person's identity. Whether true or not, their words can have far-reaching effects.

Charging anything from a few dollars to thousands of dollars a month, companies such as International Reputation Management, Naymz and ReputationDefender don't promise to erase the bad stuff on the Web. But they do assure their clients of better results on an Internet search, pushing the positive items up on the first page and burying the others deep.

Still, Google is continually refining its search methods, which means that today's fix may not work tomorrow.

"This is a game that nobody can completely win," said Chris Dellarocas, a University of Maryland information systems professor.

Dodging Mudballs
The e-mails from friends started showing up three years ago in the Washington lobbyist's in-basket: Have you seen this?

Over decades in the capital, she had developed a thick skin. But after she took on a foreign regime as a client, an online magazine bashed her. The story was factual, but the tone nasty. Then a blogger wrote that she slept with someone to get a big contract. A political blog posted an e-mail she had written about secret campaign strategy. Truth mixed with rumor. Rumor mixed with lies.

Concerned friends sent her the links. Potential clients would say they had read about her on the Web.

Like Scheff, she realized that the items that made her cringe came up high on the Google results page and stayed there, month after month. Her firm depended on her reputation. The lobbyist would speak only on condition of anonymity because she did not want the attacks to resume.

"There's no policing, no rules, no standards," she said. Bloggers are "cowboys," she said. "It's the wild, wild West."

Then one day she heard a talk by Nino Kader, founder of International Reputation Management (IRM) in Washington. His new company, he said, could reshape a person's online image.

She signed up.

IRM aims to get lots of information out there about clients, in various places, so that a search gives a more complete and nuanced profile of who they are. Kader started with a printout of the top 100 hits on a Google search and went through them one by one, asking whether individual results -- such as her campaign contributions -- were good, bad or neutral.

He asked what she wanted the world to know about her. Then he started digging for good things, like an op-ed piece she had written and television interviews she had given that he could post on YouTube. He pitched stories about her to various publications. And he created links from popular sites to those online stories to entice the search engine.

Now her firm's Web site is the first result and other good ones follow.

Still, a story she hates remains on the first page.

"I'm in the early stages," she said. "I've already seen progress."

Companies like IRM try to outthink Google. Search engines comb the Web with complex and ever-shifting algorithms, evaluating relevance and authority by looking at many factors: Is this a government Web site? How many people have linked to it? And so on.

The point is, said ReputationDefender founder Michael Fertik, "Google's not in business to give you the truth, it's in business to give what you think is relevant."

The goal is to get Google and other search engines to seize on relevant sites that contain positive information on their clients and to downplay the rest.

Google does not object in principle to people adding positive content to outrank the negative. But a spokeswoman said in an e-mail, "if you use spammy and manipulative techniques to get this positive content to rank highly, we may take action on it."

Some companies create promotional Web pages for their clients with coding that makes them appealing to Google or create blog pages linking to the client's own site, ensuring they'll rise to the top.

Image Makeover
Geoffrey VanderPal knew politics was a nasty game, but the candidate for Nevada state treasurer wasn't prepared for the blog attacks. Supporters of his opponent posted charge after charge. He briefly considered suing.

But many of his tormentors were anonymous. And U.S. courts have generally protected Web site hosts from civil actions such as defamation, though that may be changing. Besides, he knew as a public figure he'd have a higher burden to prove libel.

When VanderPal lost the Democratic primary last August, he returned to private life as a financial planner. But the blog postings lived on, prominently, at the top of the Google results page. Potential clients avoided him.

He wanted to suppress the negative information about him, both true and false, so he turned to ReputationDefender.

The firm at first tried a low-tech approach: a polite request to a blogger to remove a post about his personal finances. But the blogger declined, saying the item was a matter of public record. Asking politely has backfired in a small number of cases, Fertik said, with Webmasters sometimes posting and mocking the requests.

So Fertik's team, which works from a Silicon Valley office, offered VanderPal its premium service, using various techniques to promote VanderPal's own site and suppress the blogs. That service now starts at $10,000.

Within weeks, VanderPal began to see "a remarkable difference." Though a few nasty comments are still up there, the first three pages are mostly clean.

"Everything's wrapped up in your reputation," said VanderPal, 34. "If you don't have that, you don't have much."

The reputation firms won't take on everyone. Fertik says ReputationDefender won't work with clients who want to suppress violent crimes, for example.

The clients the firms accept are varied: a real estate mogul wanting to move past a decade-old transgression, a prominent academic falsely accused of murder, a hedge fund manager who doesn't like seeing his old New York Times wedding announcement on Google years after he divorced and remarried, a college student who regretted once dressing up as a prostitute at a Halloween party.

Then there was the businessman who paid a Securities and Exchange Commission fine a few years ago.

"Does a person in this situation have a chance to start again?" Fertik asked. "Should this be the first or second thing that shows up on the Internet? Is it fair?"

ReputationDefender decided to work with him.

Staff researcher Bob Lyford contributed to this report.
Hat Tip To "Survivor" for this find!