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.)

The Internet & the First Amendment

INSIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT

By Gene Policinski



When the poetic line “Oh what a tangled web we weave …” was penned a few centuries ago, Sir Walter Scott had no idea what irony those words might have when applied to the 21st century’s world of blogs, tweets, Web sites and free expression.



Over just a few days in the last two weeks, these tangled issues were making news:



In Virginia, a woman blogged about the actions of undercover police operations, which she said fascinated her. Her last entry read, “they’re here” – typed, it was reported, just before her arrest for harassment of a police officer.



In New York, a Web site that claimed officials were considering an end to Radio City’s long-standing Christmas spectacular has been sued for defamation by Madison Square Garden; and a real estate developer sued a Web site for publishing court documents, claiming it was done to hurt his business.



In South Carolina, a man was charged with the rarely used offense of criminal libel in connection with inflammatory messages about another man on social-networking sites.



In Washington, D.C., the U.S. military announced it would review policies applying to social networks like Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, with an eye toward security concerns. The Marine Corps went further, ordering a ban on use of the Marine Web network for such activity, though stopping short – for now – of regulating Marines’ private use of such networks on personal computers outside of their jobs.



What all of these news items have in common is that such speech would have had limited reach not that long ago. But the Internet provides the means and opportunity to reach well beyond friends and family, and in doing so increases the potential consequences. And what are the potential consequences for free speakers in an Internet age?



Well, there’s that Virginia prosecution related to detailing undercover police moves. In Maryland a Web-site operator is being sued under a belief that he posted an anonymous, unsupported comment claiming a public official was a sexual predator.



The Web site NaplesNews.com reports that two men in Florida face five years in state prison for what authorities considered gang-related content on their Web pages – the first prosecutions under a state law passed last year that makes it illegal to use electronic media to “promote” gangs. Both men say the law violates First Amendment rights – in this case, both speech and assembly.



These instances and a slew of disciplinary and defamation flaps in recent years involving student postings on the Web are bringing out new issues and prompting new laws that define First Amendment rights in the 21st century.



A First Amendment Center colleague often notes that “new media” have always invited new regulation. Books tested boundaries and created generations of censors. Movies and even comic books prompted what now are seen by many as excessive and even eccentric codes governing what could be shown or drawn. As a nation, we imposed a “fairness doctrine” on television, realizing only later that it was decreasing discussion on issues rather living up to its name.



The 45 words declaring the protected freedoms of the First Amendment have stood unrevised since 1791. And not that long ago, the Internet was being hailed as the greatest means of interpersonal communication that ever existed. But in little more than a decade, we’re deep into a time when casual comments suddenly have worldwide echoes, and we’re redefining what a “scrawl on the wall” really means. In the process, will we chill real dialogue that may include offensive, irritating or challenging words?



There’s no doubt that criminal actions, defamation, true threats and a host of other evils do exist in our society and must be dealt with. But the challenge ahead is also to limit the limits, not just restrain the speech.



Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001.

Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org



Original Article Here



LATEST INTERNET FIRST AMENDMENT CASE IN THE NEWS - CLICK HERE

Even If People Don't Like It - Freedom of Speech is Protected

(NEW MEXICO, U.S.A.) — A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.
"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News. Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

original article here

(hat tip: Mary M.)

Even If People Don't Like It - Freedom of Speech is Protected

(NEW MEXICO, U.S.A.) — A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.
"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News. Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

original article here

(hat tip: Mary M.)

Free Speech Is On the Side of Web Postings

Bid To Out Bloggers Dropped

Jennifer Friedlin - Jewish Week Correspondent
(excerpts.... link to full article at the bottom of this post)

A group of anonymous bloggers that had published information on their Web sites about a disgraced Rockland County rabbi's alleged sexual misconduct won a victory when the rabbi withdrew one of two petitions to subpoena their identities.

Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the former leader of Kehillat New Hempstead in New Hempstead, N.Y., who has been accused of sexual harassment by former congregants, filed petitions both in Ohio and California district courts in an effort to force Google, the Internet giant that hosts the bloggers' websites, to disclose their identities.

The bloggers' attorney, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, a Washington-based public interest organization, said Rabbi Tendler’s decision to withdraw the petition represented a victory for the First Amendment right to free speech. He also said that the decision reflected Rabbi Tendler's inability to prove that the bloggers had defamed him.

"If he had had evidence of falsity and malice he could have gone forward against these folks," said Levy, noting that as soon as the bloggers filed their motion claiming that Rabbi Tendler's petition would violate their right to free speech, he withdrew his demand.

Levy said the bloggers were moving ahead with a motion under state law that protects against so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation and would seek to have Rabbi Tendler required to cover the bloggers' legal fees.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to set a federal standard regarding what a defamation plaintiff would have to show before an anonymous blogger could be unmasked, lower court decisions have so far set a high bar, demanding that plaintiffs clearly establish that the claims made against them are false before the online accuser can be outed.

"It's a pretty high standard," said David Hudson, research attorney for the First Amendment Center, an educational organization based in Nashville, Tenn., and Arlington, Va.

While undermining their own credibility, anonymous bloggers may in fact be protecting themselves legally. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, an organization of bloggers, said that one of the standards used in defamation cases is whether a reasonable person would believe a particular statement was true. However, given that blogs are held in lower esteem than many newspapers and magazines, such a standard may not be met in a defamation case against a blogger, particularly an anonymous one.

Cox said that although this issue has yet to be settled in court, bloggers might prove immune to claims of defamation "because nobody believes us."

Widely believed or not, some anonymous bloggers say they are in fact having a great deal of impact and that they plan to continue blogging anonymously.

UOJ says that before he posts any claims against anyone he conducts his own investigation, verifying the allegations with five sources. Once he's satisfied that he has met his own standard, he posts the claims.

(EOPC also investigates to our own standard and anyone who sends us information on their cyberpath must sign a release taking FULL responsibility for the 100% truthfulness of what is told to us & posted.

It is not illegal, nor is it harassment to post the TRUTH about a predatory individual who takes advantage of others via the internet or other means... no matter what these Cyberpaths wish, want or threaten to do.)

"'Free speech' permits me to say 'anything' I feel is accurate," UOJ wrote in an e-mail.

For now, no one is challenging him.

EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE (CLICK HERE)

GOOD INFORMATION ON SAFE BLOGGING

Free Speech Is On the Side of Web Postings

Bid To Out Bloggers Dropped

Jennifer Friedlin - Jewish Week Correspondent
(excerpts.... link to full article at the bottom of this post)

A group of anonymous bloggers that had published information on their Web sites about a disgraced Rockland County rabbi's alleged sexual misconduct won a victory when the rabbi withdrew one of two petitions to subpoena their identities.

Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the former leader of Kehillat New Hempstead in New Hempstead, N.Y., who has been accused of sexual harassment by former congregants, filed petitions both in Ohio and California district courts in an effort to force Google, the Internet giant that hosts the bloggers' websites, to disclose their identities.

The bloggers' attorney, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, a Washington-based public interest organization, said Rabbi Tendler’s decision to withdraw the petition represented a victory for the First Amendment right to free speech. He also said that the decision reflected Rabbi Tendler's inability to prove that the bloggers had defamed him.

"If he had had evidence of falsity and malice he could have gone forward against these folks," said Levy, noting that as soon as the bloggers filed their motion claiming that Rabbi Tendler's petition would violate their right to free speech, he withdrew his demand.

Levy said the bloggers were moving ahead with a motion under state law that protects against so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation and would seek to have Rabbi Tendler required to cover the bloggers' legal fees.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to set a federal standard regarding what a defamation plaintiff would have to show before an anonymous blogger could be unmasked, lower court decisions have so far set a high bar, demanding that plaintiffs clearly establish that the claims made against them are false before the online accuser can be outed.

"It's a pretty high standard," said David Hudson, research attorney for the First Amendment Center, an educational organization based in Nashville, Tenn., and Arlington, Va.

While undermining their own credibility, anonymous bloggers may in fact be protecting themselves legally. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, an organization of bloggers, said that one of the standards used in defamation cases is whether a reasonable person would believe a particular statement was true. However, given that blogs are held in lower esteem than many newspapers and magazines, such a standard may not be met in a defamation case against a blogger, particularly an anonymous one.

Cox said that although this issue has yet to be settled in court, bloggers might prove immune to claims of defamation "because nobody believes us."

Widely believed or not, some anonymous bloggers say they are in fact having a great deal of impact and that they plan to continue blogging anonymously.

UOJ says that before he posts any claims against anyone he conducts his own investigation, verifying the allegations with five sources. Once he's satisfied that he has met his own standard, he posts the claims.

(EOPC also investigates to our own standard and anyone who sends us information on their cyberpath must sign a release taking FULL responsibility for the 100% truthfulness of what is told to us & posted.

It is not illegal, nor is it harassment to post the TRUTH about a predatory individual who takes advantage of others via the internet or other means... no matter what these Cyberpaths wish, want or threaten to do.)

"'Free speech' permits me to say 'anything' I feel is accurate," UOJ wrote in an e-mail.

For now, no one is challenging him.

EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE (CLICK HERE)

GOOD INFORMATION ON SAFE BLOGGING

Website Criticizing Business Wins in Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Website Criticizing Business Wins in Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

LAWSUIT AGAINST EXPOSURE SITE TOSSED

By JOE MANDAK
A Florida-based Web site that invites women to warn others about men they've dated cannot be sued in a Pennsylvania court by an attorney who said its postings falsely claimed he was unfaithful and had sexually transmitted diseases.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. said he had no jurisdiction over the lawsuit Todd Hollis filed last June against DontDateHimGirl.com and its creator, Tasha C. Cunningham, 34, of Miami.

Hollis, of Pittsburgh, claimed Cunningham's site is liable because it solicits negative comments but does not screen them for truthfulness. Hollis also is suing those who posted comments that questioned his sexuality and claimed he tried to dodge paying child support.

Cunningham and her attorneys say a 1996 federal law shields Web sites from such lawsuits when they merely transmit user postings.

The ruling, issued last week, does not address Hollis' still-pending claims against women who posted the messages. One of the women has denied making any posts. Another acknowledged posting comments but denied damaging his reputation.

Hollis said he has not decided whether to sue the Web site again in another venue.

Cunningham's date-dissing site has tripled in size since the lawsuit was filed, with 27,000 profiles that she markets as "a new cost-effective weapon in the war on cheating men." Cunningham works full-time on the site and is developing others, including a Spanish-language version that will launch in June.

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL

LAWSUIT AGAINST EXPOSURE SITE TOSSED

By JOE MANDAK
A Florida-based Web site that invites women to warn others about men they've dated cannot be sued in a Pennsylvania court by an attorney who said its postings falsely claimed he was unfaithful and had sexually transmitted diseases.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. said he had no jurisdiction over the lawsuit Todd Hollis filed last June against DontDateHimGirl.com and its creator, Tasha C. Cunningham, 34, of Miami.

Hollis, of Pittsburgh, claimed Cunningham's site is liable because it solicits negative comments but does not screen them for truthfulness. Hollis also is suing those who posted comments that questioned his sexuality and claimed he tried to dodge paying child support.

Cunningham and her attorneys say a 1996 federal law shields Web sites from such lawsuits when they merely transmit user postings.

The ruling, issued last week, does not address Hollis' still-pending claims against women who posted the messages. One of the women has denied making any posts. Another acknowledged posting comments but denied damaging his reputation.

Hollis said he has not decided whether to sue the Web site again in another venue.

Cunningham's date-dissing site has tripled in size since the lawsuit was filed, with 27,000 profiles that she markets as "a new cost-effective weapon in the war on cheating men." Cunningham works full-time on the site and is developing others, including a Spanish-language version that will launch in June.

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL

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