Jailed for Running a 'Vicious' Internet Smear Campaign

A teenager who posted a death threat on Facebook, yesterday became the first person in Britain to be jailed for bullying on a social networking site.

Keeley Houghton, 18, said she would kill Emily Moore, whom she had bullied for four years since they were at school together.

On her personal page, Houghton wrote of her victim: 'Keeley is going to murder the bitch. She is an actress. What a ******* liberty. Emily ****head Moore.'

Two days before she made the threat, Houghton had intimidated Emily, who is also 18, after spotting her in a pub.

Sara Stock, prosecuting, told Worcester magistrates: 'When Emily was sitting on her own the defendant came over and sat next to her and asked her, "Are you Emily Moore? Can I have a huggle?" Emily told the defendant to leave her alone otherwise she would call the police. Keeley then told her, "I'll give you something to ring the police about".'

Yesterday, jobless Houghton sobbed as she was sentenced to three months in a young offenders' institution after pleading guilty to harassment.

She was also given a restraining order banning her from contacting Emily in person, via the internet or in any other manner for five years.

People have previously been jailed for harassment and stalking on social networking sites but she is thought to be the first to be jailed for bullying via the internet.

Houghton, of Malvern, Worcestershire, had two previous convictions relating to her vendetta against Emily, the court heard.

In 2005 she was convicted of assaulting her as she walked home from school. Houghton was subsequently expelled from school. Two years later she was convicted of causing criminal damage to Emily's home after kicking her front door.

District Judge Bruce Morgan said: 'Since Emily Moore was 14 you have waged compelling threats and violent abuse towards her.

'Bullies are by their nature cowards, in school and society. On this day you did an act of gratuitous nastiness to satisfy your own twisted nature.'

The court heard that Houghton had told police she wrote the death threats while she was drunk late at night.

But when officers examined internet records they discovered Houghton wrote the comments at 4pm on July 12 and kept them on her Facebook page for 24 hours.

Last month, an inquest heard how a schoolgirl took a fatal overdose of painkillers after bullies waged a hate campaign against her on Bebo.

Megan Gillan, 15, of Macclesfield, Cheshire, swallowed the tablets to avoid a science exam after classmates posted spiteful messages on the social networking site.

She was found dead in bed by her parents after she failed to come down for breakfast on the day of the exam.

Her death prompted the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, to criticise such sites, saying they encouraged teenagers to build 'transient relationships' that can leave them traumatised when they collapse.

The archbishop, who was appointed to the post in April, said the sites encouraged young people to put too much emphasis on the number of friends they have rather than on the quality of their relationships.

Emma Jane Cross, from campaign group Beatbullying, said yesterday: 'The sentencing of an 18-year-old girl for cyber bullying is the first of its kind in the UK and sets an important precedent.

'Cyber bullying is a worrying and fast growing trend which can be more harmful than typical schoolyard bullying.'

Drama on Facebook
Facebook is used by tens of millions of people across the world, but the way some users use the site has led to various dramas.

Last week, a picture surfaced of an alleged Facebook sacking, after an employee ranted about her boss online. He promptly replied, reminding her she had added him as a 'friend' before promptly firing her.

Meanwhile term 'Facebook Rage' is entering our language, often defined as feeling anger when a relationship breaks down and a former partner begins posting updates about their love-life.

It has also been used to describe users, convinced their other half is cheating, who spend hours stalking their partner online in a bid the find further proof to fuel their suspicions, deliberately searching for incriminating evidence.

Facebook was also in the dock a fortnight ago after a judge banned a gang of thugs from posting menacing photographs of themselves online.

In a landmark ruling, nine men pictured making gun gestures on social networking websites will be locked up if such images appear again.

Judge Clement Goldstone QC issued the ban while sentencing members of the Fallowfield Mad Dogs gang for affray. He was shown pictures of them pulling gun poses and talking about 'preparing for war' on a networking site.

Teacher Sonya McNally, 35, from Grimsby, is also currently suspended on full pay since calling her 13-year-old pupils ‘bad’ in a private conversation on the social networking site.

original article here

5 Steps We Can Take to Avoid Being Cyber-Bullied

by Philip J Reed, on behalf of Westwood College
(Mr. Reed is a Guest Writer for EOPC)

“Cyber-bullying” is a term we hear more about each day. There are always more examples – all too many of which end in tragedy – of the internet and other technologies being used to torment, browbeat and humiliate otherwise innocent people.

Frequently these targets are children or young people, but a new study conducted by professor Andy Pippen for Plymouth University in England has revealed that adults are increasingly becoming targets as well. Pippen looked only at teachers, but he found that one in three teachers has been cyber-bullied… and that a quarter of those cyber-bullies were other adults!

Cyber-bullies aren’t just children, and neither are the victims. It’s a serious cause for concern, and it’s something everybody should understand, and be aware of the steps they can take to avoid it. Being cyber-bullied can ruin a life, or dramatically increase the quality of that life. Know the facts in advance, and keep reading to find our five tips on how to avoid being cyber-bullied.

1) Keep Your Information Private!
There’s a reason we’re putting this one first, and that reason should be obvious. As Thomas Hobbes once said, “Knowledge is power.” The more you tell your cyber-bullies about yourself, the more ammunition they will have to use against you. And, perhaps, the more they will be able to manipulate you in the hopes that by playing along you will prevent them from releasing (or misusing) more of your information.

Of course, nobody knowingly “provides” their cyber-bullies with personal information. Unfortunately, information provided to otherwise benign websites and databases can either be accessed or hacked by a devoted cyber-bully. Don’t provide any private information about yourself to any site unless it is absolutely necessary. And we don’t just mean your address and social security number. Sensitive information can include (but is not limited to) the town in which you live, your mother’s maiden name, the names of your pets, or even the fact that you’ll be going on vacation for two weeks. Any of this can be used to find you, manipulate you, or access your private records. (A fairly recent high-profile case involved the hacking of Sarah Palin’s private email account, simply because the hackers listened to her interviews and used that basic personal information to solve her security questions!) Take cyber security seriously! The bullies certainly do!

2) Do Not Play Along!
If you are being cyber-bullied, know that it is serious! Do not engage them, do not encourage them, and, most of all, do not try to bully them in return! If a cyber bully has picked you as a target, they are prepared. Any attempt to bully them in return is almost guaranteed to backfire.

Ignoring cyber bullies can actually work, to some extent. If you don’t reply to their emails or instant messages, they can either become bored or convinced that you are not reliably reachable in that way… even if you are. This can encourage them to move on to another target.

Of course, ignoring them won’t work every time, especially if you’ve been singled out by a bully specifically. They may keep emailing, texting, or even calling in the hopes that you are being rattled by their methods. Ignoring them may not stop this behavior, but bear in mind that it does stop them from obtaining any new information to use against you. If you were responding to them, you’d be giving them more ammunition, or just inflaming the situation further. Avoid doing either of those things like the plague!

3) Inform the Authorities!
There’s a fine line between teasing and bullying, but, typically, we know bullying when we see it. Once you’re sure that you’re being legitimately harassed or tormented (rather than, say, a friend playing a joke on you), take it to the police. This is especially true – and important! – if you are being actively threatened. The police need to know, and they need to know soon!

Modern computer forensics techniques can uncover a great deal of information about your bullies, and the sooner you report them, the more likely they can be traced. Of course a technologically savvy bully can cover his tracks in many ways, but don’t assume that they’ve done so successfully! Let the authorities do their best to track them down.

Bear in mind that the police may not be able to do much when the bullying is small scale, but by completing an incident report early on, you will have a stronger case if the bullying continues, or increases, down the line. Don’t wait to report it. If you know you are being bullied, call the police!

4) Always Think Before Responding!
Sometimes bullying can be defused, but often it cannot, or at least not by the victim. Always think twice about responding to any unsolicited messages. If you do not recognize a screen name that is sending you messages, even if they seem friendly, be sure to find out if you actually know this person before divulging anything at all. Tell them that they have three chances to tell you who they are and how they know you, and if they still don’t tell you after the third time you ask, block them.

It may seem callous or even rude to do this, but you can’t be too safe. Even one incident of cyber-bullying can scar a human being for a lifetime; it is not worth the risk.

If you do intend to speak to somebody you don’t know, whether in a chat room or on a message board, always try to be polite. Even if you are blocking or ignoring somebody, rudeness can only inflame situations, so avoid it at all costs!

Which leads us into our final (but not least important) tip…

5) Be Aware of What You’re Doing Online!
The best tip to avoid cyber-bullying is simply to avoid angering a cyber bully in the first place! Of course this is not always possible (for many obvious reasons), but you can minimize the likelihood of becoming the victim of cyber-bullying simply by monitoring your own presence online.

If you are rude to people, the odds are very good that they will be rude in return.

If you compromise somebody else’s security for any reason, you leave yourself open to retaliation. Behave yourself in internet discussions. Be calm, be rational, and be understanding of the viewpoints of others. You will never know what may set somebody off, be it your opinion about politics, religion, or last night’s episode of The Office, so watch how you phrase things, and always be big enough to back out of discussions completely when you see them getting out of hand.

Again, this will by no means insulate you from cyber-bullying overall, but it will help to minimize the potential of becoming a target. The sad fact is everybody on the internet, from the least-knowledgeable young girl with her first computer to the college-educated systems administrator with a degree in information security. Nobody is exempt, and everybody has responsibility to themselves to stay vigilant, to stay alert, and to stay safe.

Internet Harassment & Revenge is a Crime

An Connecticut woman is accused of attempting to break up a marriage via the Internet.

Police said Pilar Stofega, 34, spent hours crafting fake profiles about her ex-boyfriend's wife and posting them online for the world to see.

Waterford police said Stofega was attempting to take revenge on a man she dated eight years ago by going after his wife.

Detectives said Stofega created phony profiles of the woman on adult Web sites and included her home and work phone numbers and high school yearbook photo.

Police said the ex-boyfriend began doing some Internet searching and uncovered the fake profiles and told police that Stofega was behind it.

Channel 3 Eyewitness News reporter Katy Zachry reported that Stofega told police that
Stofega was released on $2,500 bond and is facing harassment charges.

ARTICLE

Internet Harassment & Revenge is a Crime

An Connecticut woman is accused of attempting to break up a marriage via the Internet.

Police said Pilar Stofega, 34, spent hours crafting fake profiles about her ex-boyfriend's wife and posting them online for the world to see.

Waterford police said Stofega was attempting to take revenge on a man she dated eight years ago by going after his wife.

Detectives said Stofega created phony profiles of the woman on adult Web sites and included her home and work phone numbers and high school yearbook photo.

Police said the ex-boyfriend began doing some Internet searching and uncovered the fake profiles and told police that Stofega was behind it.

Channel 3 Eyewitness News reporter Katy Zachry reported that Stofega told police that
Stofega was released on $2,500 bond and is facing harassment charges.

ARTICLE

Website Posts Sex, Gossip, Hate, Rumor

The Cornell University junior was in his dorm between classes when the text message came in from a friend. Check out JuicyCampus.com, it said.

The student found his name on the Web site beside a rambling, filthy passage about his sexual exploits, posted by an anonymous student on campus. The young man could only hope the commentary was so ridiculous nobody would believe it.

"I thought, `Is this going to affect my job employment? Is this going to make people on campus look at me? Are people going to talk about me behind my back?" said the student, who asked not to be identified. He also wondered about his 11-year-old sister, who is spending more time on the Internet. "What if she Googles me? What will she think about her big brother?" he said.

JuicyCampus' endless threads of anonymous innuendo have been a popular Web destination on the seven college campuses where the site launched last fall, including Duke, UCLA and Loyola Marymount. It recently expanded to 50 more, and many of the postings show they've been viewed hundreds and even thousands of times.

But JuicyCampus has proved so poisonous there are signs of a backlash.

In campus debates over Internet freedom, students normally take the side of openness and access. This time, however, student leaders, newspaper editorials and posters on the site are fighting back -- with some even asking administrators to ban JuicyCampus. It's a kind of plea to save the students, or at least their reputations, from themselves.

"It is an expression from our student body that we don't want this junk in our community," said Andy Canales, leader of the student government at Pepperdine, which recently voted 23-5 to ask for a ban.

The vote came after a long and emotional debate on the limits of free speech, and was swayed by stories from students such as Haley Frazier, a junior residential adviser. She had recently come across a teary transfer student who had been humiliated on the site barely a week after arriving on campus.

"I can't imagine the disgust she must have for Pepperdine if that's what (students) say," Frazier said.

College administrators say they are appalled by the site but have no control over it since students can see it outside the campus computer network. They say all they can do is urge students not to post items or troll for malicious gossip -- and hope that in the process they learn about how to get along.

That tactic may be having an effect.

Playground meanness on the Web
At a number of campuses where JuicyCampus was a hot topic even just a few weeks ago, students and administrators say use and complaints have tapered off sharply. That's hard to confirm; Internet tracker comScore Inc. says the site's visitor numbers are too low to be counted by its system.

But more and more postings criticize the site, with comments like, "let's not ruin each other's lives," and, "If you can't personalize any of the stuff you read or write here, imagine it happening to your sister or your best friend."

"People have gotten just extremely sick of hearing all this stuff," said Rachelle Palisoc, a freshman at Loyola Marymount in California, who joined a Facebook group called "Ban Juicycampus!!!!" that has about 850 members.

Free to use and supported by advertising, JuicyCampus is a simple conduit urging users to post gossip and promising them total anonymity. There are threads on campus hook-ups, who's popular and who's overweight.

"Top ten freshman sluts" reads one typical thread, and "The Jews ruin this school" another. Homophobia is common. Many postings combine the cruelty of a middle school playground, the tight social dynamics of a college campus and the alarming global reach of the Internet.

JuicyCampus pledges that it blocks its discussion boards from being indexed by search sites like Google, and that appears to be true.

"College students are clever and fun-loving, and we wanted to create a place where they could share their stories," said Matt Ivester, the site's founder, who agreed to answer questions by e-mail.

"Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he said in response to calls he has rejected -- including one from his alma mater, Duke -- for him to shut down the site. "However, we believe that JuicyCampus can have a really positive impact on college campuses, as a place for both entertainment and free expression. Frankly, we're surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas."

Duke's vice president for student affairs, Larry Moneta, said the school asked Ivester to consider "moderating the venom or at least moderating the opportunity for venom." However, "my sense is that's not that person's interest," Moneta said.

Slut's okay, shooting's not
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."

But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a Web site when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard.
In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs.

JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises.

The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."

Fraternity and sorority leaders and student governments are mainly urging students to sap the site of advertisers by turning a blind eye.

"If we don't get on there it will die," said C.J. Slicklen, student government president at Cornell, where students vented at a meeting last week.

The concerns extend beyond hurt feelings. At Loyola Marymount, a now-former student was arrested after allegedly posting a threat of a campus shooting spree on JuicyCampus. And the dangers of social network bullying were highlighted by the recent death of a 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who committed suicide after receiving cruel messages on her MySpace page -- messages that turned out to be a hoax.

Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said the school applauds the student government's reaction, though Pepperdine has not banned the site.

"In the end," he said, "the site's shock value will diminish and it will be revealed for what it is: empty."

Website Posts Sex, Gossip, Hate, Rumor

The Cornell University junior was in his dorm between classes when the text message came in from a friend. Check out JuicyCampus.com, it said.

The student found his name on the Web site beside a rambling, filthy passage about his sexual exploits, posted by an anonymous student on campus. The young man could only hope the commentary was so ridiculous nobody would believe it.

"I thought, `Is this going to affect my job employment? Is this going to make people on campus look at me? Are people going to talk about me behind my back?" said the student, who asked not to be identified. He also wondered about his 11-year-old sister, who is spending more time on the Internet. "What if she Googles me? What will she think about her big brother?" he said.

JuicyCampus' endless threads of anonymous innuendo have been a popular Web destination on the seven college campuses where the site launched last fall, including Duke, UCLA and Loyola Marymount. It recently expanded to 50 more, and many of the postings show they've been viewed hundreds and even thousands of times.

But JuicyCampus has proved so poisonous there are signs of a backlash.

In campus debates over Internet freedom, students normally take the side of openness and access. This time, however, student leaders, newspaper editorials and posters on the site are fighting back -- with some even asking administrators to ban JuicyCampus. It's a kind of plea to save the students, or at least their reputations, from themselves.

"It is an expression from our student body that we don't want this junk in our community," said Andy Canales, leader of the student government at Pepperdine, which recently voted 23-5 to ask for a ban.

The vote came after a long and emotional debate on the limits of free speech, and was swayed by stories from students such as Haley Frazier, a junior residential adviser. She had recently come across a teary transfer student who had been humiliated on the site barely a week after arriving on campus.

"I can't imagine the disgust she must have for Pepperdine if that's what (students) say," Frazier said.

College administrators say they are appalled by the site but have no control over it since students can see it outside the campus computer network. They say all they can do is urge students not to post items or troll for malicious gossip -- and hope that in the process they learn about how to get along.

That tactic may be having an effect.

Playground meanness on the Web
At a number of campuses where JuicyCampus was a hot topic even just a few weeks ago, students and administrators say use and complaints have tapered off sharply. That's hard to confirm; Internet tracker comScore Inc. says the site's visitor numbers are too low to be counted by its system.

But more and more postings criticize the site, with comments like, "let's not ruin each other's lives," and, "If you can't personalize any of the stuff you read or write here, imagine it happening to your sister or your best friend."

"People have gotten just extremely sick of hearing all this stuff," said Rachelle Palisoc, a freshman at Loyola Marymount in California, who joined a Facebook group called "Ban Juicycampus!!!!" that has about 850 members.

Free to use and supported by advertising, JuicyCampus is a simple conduit urging users to post gossip and promising them total anonymity. There are threads on campus hook-ups, who's popular and who's overweight.

"Top ten freshman sluts" reads one typical thread, and "The Jews ruin this school" another. Homophobia is common. Many postings combine the cruelty of a middle school playground, the tight social dynamics of a college campus and the alarming global reach of the Internet.

JuicyCampus pledges that it blocks its discussion boards from being indexed by search sites like Google, and that appears to be true.

"College students are clever and fun-loving, and we wanted to create a place where they could share their stories," said Matt Ivester, the site's founder, who agreed to answer questions by e-mail.

"Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he said in response to calls he has rejected -- including one from his alma mater, Duke -- for him to shut down the site. "However, we believe that JuicyCampus can have a really positive impact on college campuses, as a place for both entertainment and free expression. Frankly, we're surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas."

Duke's vice president for student affairs, Larry Moneta, said the school asked Ivester to consider "moderating the venom or at least moderating the opportunity for venom." However, "my sense is that's not that person's interest," Moneta said.

Slut's okay, shooting's not
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."

But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a Web site when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard.
In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs.

JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises.

The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."

Fraternity and sorority leaders and student governments are mainly urging students to sap the site of advertisers by turning a blind eye.

"If we don't get on there it will die," said C.J. Slicklen, student government president at Cornell, where students vented at a meeting last week.

The concerns extend beyond hurt feelings. At Loyola Marymount, a now-former student was arrested after allegedly posting a threat of a campus shooting spree on JuicyCampus. And the dangers of social network bullying were highlighted by the recent death of a 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who committed suicide after receiving cruel messages on her MySpace page -- messages that turned out to be a hoax.

Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said the school applauds the student government's reaction, though Pepperdine has not banned the site.

"In the end," he said, "the site's shock value will diminish and it will be revealed for what it is: empty."

BLOGGING, "FREE SPEECH" & THE CYBERBULLY

We have posted an article regarding a special sort of cyberpath: THE CYBERBULLY before. And new ones have come to our attention. People such as bloggers like this - use their forums to spread misinformation or information only THEY deem appropriate and palatable (usually by deleting comments to their posts they don't like or disagree with). That's fine - the internet is an uninhibited realm and for the control freaks and internet tyrants, this works well.

However, there are those, who when they don't like your ideas - decide to deride those who are behind the ideas personally. Sometimes these remarks are just plain mean spirited, but some? Are sexually provocative, vindictive and yes - defamatory. Full of hate and misogyny or misandry these KEYBOARD BULLIES find it very easy to try to ride someone into the ground from the protection of a nickname or a blog. Just as romance and financial cyberpaths embark on a smear campaign when found out, this bunch engages in smear campaigning, victim blaming, blame shifting and projection .


Writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can keep you out of trouble--both in your personal and public life--only to a point. While truth is the defense for libel and slander, it is NOT a defense for invasion of privacy and the Internet is the new frontier where not everything is clearly defined.

And even if you consider your blog a diary, that doesn't keep you safe from character defamation charges--and the cost could be as much as 23 years of your life. LINK

But are they really free to do this? Nope. They may continue to remind you how hard it is to legislate HATE SPEECH as opposed to FREE SPEECH. These are special kinds of cyber-narcissists who lead double lives - like this guy - who works an altruistic job during the day - but at night lets his thinly veiled anger, hate & arrogant snobbery run free along with his cyberbuddys in a wild case of mobbing syndrome. Oh, not everyone on this blog or blogs like this are bad. Some are intelligent enough to speak to the issues. However - blog owners like this guy are heading for trouble. And their sycophants .... er, commenters - keep trying to tell those they offend its NOT defamation, slander or libel. Or, like most of the disordered - that their victims 'simply don't know what they are talking about' -- like abusers who tell their victims its not abuse. These people like many cyberpaths - hope to define reality with their very words.


These guys have decided that they don't like the idea of a National Marriage Database, which EOPC supports - and to prove it they will make defamatory statements from their little keyboards about the two strongest proponents of this Database. O.K. In America, much of our government and our laws are based on the products of disagreement. However - comments like:

"I think it's clear that Sandra Phipps is a royal bitch," LINK

"there's Donna Layne Roberts, the authoritarian, educationally-challenged anti-bigamy activist who continues to warn TtP (and our commenters) that offending her and Sandra Phipps is a crime and that we're all going to go jail if we don't stop making jokes about anti-bigamy activists getting fucked by horses." LINK
(note - writer 'Cicero' attempts here and in other posts to characterize Ms. Roberts standing up him as a 'threat' and the database as a 'threat.' Typical abuser-playing victim-mentality Nice try Cicero)

"if by flirting you mean jacking off while I think about Sandra Phipps" LINK

"Donna Layne Robert's full threat (and others) are in the comment section of our previous posts. She is clearly a threat to free speech, liberty, moms, and apple pies. I encourage TtP readers to mercilessly mock her, and leave Sandra Phipps alone." LINK

"I'm practically licking whipcream off of Donna Layne Robert's hairy ass..." LINK

...are just plain wrong. That's not commentary. That's abuse.


"More recently, in Durango, as reported by Shane Benjamin, writing for the Durango Herald, a "Fort Lewis College honors graduate was sentenced to a total of 23 years in prison...after being found guilty of 26 felonies, including criminal libel."

One example of how he victimized was creating a Web site in a professor's name identifying her as a sexual deviant and asking anyone reading to come rape her." LINK

FROM THIS SAME ARTICLE:

"On a smaller scale, a Wisconsin Web site, FullofBologna.com, was temporarily shut down by a judge in a case that involved “anonymous messages on a bulletin board on the site. She [Winnebago County Clerk of Courts Diane Fremgen] claims those messages included libelous, sexually explicit comments."

"The lawsuit is against the Dennis Payne who operates the site and "the anonymous participant who went by the pseudonym, Mr. Imperfect." LINK

A bit more on sexually charged comments on blogs:

"Rae Langton agrees and concludes that "women as a group have rights against the consumers of pornography, and thereby have rights that are trumps against the policy of permitting pornography...the permissive policy is in conflict with the principle of equal concern and respect, and that women accordingly have rights against it" (1990, 346). Because she is not basing her argument on the harm principle, she does not have to show that women are harmed by pornography. For the argument to be persuasive, however, one does have to accept that permitting pornography does mean that women are not treated with equal concern and respect.

"we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than it is on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm." LINK

Its one thing to go to exposure sites about people you've married or dated, as an article I wrote explains - to expose them. Its another to revictimize people who have already been victimized and them blame them and smear them when these victims try to find a viable solution to prevent anyone else from being victimized!

"For Stanley Fish, the issue is one of finding a balance in which "we must consider in every case what is at stake and what are the risks and gains of alternative courses of action" (1994, 111). Is speech promoting our basic values or undermining them? "If you don't ask this question, or some version of it, but just say that speech is speech and that's it, you are mystifying--presenting as an arbitrary and untheorized fiat-- a policy that will seem whimsical or worse to those whose interests it harms or dismisses" (1994, 123).

"In other words, there have to be reasons behind the argument to allow speech; we cannot simply say that the First Amendment says it is so, therefore it must be so. The task is not to come up with a principle that always favors expression, but rather, to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech. A good policy "will not assume that the only relevant sphere of action is the head and larynx of the individual speaker" (1994, 126). Is it more in keeping with the values of a democratic society, in which every person is deemed equal, to allow or prohibit speech that singles out specific individuals and groups as less than equal? The answer, according to Fish, cannot be settled by simply appealing to a pre-ordained ideal of absolute free speech, because this is a principle that is itself in need of defense. Fish's answer is that, "it depends. I am not saying that First Amendment principles are inherently bad (they are inherently nothing), only that they are not always the appropriate reference point for situations involving the production of speech" (1994, 113). But, all things considered, "I am persuaded that at the present moment, right now, the risk of not attending to hate speech is greater than the risk that by regulating it we will deprive ourselves of valuable voices and insights or slide down the slippery slope towards tyranny. This is a judgement for which I can offer reasons but no guarantees" (1994, 115).

"Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited. (1978, 97 [author's emphasis] - J.S. Mill" LINK

Maybe this is just their feeble way of driving more traffic to their low-rent blog. They should have checked their egos and engaged what, if any, brains they had before they shot off their mouths via computer. You see, those of us who have been victimized by cyberpaths and bullies? We aren't afraid of very much - in fact, by the time you read this - all their information will already be in the appropriate hands. Free Speech is a wonderful thing - until you abuse it and others in the process. We psychopath and malignant narcissist victims know this only too well.

Freedom of speech, the public diary-style of some blogs and the publication of truth isn’t enough to protect bloggers from lawsuits of libel and invasion of privacy and those charges could come from readers in nations that are governed by different laws.

So writer beware. You don't know who or where your readers are LINK

At least one of this mob has apologized:

Fighter, I'd like to personally apologize for the offensive comments that I made under the name 'Cerafyn' about your affiliate of Fight Bigamy, namely the comments directed at Sandra Phipps. I can't apologize enough to her, but I'd like to express regret for having offended you, as well. Please know that I acknowledge their immature and hateful voice, along with unforgiveable words for which I know am wholly accountable. They were, assuredly, a confusing and unjustified outburst at an undeserving group of people.



Thanks Cerafyn. You are right - unjustified, hateful and immature comments to an very undeserving group of victims. But the rest have dug in their heels with more garbage than ever spewing from these supposedly 'learned minds' who need to throw their credentials around along with their lack of common decency. So allow EOPC to inform the rest of you:

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

Examples of some of the common types of defamatory statements are the following: (1) statements which make a claim about whether a person has committed a crime; (2) statements which impute the presence of an infectious or loathsome disease; (3) statements which injure a person with respect to his office, trade or business; and (4) statements which impute some lack of moral dignity. Even if the statements fit into one of these categories, which are not all inclusive, it is not defamatory if it is true.

Regarding defamation on a blog, if you are hosting a blog, and providing interactive services such forums or comment section, or even participating in these forums, you could find yourself facing a claim for defamation if you are involved in the publication of false harmful statement - even if you are not the author of the statement, and have no editorial control.

Additionally, even if you are not the original author, and have no editorial control, you could be liable if someone publishes a defamatory statement on your site or service. LINK

Never ever take this sort of thing lying down. There's only one way to beat a bully - stand up to them. Look out cyberbullies - rev up the cyber-shredders too. The accountability train just pulled in.

UPDATE: The posters over at the site in question in the above post think they are having a field day at EOPC's expense.

In brief.... we are 'crazy' and wear a 'tin foil' hat; this site has too many font colors; we are skating on thin legal ice (projection at its finest here, folks), we are guilty for reprinting the offending comments (LOL - guess they don't read us much huh?) and we are goat ****ers. Can't thank them enough for bringing traffic here, alerting people to the cyberbulling aspect of blogs and the brief moments of laughter. Carry on! - Fighter

BLOGGING, "FREE SPEECH" & THE CYBERBULLY

We have posted an article regarding a special sort of cyberpath: THE CYBERBULLY before. And new ones have come to our attention. People such as bloggers like this - use their forums to spread misinformation or information only THEY deem appropriate and palatable (usually by deleting comments to their posts they don't like or disagree with). That's fine - the internet is an uninhibited realm and for the control freaks and internet tyrants, this works well.

However, there are those, who when they don't like your ideas - decide to deride those who are behind the ideas personally. Sometimes these remarks are just plain mean spirited, but some? Are sexually provocative, vindictive and yes - defamatory. Full of hate and misogyny or misandry these KEYBOARD BULLIES find it very easy to try to ride someone into the ground from the protection of a nickname or a blog. Just as romance and financial cyberpaths embark on a smear campaign when found out, this bunch engages in smear campaigning, victim blaming, blame shifting and projection .


Writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can keep you out of trouble--both in your personal and public life--only to a point. While truth is the defense for libel and slander, it is NOT a defense for invasion of privacy and the Internet is the new frontier where not everything is clearly defined.

And even if you consider your blog a diary, that doesn't keep you safe from character defamation charges--and the cost could be as much as 23 years of your life. LINK

But are they really free to do this? Nope. They may continue to remind you how hard it is to legislate HATE SPEECH as opposed to FREE SPEECH. These are special kinds of cyber-narcissists who lead double lives - like this guy - who works an altruistic job during the day - but at night lets his thinly veiled anger, hate & arrogant snobbery run free along with his cyberbuddys in a wild case of mobbing syndrome. Oh, not everyone on this blog or blogs like this are bad. Some are intelligent enough to speak to the issues. However - blog owners like this guy are heading for trouble. And their sycophants .... er, commenters - keep trying to tell those they offend its NOT defamation, slander or libel. Or, like most of the disordered - that their victims 'simply don't know what they are talking about' -- like abusers who tell their victims its not abuse. These people like many cyberpaths - hope to define reality with their very words.


These guys have decided that they don't like the idea of a National Marriage Database, which EOPC supports - and to prove it they will make defamatory statements from their little keyboards about the two strongest proponents of this Database. O.K. In America, much of our government and our laws are based on the products of disagreement. However - comments like:

"I think it's clear that Sandra Phipps is a royal bitch," LINK

"there's Donna Layne Roberts, the authoritarian, educationally-challenged anti-bigamy activist who continues to warn TtP (and our commenters) that offending her and Sandra Phipps is a crime and that we're all going to go jail if we don't stop making jokes about anti-bigamy activists getting fucked by horses." LINK
(note - writer 'Cicero' attempts here and in other posts to characterize Ms. Roberts standing up him as a 'threat' and the database as a 'threat.' Typical abuser-playing victim-mentality Nice try Cicero)

"if by flirting you mean jacking off while I think about Sandra Phipps" LINK

"Donna Layne Robert's full threat (and others) are in the comment section of our previous posts. She is clearly a threat to free speech, liberty, moms, and apple pies. I encourage TtP readers to mercilessly mock her, and leave Sandra Phipps alone." LINK

"I'm practically licking whipcream off of Donna Layne Robert's hairy ass..." LINK

...are just plain wrong. That's not commentary. That's abuse.


"More recently, in Durango, as reported by Shane Benjamin, writing for the Durango Herald, a "Fort Lewis College honors graduate was sentenced to a total of 23 years in prison...after being found guilty of 26 felonies, including criminal libel."

One example of how he victimized was creating a Web site in a professor's name identifying her as a sexual deviant and asking anyone reading to come rape her." LINK

FROM THIS SAME ARTICLE:

"On a smaller scale, a Wisconsin Web site, FullofBologna.com, was temporarily shut down by a judge in a case that involved “anonymous messages on a bulletin board on the site. She [Winnebago County Clerk of Courts Diane Fremgen] claims those messages included libelous, sexually explicit comments."

"The lawsuit is against the Dennis Payne who operates the site and "the anonymous participant who went by the pseudonym, Mr. Imperfect." LINK

A bit more on sexually charged comments on blogs:

"Rae Langton agrees and concludes that "women as a group have rights against the consumers of pornography, and thereby have rights that are trumps against the policy of permitting pornography...the permissive policy is in conflict with the principle of equal concern and respect, and that women accordingly have rights against it" (1990, 346). Because she is not basing her argument on the harm principle, she does not have to show that women are harmed by pornography. For the argument to be persuasive, however, one does have to accept that permitting pornography does mean that women are not treated with equal concern and respect.

"we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than it is on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm." LINK

Its one thing to go to exposure sites about people you've married or dated, as an article I wrote explains - to expose them. Its another to revictimize people who have already been victimized and them blame them and smear them when these victims try to find a viable solution to prevent anyone else from being victimized!

"For Stanley Fish, the issue is one of finding a balance in which "we must consider in every case what is at stake and what are the risks and gains of alternative courses of action" (1994, 111). Is speech promoting our basic values or undermining them? "If you don't ask this question, or some version of it, but just say that speech is speech and that's it, you are mystifying--presenting as an arbitrary and untheorized fiat-- a policy that will seem whimsical or worse to those whose interests it harms or dismisses" (1994, 123).

"In other words, there have to be reasons behind the argument to allow speech; we cannot simply say that the First Amendment says it is so, therefore it must be so. The task is not to come up with a principle that always favors expression, but rather, to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech. A good policy "will not assume that the only relevant sphere of action is the head and larynx of the individual speaker" (1994, 126). Is it more in keeping with the values of a democratic society, in which every person is deemed equal, to allow or prohibit speech that singles out specific individuals and groups as less than equal? The answer, according to Fish, cannot be settled by simply appealing to a pre-ordained ideal of absolute free speech, because this is a principle that is itself in need of defense. Fish's answer is that, "it depends. I am not saying that First Amendment principles are inherently bad (they are inherently nothing), only that they are not always the appropriate reference point for situations involving the production of speech" (1994, 113). But, all things considered, "I am persuaded that at the present moment, right now, the risk of not attending to hate speech is greater than the risk that by regulating it we will deprive ourselves of valuable voices and insights or slide down the slippery slope towards tyranny. This is a judgement for which I can offer reasons but no guarantees" (1994, 115).

"Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited. (1978, 97 [author's emphasis] - J.S. Mill" LINK

Maybe this is just their feeble way of driving more traffic to their low-rent blog. They should have checked their egos and engaged what, if any, brains they had before they shot off their mouths via computer. You see, those of us who have been victimized by cyberpaths and bullies? We aren't afraid of very much - in fact, by the time you read this - all their information will already be in the appropriate hands. Free Speech is a wonderful thing - until you abuse it and others in the process. We psychopath and malignant narcissist victims know this only too well.

Freedom of speech, the public diary-style of some blogs and the publication of truth isn’t enough to protect bloggers from lawsuits of libel and invasion of privacy and those charges could come from readers in nations that are governed by different laws.

So writer beware. You don't know who or where your readers are LINK

At least one of this mob has apologized:

Fighter, I'd like to personally apologize for the offensive comments that I made under the name 'Cerafyn' about your affiliate of Fight Bigamy, namely the comments directed at Sandra Phipps. I can't apologize enough to her, but I'd like to express regret for having offended you, as well. Please know that I acknowledge their immature and hateful voice, along with unforgiveable words for which I know am wholly accountable. They were, assuredly, a confusing and unjustified outburst at an undeserving group of people.



Thanks Cerafyn. You are right - unjustified, hateful and immature comments to an very undeserving group of victims. But the rest have dug in their heels with more garbage than ever spewing from these supposedly 'learned minds' who need to throw their credentials around along with their lack of common decency. So allow EOPC to inform the rest of you:

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

Examples of some of the common types of defamatory statements are the following: (1) statements which make a claim about whether a person has committed a crime; (2) statements which impute the presence of an infectious or loathsome disease; (3) statements which injure a person with respect to his office, trade or business; and (4) statements which impute some lack of moral dignity. Even if the statements fit into one of these categories, which are not all inclusive, it is not defamatory if it is true.

Regarding defamation on a blog, if you are hosting a blog, and providing interactive services such forums or comment section, or even participating in these forums, you could find yourself facing a claim for defamation if you are involved in the publication of false harmful statement - even if you are not the author of the statement, and have no editorial control.

Additionally, even if you are not the original author, and have no editorial control, you could be liable if someone publishes a defamatory statement on your site or service. LINK

Never ever take this sort of thing lying down. There's only one way to beat a bully - stand up to them. Look out cyberbullies - rev up the cyber-shredders too. The accountability train just pulled in.

UPDATE: The posters over at the site in question in the above post think they are having a field day at EOPC's expense.

In brief.... we are 'crazy' and wear a 'tin foil' hat; this site has too many font colors; we are skating on thin legal ice (projection at its finest here, folks), we are guilty for reprinting the offending comments (LOL - guess they don't read us much huh?) and we are goat ****ers. Can't thank them enough for bringing traffic here, alerting people to the cyberbulling aspect of blogs and the brief moments of laughter. Carry on! - Fighter