Warning: About Posting Abuse on Twitter and Facebook

By Declan Harvey

The government's top legal adviser has issued a new warning over abusive tweets and Facebook posts.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve said users should be aware of how easy it can be to break the law. But he said the government didn't need to introduce new laws because existing ones already make it illegal to "grossly offend" or "cause distress".

It comes after 21-year old Liam Stacey was jailed for mocking footballer Fabrice Muamba on Twitter.

Dominic Grieve said: "If somebody goes down to the pub with printed sheets of paper and hands it out, that's no different than if somebody goes and does a tweet. The idea that you have immunity because you're an anonymous tweeter is a big mistake. If necessary we will take action. I don't want to take action but if I think it is necessary to prevent crime, such as racially aggravated harassment, then I won't hesitate to do it."

He says they are leading the way internationally when tackling it.

"The warning is this," he said. "We fight for people's rights in order to make free comment. But with that comes a responsibility to act within the law".

Mr Hyde also said they could quite easily trace owners of online accounts even if they had been closed.

Sarah, 21, is a student at Pontypridd in south Wales and thinks schools should teach children about the risks. She said: "You don't really know much about what you can and can't say, so you don't know what's a case you can report and what's not. So until you know that, you're not going to report anyone."

'Unlawful purposes'
In a statement Facebook said: "Facebook is a safe and positive platform for people to share things with the people who matter to them. On the rare occasions when people come across content or behaviour which makes them uncomfortable, there are reporting tools on almost every page of the site.

"We co-operate with the police to the extent required by law to make sure the tiny minority of people intent on causing harm to others are brought to justice." Twitter referred to their terms of use, which say: "You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities. Accounts engaging in these behaviours may be investigated for abuse. Accounts under investigation may be removed from search for quality. Twitter reserves the right to immediately terminate your account without further notice in the event that, in its judgment, you violate these rules."

original article found here

ONLINE ATTACKS

by Robin M.

Why So Many Feel Big When They Hide Behind A Screen

I’ve often joked that the internet is the last place that beating up women in public is still considered acceptable. Ask any woman who writes online, be it politics, women’s rights, often even parenting and more mundane social issues, and you will hear a nearly universal admittance that she has at some point been attacked for her views by at least one anonymous commenter. Not an “I disagree with you because x, y,z…” response, but a “You stupid bitch, why do you think you can write what you write.”

I used to be amazed by the vitriol. Then I was saddened. Eventually, though, I saw that as just another part of the territory when you open yourself up as a writer online.

I accepted it. We all pretty much accept it. That is the part that should make us all angry — our now inherent acceptance of the idea that if you write online, you will be harassed, especially if you are a woman.

As Nina Funell explains in this piece in the Australian, “The internet has absolutely changed the nature of public debate. The anonymity and the immediacy it gives people who want to indulge in abuse and hate… I don’t know if it actually makes it more or less dangerous [to have a public profile] but when you’re seeing a whole heap of hate speech written about you in separate forums, targeting you via email or in comments, I do know that it has a profound impact on your sense of safety…”

I’ve always been lucky to feel safe, despite opening a great deal of my private life online because of my writing about infertility and reproductive health. Although I have had my own share of comments, both with real names (I assume) attached or sent anonymously, I have learned to ignore them as simply a part of my work. I never stop to question why it should ever be a part of anyone’s “work” to deal with online harassment.

Once, things escalated beyond just comments and insults. It was a shocking realization of not just how exposed you actually do leave yourself online, but how free those who disagree with you feel it is allowable to step beyond the normal bounds of public and private life in order to “teach you a lesson” about how wrong you are about the things you believe.

I learned my lesson well. I learned that to allow someone to silence you online is to lose your power, and that when your personal life goes on line, you don’t go quiet, you identify it for what it is — an attack by someone who wants to intimidate you from acting on your beliefs. You must learn to change that attack into something that can become a positive for you, a chance to show your strength, expand your audience, whatever it is that they are trying to stop you from accomplishing.

The internet may always be the last place for attacks, especially attacks on women, to thrive. But we don’t have to accept it, we have to fight it.

original article here

Harassers Are Losing Their Anonymity...

By Yamil Berard

Imagine waking up one day and finding out that you have been labeled a thief, hooker, pimp, child abuser or tax evader on an anonymous blog.

As people ramp up their trash talk online, such harassment is becoming more common, said Kenton J. Hutcherson, a Dallas attorney who specializes in Internet defamation cases. "I see these cases every day," Hutcherson said. "I have a unique niche."

The Internet has become a Wild West of hooligans apt to besmirch the name of anybody they don't like, because they think they can get away with it under a cloak of anonymity, legal experts say.

"The real difficulties you are going to have is finding who are the John Does who are posting this stuff," said Frank Snyder, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth.

Indeed, for a while, the anonymous posters could hide. They counted on Internet service providers to refuse to unmask them.

But now, courts are ordering that they be exposed, opening the way for defamation lawsuits.

Just this week, a Tarrant County. Texas jury awarded a couple $13.8 million in a libel judgment, said to be one of the largest ever in an Internet defamation case. Hutcherson is now trying to unmask other anonymous posters who targeted three area residents, including two from Tarrant County.

He filed a lawsuit this month against "John or Jane Doe" on behalf of the three, who have been named on a Google-hosted blog as "two pimps and a prostitute." The accusations on the blog have caused "severe emotional distress," the lawsuit states.

Hutcherson says his clients are ordinary people. One, a Kaufman County woman, is a homemaker, a PTA member and a mom, he said. "She is scared to death that other people in the neighborhood will see this stuff and see that she's accused of being a prostitute," Hutcherson said.

None of the three have been charged with prostitution-related offenses, according to a check of criminal records. They did not respond to requests for comment.

Hutcherson said his clients aren't looking for a big verdict. They just want the allegations removed from the blog, known as "open secret" and affiliated with an online escort service. The blog identifies the plaintiffs as associated with Dallas brothels, a spa and another agency.

The information is easily accessible on Google, Hutcherson said.

[We are] not identifying the plaintiffs to avoid spreading the allegations.

In most of these cases, clients shun publicity, Hutcherson said. "The client in these cases is put at a difficult position because in order to vindicate their name, they have to go out there and file a public lawsuit," he said. The first goal in many Internet libel cases is to identify the anonymous poster.

To do that, the plaintiff's attorney issues a subpoena to the online service provider that hosts the pages with the defamatory content.

The provider -- Google, for example -- then typically notifies the anonymous defendant, who has 20 days to file a motion to quash the information. If no motion is filed or the court denies the motion, the provider must turn over the information, Hutcherson said. Once it is released, the defendant's real name replaces "John or Jane Doe" in the lawsuit.

Hutcherson's plaintiffs have a slam-dunk libel case if the allegations are false, Snyder said. Under age-old common law rules, it's unlawful to call a "chaste" woman a prostitute. It is called "libel per se" -- or libel that is obviously harmful.

"You're not only impugning a crime to them but implying unchastity as well," Snyder said. "If it's untrue, the common-law rule would be you get damages just by showing someone has falsely called you a prostitute."

The same rule, however, doesn't apply for men labeled pimps or prostitutes, he said. "Go back 150 years, a man who had affairs with other women was kind of admired."

Hutcherson's advice: Be careful what you post.

"People get behind the computer and they think they're anonymous and are not going to be held liable so they do things they normally would not do," he said. "They have this sense of empowerment. ... The way they act on the Internet is different than they way they act normally. The problem is that the Internet is the real world and it affects real people ... causes real damage."

original article found here

Jailed Over Online Blog Post

By T.J. Aulds

(TEXAS) The operator of a popular blog that keeps up with the happenings in Clear Lake Shores was arrested and charged because of a post he made on the site in February.

Allan Batchelor, owner of the Island Drumz blog, said his posting of the email address of the wife of a city council candidate is what got him in trouble.

Interim police Chief Kenneth Cook said Batchelor was charged with online impersonation, a Class A misdemeanor. Batchelor was arrested at his home Wednesday and posted a $2,500 bond.

Online impersonation is the state’s definition of online harassment.

Section 33.07 of the state penal code defines the infraction as, “A person commits an offense if the person, without obtaining the other person’s consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten any person, uses the name or persona of another person ... with the intent to harm or defraud any person.”

The Texas Legislature revised the law last session.

In Batchelor’s case, he’s accused of posting the email address of Barbara Nichols, wife of city council candidate John Nichols, and inviting people to send spam and computer viruses to the email.

“Harm was intended at that point,” Cook said.

Batchelor made the posting on his blog Feb. 21. Nichols filed a complaint March 16.

Cook, noting a tense political atmosphere in the city, said his office took the case to the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office, which agreed to press charges. The Clear Lake Shores City Council has been locked in disagreement mostly about the performance of City Administrator Paul Shelly, who, until recently, also was police chief.

Batchelor said he made the post, which has since been edited to delete Nichols’ email address, because he was upset she had used an email distribution list of his to send out emails to area residents and businesses.

Nichols, who confirmed she got the distribution list from Batchelor, said the email contained the council agenda packet and she sent it to make sure the public was aware of an approaching council meeting.

She also said she was unaware Batchelor had posted his spam comments and her email to his blog. That was until the spam started showing up in her inbox.

Spam is unsolicited email, usually promoting a commercial product or service.

“I got spammed,” she said. “I opened my email and had all this spam.”

Nichols also said she found out she was under attack by posters on the Island Drumz blog page.

“I am uncomfortable with being attacked,” she said. “It got to the point that disagreements are not civil anymore. They come with threats, and I am fearful for what could happen to me.”

Nichols said she suspects she became an online target because she questions how the city was handling federal government contracts for disaster relief funds.

“I was arguing for more transparency,” she said. “Then I was attacked. I feel like this hate mongering is parallel to bullying that we tell our kids not to do. That’s what it is, a lot of bullying.”

original post found here

'Gripe Site' Is Protected Free Speech, Not Defamation

(an article regarding 'disclaimers' about the type of site - exposure - EOPC is)

"The contents of a New Jersey man's "gripe site" -- a 45-page Web site dedicated to the perceived misdeeds of his car insurer -- were protected free speech that did not constitute defamation, a Manhattan judge has ruled.

"...alleged that Ronald DiGiovanni's site made eight libelous statements about its business, including that it is a "blatantly dishonest company" that has been "running scams," "committing fraud on a grand scale," and "ripping off its contract holders for quite a while...

"The court holds that the cause of action for libel ... should be dismissed because the challenged speech is merely a statement of defendant's personal opinion...

"...his statements reflect his personal opinion based upon his personal dealings with plaintiff. They're subjective expressions of consumer dissatisfaction [and] are not actionable because they are defendant's personal opinion."

(Stick to the truth and be sure you can back it up -- not just your assumptions or guesses.

The truth is a 100% defence to defamation. If you post something like "John had a criminal record" or "Sue has no licences for her job" WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS PROVING THAT - it is not defamatory in any way. However, saying something like "Diane is a lesbian" online with no proof... IS DEFAMATORY

Don't assume because someone was angry at you - that makes them abusive. The court could say you made 'assumptions.' And only the TRUTH is a complete defense to charges of slander or defamation.)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

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

Sued for Refusing to Help a Cyberstalking Victim

By Victor Fiorillo

Earlier this week in Philadelphia’s Federal Court, 25-year-old Temple grad Cailin Arena and her friend Patricia McWilliam of South Carolina sued a John Doe they say has been cyberstalking them and publishing their copyrighted photos and writings without their permission. In the same suit, they name Internet giant Google—which hosts the perpetrator’s blog, Korean Dating Bloggers, as well as a fraudulent Google Plus account set up in Arena’s name—for failing to do anything about it.

In recent years, the women have traveled to Korea and Japan to teach English to grade-school students in those countries. Arena, who has been dating a Korean man since 2010, is currently teaching in Japan, where her boyfriend resides, while McWilliam teaches in Seoul, South Korea. Both women have blogged extensively about their overseas experiences, and these blogs, which they’ve deleted, appear to be the original source of the screen-grabbing stalker’s material.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed by Arena’s father, Montgomery County attorney Charles Arena, the problems began on January 3, 2012, when John Doe sent an anonymous email to Arena’s supervisor containing a link to sexual content and stating that Arena was responsible for it, and another email to Arena, which read, “Sorry to say but you’re an ugly brown something. You probably also smell bad. Have fun in Japan, I hear the radiation isn’t bad in Fukushima. Why not buy some vegetables from there for you and your ugly brown children.” Also that day, John Doe is said to have posted racist commentary about Arena in an online forum associated with her job.

One week later, John Doe created Korean Dating Bloggers, using Arena’s full name and her employer’s name as a website tag, so that his blog would come up in Google searches for her. On the site, he posted screen shots from her now deleted blog, copyrighted pictures she says he stole from her actual Google Plus account, and negative commentary about her. He also created an impostor Tumblr account and Google Plus profile in her name. He reached out to contacts in her actual Google Plus circle, linking them to Korean Dating Bloggers. The allegations relating to John Doe’s actions toward McWilliam are similar.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant’s use of their copyrighted material violates the Digital Millennium Copyright and that Google has a responsibility to remove it. They and their attorneys have repeatedly contacted Google headquarters, demanding a resolution.

At first, Google responded that they do not remove allegedly defamatory, libelous or slanderous material unless requested by a court order, even though the plaintiffs’ claims were regarding copyright, not defamation.

Then, Google responded with a message that the plaintiffs call “nonsensical.” In it, Google stated that the company decided not to take action “based on our policies concerning content removal. We would like to assist you, but we don’t currently disclose this information. Should it become publicly available in the future, you may find it on our site at http://www.google.com/about.html.” Getting nowhere with Google, they filed the suit.

As for the identity of the blogger, the plaintiffs believe they know who he is and that he resides in Pennsylvania. They hope that the court will compel Google to reveal his true identity and intend to file more actions today. “The law hasn’t caught up with technology,” says Charles Arena. “This is scary. What do you do when someone seeks to do irreparable harm to you online?”

A Google spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.

original article here

Lawyer Loses Defamation Suit Against Website

By Staci Zaretsky

A lesson that Matt Couloute Jr. is learning.

It’s a sad fact, but almost everyone has had the opportunity to partake in a bad romance or two. And although it may sound elegant when Lady Gaga sings about it, in real life, it can be devastating. That’s why websites like LiarsCheatersRUs were created — so that jilted lovers could have a place to unleash their angst about failed relationships caused by a lover’s supposed infidelity.

But what happens when you’re a lawyer and a scorned ex-girlfriend lets loose on the internet about your infidelities? That is apparently what happened in the case of Matthew Couloute Jr., a former prosecutor and Court TV analyst, after he allegedly cheated on Amanda Ryncarz.

Now he’s suing Ryncarz and another ex-flame, roller-derby diva Stacey Blitsch, both represented by [ ] lawyer to the wannabe stars, Gloria Allred. Thus far, we’ve kept our coverage of the drama to Morning Docket entries (here, here, and here), but now, Matt Couloute has spoken out about the situation on television.

For those of you who haven’t been following this story as it makes its rounds on New York’s finest tabloids, here is the LiarsCheatersRUs entry that Couloute is suing over (click here)

Ouch, way to hit him where it hurts — his wallet. Couloute’s ex, Amanda Ryncarz, was outed as the “anonymous” writer of this review, and now she’s airing her grievances even more publicly. In a press conference organized by Gloria Allred last September, Ryncarz announced that she posted on the website “because [she] wanted to warn other women in order to protect them from what [she] suffered.”

Stacey Blitsch, on the other hand, completely denies posting LiarsCheatersRUs, but many suspect that this response to Ryncarz’s original entry was penned by her hand (click here)

Well, if she did write that, then this Blitsch has got balls. Hell totally hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Aww, Couloute just wants a clean Google search. You can’t fault the man for that, but you’ve got to wonder if this attorney is getting what he deserves. Recall from 1L year that truth is a defense to defamation. If you don’t remember, then Gloria Allred is here to help you out:

“I think the minimum the women should be allowed to do is to speak out and speak the truth about the men who they have had relationships [with] and about the men who have hurt them. We believe lawsuits like this should not be allowed. This is free speech. Women must have a voice and be able to speak to each other on matters of common interest without fear of being dragged into court.”

You hear that, ladies? You can say whatever you damn well want to say on the internet, and if you happen to get sued over it, then Girl Power Gloria will have your back.

Couloute’s lawsuit will be heard in court early this year, and when we get more details, we’ll be sure to pass them along to our readers. For now, if you’re thinking of cheating on your significant other, just remember that the internet is kind of like that Rockwell song — somebody is always watching you. But don’t even think about suing them for their online rants, because they’ve probably got Gloria Allred on speed dial.

original article here

____________


Couloute loses his Defamation Suit:

Couloute was called a cheating “scum” who, according to Amanda Ryncarz, dumped her over the phone five days before marrying another woman. Blitsch has a son with Couloute.

Baer ruled that the statements were opinion and “clearly hyperbolic.” Couloutee identified the following statements on the site as defamatory and injurious to his status as an attorney:

Ryncarz statements:

1. “[Mr. Couloute] lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life.”

2. “[Mr. Couloute] [u]ses people/his son/women to get what he wants then dumps you when he’s done with them. Has no long term friends. He rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing.”

3. “He is very very manipulating. he’s an attorney so he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye.”1 .

Blitsch statements:

1. “[W]hat these ladies have said about his character is very true. I met him and dated briefly and I was taken in with the charm and instant “connection” he claimed we had . . . [A]s soon as I started asking questions about other aspects of his life and figured out he wasn’t comple[tely] honest he turned cold then disappeared. And of course another male is going to say Matt is a “solid dude” . . . if you agree with lieing [sic] and manipulating any female you come in contact with I guess he could be considered that. . . .”

2. “I came across this site by accident by following a UFL news feed, so your friend Matt has more problems than these posts if in search for the league his name is associated with this site.”

Couloute insisted that these comments included factual misrepresentations. Notably, one of the comment came with the following observation:

“This is the absolute truth about this man!! He will stop communication with you suddenly, then reach out years later as he did with me trying to sweet talk you and make you feel like you’re the most special woman in the world that he’s been looking for. He is very very manipulating. he’s an attorney so he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye. Our relationship didn’t last long as I figured him out pretty quickly but for others, BE FOREWARNED, HE’S SCUM! RUN FAR A WAY!”

Couloute originally alleged only tortious interference with prospective business relations — perhaps in recognition of the opinion defense. However, he later amended to add the defamation claim.

Nevertheless, Baer (the judge) found that these comments, except one, were clearly opinion found on a site filled with one-sided accounts:

With the possible exception of the statement that Plaintiff “rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing”—a statement clearly capable of being proven true or false—the comments, even if viewed in isolation, are opinion. Defendants state that Plaintiff “lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life”, and that, because Plaintiff is an attorney, “he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye.” Comments such as these are clearly hyperbolic. And when viewed within the larger context of the website on which they were posted, there can be no doubt that a reasonable reader would understand the comments to be opinion. As Defendants note, liarscheatersrus.com is “specifically intended to provide a forum for people to air their grievances about dishonest romantic partners.” Id. at 9. The average reader would know that the comments are “emotionally charged rhetoric” and the “opinions of disappointed lovers.” Id. Of course the Internet makes it more likely that a greater number of people will read comments such as these, and thereby amplify the impact they may have on a person, but this does not change the underlying nature of the comments themselves.

Couloutte plans to appeal.

There is a site with Couloutte’s name that contains the following odd statement from “him or her”:

Put Matt Couloute into the Google Search engine and you will not find Matthew Couloute’s background regarding his / her time as a news reporter on Court TV. You won’t learn Matt Couloute once represented a football league. An individual won’t learn this individual ended up being the assistant district attorney throughout Connecticut record.

Not at all, you will end up forwarded to liarscheatersrus.org, a site wherever ladies admit regarding extramarital affairs of the these people out dated or perhaps married.

Well Matt Couloute has decided to deal with the problem. In his or her case he recorded a lawsuit towards Amanda Ryncarz, his former sweetheart, that admits putting up on the spot relating to a few year romantic relationship. . . .

Matt Couloute has additionally within the go well with his / her child’s mom whom furthermore published on the website. She declines it but states the lady nevertheless believes Couloute is often lies. spouse.

It is not clear who has created this site, but it is one of the first sites that comes up when you try to find any site from Couloute. Here is his site. He includes a specialty in dealing with “cyberbullying.”

The case is Couloute v. Ryncarz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20534.

original article here

Another Revenge Site - Another Lawsuit

by Anna North



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

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

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

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

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

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

Some mix the serious with the trivial:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

original article can be found here

Irish Student Crucified on the Internet

By Warren Swords and Debbie Mccann



(U.K.) An innocent student who had his name blackened on the internet has comprehensively cleared his name – thanks to the Irish Mail on Sunday.

Dublin student Eoin McKeogh, accused of dodging a €50 taxi fare, has laid bare how the internet can destroy a blameless person's reputation in seconds and put people in the horrifying position of either leaving vile allegations in the public domain or pursuing a difficult and costly legal battle through the courts that will attract more attention from the media.

The entire episode has proven how social media such as Facebook and Twitter constitute something of a Wild West when it comes to laws of defamation, where anonymous users can accuse innocent people of crimes without any proof, in a spiralling nightmare of libel and slander.

Mr McKeogh's ordeal began in December when a taxi driver posted a video taken inside his cab on YouTube of a young man running from his taxi without paying the fare.

The video – dated November 13 – clearly shows the man's face and a friend can be heard calling him 'Eoin'.

Within hours, the video had spread to Facebook, Twitter and other internet forums. One anonymous viewer commented on YouTube – wrongly – that the culprit was Eoin McKeogh.

Soon, his name spread across the internet and social media sites and people began sending vitriolic messages to Mr McKeogh's Facebook page calling him a 'scumbag', a 'thief' and worse.

In January, he went to the gardaí twice to see what could be done, before taking legal advice. The matter came before the courts for the first time on January 10. During that hearing, Mr McKeogh provided the judge with his passport, which showed he had entered Japan on November 11 and left the Far East on November 22.

The video was filmed on November 13, while Mr McKeogh was studying in Japan.

'I was not and could not have been the person in the video,' he said in his affidavit to the court, where he is seeking an injunction to have the video permanently removed from the web.

Since the case was reported and he was named in certain newspapers, he is now also seeking an injunction to stop them naming him again.

His senior counsel, Pauline Whalley, told the court that on January 13, the taxi driver appeared in court and gave evidence that the taxi fare evader was not Eoin McKeogh and that he didn't even look like the culprit.

The driver apologised to Mr McKeogh for the trouble the video had caused, saying it was a 'terrible thing' to happen to him. 'He shook my hand and apologised,' said Mr McKeogh in his affidavit. The High Court granted him a temporary injunction on Tuesday against Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo and Google from hosting the video online for a week. A subsequent full hearing into his effort to gain injunctions against six newspapers began yesterday but was adjourned last night until today.

Mr McKeogh said he thought his nightmare was over but that he was still being accused online following court reports of the case.

'I was shocked to see all the postings [on the internet]. They all presumed I was guilty… and attempting to gag the media. I also had a fake Facebook page created.'

In a desperate attempt to clear his name, he even replied to tormentors online, sending them a photograph of himself and his boarding pass from his flight from Tokyo with his travel dates clearly visible.

One website, Broadsheet.ie, reproduced the photograph and a link to the video and told readers: 'You decide.'

According to his legal team, internet commentators continued to accuse Mr McKeogh and posted: 'Why the f*** do injunctions exist? I hope the f*** it blights his career.'

Yesterday afternoon in Court 45, Mr McKeogh asked for an injunction against several newspapers to stop them from printing his name in relation to the case and the video.

Barrister Miss Whalley was critical of the media for not reporting his innocence in the stories and argued against newspapers naming him again due to the public perception that there is no smoke without fire.

She said: 'People believe on a massive scale that he's guilty.'

In response, Mr Justice Michael Peart said: 'The smoke will remain thick – perhaps diluted, as it could not be and was not him.'

Mr Justice Peart said he would consider his decision overnight and make a ruling today at 2.30pm.

Despite offering incontrovertible proof in court that it wasn't him and successfully getting an injunction against YouTube showing the video, the footage was back on the website last night with users identifying him as the culprit, calling him a 'scumbag' and other highly derogatory comments.

The 22-year-old told the packed court yesterday how malicious allegations has ruined his life and could irreversibly damage his promising academic prospects.

Following the successful injunction, 95 per cent of the material posted online about Mr McKeogh was removed.

However, the following day, media organisations reported the court case and according to Miss Whalley 'it went viral again' with people 'saying he was guilty, he can pay high wages of lawyers but not a taxi fare.'

She said her client was not a Seán Quinn or a Seán FitzPatrick but 'an ordinary kid going through college and getting on with his life.

'With a few key strokes, you can destroy a person's reputation,' the barrister said.

Judge Peart described it as 'strange' that newspaper did not include the proof of his innocence in their reports.

original article here

Twitter Stalking is Protected Free Speech

by Andrew Couts

(San Francisco, U.S.A.) Saying mean, terrible, even violent things about someone on Twitter or blogs is free speech protected by the First Amendment, a judge has ruled.

A San Francisco judge has declared that cyberstalking on Twitter and blogs is constitutionally-protected free speech, reports The New York Times. The ruling is a victory for the First Amendment. But like all things worth fighting for, it comes at a price.

Here’s what happened: A Buddhist religious leader in Maryland named Alyce Zeoli became friends with a man named William Lawrence Cassidy. At some point, the two had a falling out. Cassidy took the mature route, and began posting thousands of messages on blogs and Twitter, often using pseudonyms, that aggressively disparaged Zeoli. Some of them even called for her death.

Understandably distraught, Zeoli then worked with the FBI to have Cassidy arrested, which he was, based on interstate stalking laws. Cassidy, the government argued, had caused Zeoli “substantial emotional distress.”

This, however, was not enough to convince Judge Roger W. Titus, who declared that Cassidy’s actions, while distasteful, were not enough to set a precedent that could cause serious harm to the entire foundations of speech on the Internet.

“[W]hile Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters,” wrote Judge Titus, in his official order.

Titus ruled that, because no one was forced to read Cassidy’s posts and tweets — as opposed to a “telephone call, letter or email specifically addressed to and directed at another person” — they are considered free speech, not harassment, just as personal bulletin boards of the colonial era fell under the protection of the First Amendment, which “protects speech even when the subject or the manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste.”

One of Zeoli’s lawyers, Shanlon Wu, told the Times that Zeoli was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.” It is not yet clear whether there will be an appeal to the ruling.

original article found here

Suing Google Doesn't Always Work

by Christopher Danzig

Even stately Englishmen are no match for Google.

I had never heard of Max Mosley until yesterday, when I read he was suing Google in Europe to block all search results regarding his alleged participation in some sort of Nazi sex orgy.

Ironically, when you search for Mosley’s name now, you get a zillion news stories with headlines like “Max Mosley sues Google over ‘Nazi orgy’ search results‎.”

Let’s learn more about Mosley, the former president of Formula One, and his decidedly unsexy legal battle against Google….

From The Guardian:

Max Mosley is suing Google in France and Germany in an attempt to force the internet company to monitor and censor search results about his alleged sado-masochistic orgy.

The former Formula One boss revealed he is taking legal action against Google during his testimony before the Leveson inquiry at London’s royal courts of justice on Thursday.

Mosley is battling to remove from the internet false and libellous references to an alleged “Nazi-themed” orgy and a News of the World video. …

“The fundamental thing is that Google could stop this appearing but they don’t or won’t as a matter of principle,” he told the inquiry. “The really dangerous things are the search engines.”

Mosley is also threatening to sue Google in California.

And this is not the first time public figures have not-so-nicely asked Google to censor search results they dislike. The other obvious case involves Rick Santorum, who made headlines in the fall criticizing the unpleasant top Google result for his last name. In 2003, sex columnist Dan Savage started the bare-bones website, Spreading Santorum, which simply defines his last name as a nasty sexual term, in response to what Savage perceived as the former senator’s anti-gay statements.

In both Mosley’s and Santorum’s cases, the miffed public figures insinuated that Google could eliminate the search results if it wanted to. Santorum claimed his conservative ideology was the reason Google refused to do anything about the search ranking.

But Google does protect itself legally. When it receives specific, court-ordered takedown notices, from the government or individuals, it frequently complies. (If you have ever run searches relating to illegal music or movie sharing, DMCA takedown notifications often appear on the Google search results page.) Mosley even acknowledged that Google has taken down hundreds of references to the allegedly defamatory stories. But the company will not honor personal requests or requests to censor entire search terms.

At this point, Google spokespeople have a pretty tight statement they use to explain their actions. The company’s response to Mosley was almost exactly the same as it was to Santorum:

“Google’s search results reflect the information available on billions of web pages on the internet. We don’t, and can’t, control what others post online, but when we’re told that a specific page is illegal under a court order, then we move quickly to remove it from our search results.”

On a practical level, Tim Worstall at Forbes gives a good explanation of why the act of suing search engines simply creates more stories for them to index:

[A]ny court case arguing that Google must not add to the search engine stories which mention the untrue allegations will be reportable: for court cases and evidence are reportable under privilege. So every time Mosley sues he’s generating more newspaper pieces which Google can, entirely legitimately, add to the index. For they’ve been reported under privilege.

Finding yourself on the Internet for unflattering reasons can be humiliating, especially if the information is untrue. A whole cottage industry has grown up around people trying to prevent their old mugshots from being easily searchable. Even Natalie Portman has said she won’t do nude scenes in movies because she doesn’t want the scenes ending up online.

For better or worse, Google is the gatekeeper for the online world we live in. It would be a completely unfeasible system if people could pick and choose, without a specific legal justification, what kinds of results to allow search engines to index. It is for the same reason news outlets will not remove stories just because someone doesn’t approve of the coverage. I feel bad for Mr. Mosley, but he’s only making things worse for himself. And his attorneys should know better.

original article found here

IS IT LEGAL (redux)

We are reposting this article due to popular demand:
IS IT LEGAL (To Expose a Cheater or Abuser Online)? by EOPC

CLICK HERE TO READ

And an excerpt from a recent article along the same legal lines:

"Obviously, the men (or women) have the option of attempting to sue the person who post information about them, if they can figure out who they are. No one yet has been able to unmask a poster or sue an exposure website successfully. (as of this writing) "(Of course the women can then countersue for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and ALIENATION OF AFFECTION (if married and allowed in their state.). Since many women develop permanent PTSD [Emotional Rape Syndrome] adrenal fatigue and severe depression from Cyberpaths - these women's claims may be easier to prove.)

--------------------------------------------

If the Postings are False, Are They Defamatory?

....Moreover, "substantial truth" - truth in substance, but not in the details -- is a full defense to a defamation claim. So any man who is contesting a claim of infidelity, probably should never have been unfaithful.

The truth is a 100% defense to defamation. Those who post it can not be sued for "defamation" if they are simply reporting information. They are then covered by 'citizen journalist' rights. However, you can be sued for inciting others to harass someone, twisting facts, accusing, posting someone's address, phone or other private information online.

(EOPC's legal release requires the victim(s) to take FULL, 100% responsible for their posts and what is said. Additionally, they must hold EOPC harmless and those posted can only try to take action against the poster, not us. We are reporting and giving opinion only. EOPC can't adjudicate. We absolutely do not get involved with any of these cases (example: contacting employers, etc.) We can't diagnose or take legal action against anyone for their posts. We REQUIRE posters sign and verify they are telling the truth and leave the burden of proof to them. Many cyberpaths try to get around this by guessing who we are and then harassing who they think is us. We are still here. This is absolutely the same for other exposure sites as well. EOPC merely provides a platform and is held harmless.)

"...The owner of DontDateHimGirl who was threatened with a lawsuit, later sued and the court threw out the suit completely says:

"Most of them say that the [person] who posted [the profile] is crazy, that something is wrong with [the poster/target], that they're saints."

and

"If someone posted my picture/profile in a database and I learned of it but it wasn't true, then I probably wouldn't waste my time even rebutting it. Why? Because if I'm innocent, then the burden is not on me to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And I don't use and abuse people online or off - so I am not afraid of scrutiny.

In short - its a catharsis the victims won't get anywhere else. What are the victims of these men and women to do with their anger, pain and hurt? Suck it up and allow the abuser to move on to another victim? Tell or not tell his spouse, partner or family? Stew in their feelings?"

and

"A former U.S. attorney Scott Christie was quoted in the New Jersey Star Ledger,

"Yes, it's all legal. If I were the owners of (such a) site, I wouldn't be concerned. They're providing an outlet for people to express their opinion.

It's much like hosting a bulletin board for people with a common interest,. People are giving their opinion about other people - they're entitled to it under the First Amendment."

And this from Canada.com:

According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

"If the person's reputation is in Canada, and they are in Canada, and likely the person who posted the information is in Canada, there's more than enough connection for Canadian defamation law to apply," says David T.S. Fraser, chair of the privacy practice group at McInnes Cooper. BUT he hastens to add the statements aren't considered defamatory if they're true.

"If you're a slug," says Mr. Fraser, "it's only appropriate people know you're a slug."

FOR THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CLICK HERE

Warning About E-Personation Bill

By Edward Berridge

Online Human Rights Group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned that a bill working its way through the California legislature will make it a crime to impersonate someone online in order to "harm" that person.

The law will make it illegal to create a Facebook or Twitter account with someone else's name, and then use that account to embarrass that person.

The EFF said that "impersonating" corporations and public officials has become an important and powerful form of political activism, especially online."

"For example, the Yes Men, a group of artists and activists, pioneered "identity correction," posing as business and government representatives and making statements on their behalf to raise popular awareness of the real effects of those entities' activities, like the failure to DuPont to adequately compensate victims of the Bhopal disaster and the U.S. government's destruction of public housing units in New Orleans," the EFF said.

Last year, the activists staged a thinly veiled hoax by presenting themselves at a press conference and on a website as the Chamber of Commerce and promised to stop lobbying against strong climate change legislation. The Chamber promptly sued the Yes Men based on a trademark complaint.

Spoof sites and "identity correction" raise awareness about community issues, environmental threats and, most recently, the historical roots of Haiti's economic problems, the EFF said.

The people behind the bill said that there is nothing to worry about as it only applies to "credible" impersonations. They claimed that at the moment victims of online harassment and defamation have little legal recourse.

However the EFF replied that laws against fraud and defamation are already on the books, and they apply online as well as offline.

original article here

NOTE: THIS BILL PASSED IN CALIFORNIA and NEW YORK CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
(2008) A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. - first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review - represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

thanks to BETH for this find!

You Too Could Be Slimed - Fighting Internet Insults

Former NFL exec Matthew Couloute Jr. was anonymously branded a devious Don Juan on the Web site LiarsCheatersRUs.com. He is suing two exes he says are responsible for the cybersmear, roller-derby skater “Malibu” Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz.

Blitsch has denied posting, but Ryncarz says her screeds are protected free speech.

“Our relationship didn’t last long, as I figured him out pretty quickly, but for others, BE FOREWARNED, HE’S SCUM! RUN FAR AWAY!” one post on the site reads.

Here, Couloute, a former Connecticut prosecutor, speaks out at length for the first time on the cybertrashing -- and how it could happen to you.
______________________

Both of my exes were youthful indiscretions. Everyone has that person they dated in their life where you say, “Oh, that’s a mistake.” I have a child with my mistake.

Amanda’s my other mistake. I dated her on and off since 2008, and now she’s shown up and has been in contact with Stacey.

As we date people through our single lives, we get to know them and their true colors. That is what happened along the way with both Stacey and Amanda. I didn’t marry either because they weren’t the right fit for me. I had a son with Stacey, and I love him more than anything.

But everything they said is false.

And that’s why I took the approach I did with the federal lawsuit. I’m seeking unspecified damages, but this is not about money. This is about removing those posts.

Stacey is using this as a tool in order to get custody of our son. We broke up in 2006 and had joint custody until 2008, when a judge deemed me the more fit parent.

Last year, I filed a motion to relocate him to Connecticut, where I moved after working in Florida -- a requirement by law in the state -- and it’s become a contentious battle to relocate him. That’s what her posts are really about.

Look, I’m not here to badmouth Stacey, but read what she’s posted online and what she wants to do with her career and her life. The way she portrays herself online, scantily clad in bikinis, it’s clear that the most important thing for her is not my son.

The posts came up when I was purchasing a house with my wife. Clients ask me about what’s going on. It’s the first thing that comes up when you Google my name.

And I have to answer those questions.

Even my mom was upset with me -- for lowering myself to deal with their online bashing.

The point is you should not be able to anonymously defame people on a Web site set up in Panama -- outside the laws of the United States -- and get away with it. I’ve had a successful career my whole life, am good at what I do, and have absolutely no recourse against this company. And neither do you. I can sign on to the site and post your name and write anything I want about you.

So my voice is the only thing I have, and that’s why I’m speaking out.

I fought too hard in my life and career and to be a good man to sit back and be maliciously lied about on the Internet and media.

Women should never be afraid to speak out. But no one should be able to defame an ex-flame because they’re not happy with the way the relationship ended.


WITH THANKS TO LoveFraud.com

original article here

(THIS IS EXACTLY WHY EOPC HAS MORE THAN ONE 'WEBMASTER' AND VICTIMS ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN A LEGAL RELEASE WHERE THEY TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS POSTED AND ITS TRUTHFULNESS.)