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

The Law on (Internet) Harassment

(Indiana) At 9:36 a.m. on Monday, according to the officer’s initial report, a woman filed a complaint against her ex-boyfriend—with whom she’d broken up on Saturday—after he “harassed her extensively via telephone over the past 24 hours” and sent her as well a total of 46 texts.

“She stated that some are just general conversation but in some he makes threats against both her and her estranged husband,” the officer stated and included these examples: “Watch your back the next few weeks”; and “I’m going to put your husband in the hospital.”

The officer duly contacted the ex-boyfriend and strongly advised him to “cease all contact” with both the woman and the woman’s husband. The ex-boyfriend admitted having sent some “stupid” texts and promised the officer that he would so cease.

Then, at 3:25 p.m. on Tuesday, the ex-boyfriend discovered what it’s like to be on the receiving end of threatening texts, the officer stated in her second report on the case. Beginning at 8:30 a.m. that day, the ex-boyfriend complained, he’d gotten a series of threatening texts apparently from the estranged husband. Examples: “Im still waiting 4 u 2 run ur mouth some more”; “Why dont you tell police that u like 2 chase married women”; “Better yet why dont u meet me”; “Whats wrong? U have nothing 2 say now?” and “I will find u!”

The ex-boyfriend advised that he hasn’t responded to the estranged husband’s texts and doesn’t intend to, that at the moment that estranged husband doesn’t know where he lives and he wants keep it that way, and that the estranged husband owns “multiple firearms” and “he is afraid that (the estranged husband) may harm him.”

Then, 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday—less than 30 minutes after the boyfriend had filed his complaint—the woman’s estranged husband also reported receiving from the ex-boyfriend a derogatory text about his wife at 12:05 a.m. on Monday, the officer stated in her third report on the case. This time the officer strongly advised the estranged husband to “cease all contact” with the ex-boyfriend.

The officer told all parties that her reports will be forwarded to the Porter County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review.

Harassment
Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a term of up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

Indiana Code defines it as occurring when “A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication,” makes a telephone call, sends a telegram, writes a letter, broadcasts over a CB radio, or uses a computer network to communicate with another person or to transmit “an obscene message or indecent or profane words.”

As Porter County Prosecuting Attorney Brian Gensel told the Chesterton Tribune, the key statutory element of the crime of harassment is “no intent of legitimate communication.” He gave this example. Say an estranged husband and wife are talking on the phone about the custody of their child. “There may be cussing and shouting, there may be trash talk, but at the end of the call they make some arrangement or reach some agreement about their child’s upraising. That’s not harassment. If there’s some legitimate communication beyond merely haranguing, then it’s not considered harassment. But if one parent is just calling up the other and screaming for the sake of screaming, then that may be harassment.”

Harassment can be a tricky crime to prosecute, Gensel noted. For one thing, “there’s the difficulty in interpreting a basis for what constitutes meaningful communication between the parties involved. Obscene calls are clearly harassment. But a text or call with a legitimate nugget of communication is not. It has to be wholly devoid of legitimate communication to be considered harassment under the law.”

For another, there really needs to be documentation of the harassment—a recorded call or a text—for a prosecution to be successful. “Otherwise, it’s just one person’s memory of what was said,” Gensel observed.

On occasion, a decision may be made not to prosecute because the harassment “was an isolated incident,” Gensel said. “Typically police officers took at whether the harassment is part of a continuing pattern and so do we.”

For the record, in November 2009 a Porter man was charged with harassment after Chesterton Police said that he e-mailed photos of himself to a Westchester Public Library employee and then left a note for her indicating that he was “waiting” for her.

Harassment as his deputies usually see it, Gensel said, tends to involve ex-friends, acquaintances, and family members in face-to-face or telephonic communication. Cyber-harassment is an altogether different issue. “One of the dilemmas about e-mails is who’s doing it, where are they doing it, and how will you find them?”

In any event, Gensel said, pinpointing the federal agency with jurisdiction in the matter can be problematic.

As it happens, Chesterton Police Chief George Nelson said, his officers spend a fair amount of their time responding to what are classified as either “Harassment” complaints or “Obscene/Harassing Phone Calls.” In 2009 alone, calls for service included a total of 122 of both.

More: according to the logs, the CPD officer who filed three separate reports on Monday and Tuesday devoted a total of 35 minutes of her time to the case or just under 12 minutes per report. If that average is in any way typical, the CPD devoted 24.4 hours or three full eight-hour shifts in 2010 to harassment complaints.

original article here

Cyberstalking by Exes - It's Illegal

by Jann Blackstone-Ford & Sharyl Jupe

(Florida, U.S.A.) Question: I'm going through a divorce. Yesterday I found out my soon-to-be ex hacked my email account and changed all my passwords so he could read my private business. Then he changed them back, thinking I wouldn't know — but they send an alert and my email comes through my phone, so I knew what he was doing. He thinks I had an affair because he still can't believe I would leave him just because he's a jerk, so he's looking for some justification I was fooling around. I know you are going to say it's bad ex-etiquette, but what can I do about it?

Answer: It's not only bad ex-etiquette, but it also could be regarded as cyberstalking, and that's illegal. Hacking an ex's email is not new, but unless the victim feels he or she is danger, rarely does that person press charges. It really depends if this is an obsessed ex and your life is in danger or merely someone feeling particularly desperate one day and making bad choices. Hopefully, from your history with this guy, you know which it is. If it's an act of desperation, talking to him will probably do the trick, but make your boundaries clear.

After a breakup, people often continue to sleep together for various reasons and this sends mixed messages — especially if one of the parties wants to stay together. If you are doing this, or anything else like it, you may be contributing to the confusion. Make sure you're not doing anything that will keep your ex hanging on. That said, if your ex has acted irrationally in the past and you are frightened, consider going to the police. The police take cyberstalking very seriously and many have departments devoted specifically to problems with Internet and social-media interaction.

Unfortunately, it's common practice to share passwords — even PIN numbers — with your partner, but this can present a problem after a breakup. It gives them easy access to your personal life and even your money, so best practice is to change all passwords and PIN numbers as soon as you realize the breakup is final. You may even want to change the email accounts linked to your Facebook or other social-media accounts, so there is no way he can hack into your private business.

It goes without saying that your ex is breaking just about every rule of good ex-etiquette, but that doesn't mean that you have to break the rules when dealing with him. Being honest (Ex-Etiquette Rule No. 8) is always a good one to rely on, as well as rules No. 5 and 6, don't be spiteful and don't hold grudges. Finally, one rule your ex definitely forgot, Rule No. 9, is "respect each other's turf." Respect is critical to any successful relationship — even when breaking up.

original article found here

NOTE: CONTRARY TO WHAT THESE AUTHORS SAY - MANY POLICE DEPARTMENTS DO NOT, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE CYBERSTALKING SERIOUSLY. - EOPC

Arrested for Cyberstalking His Ex

by Bob Byrne

(Pennsylvania, USA) Police have charged Anthony Ciccarone with three counts related to alleged cyberstalking after an investigation spurred by complaints from his ex-wife.

According to police, the woman complained to police, alleging that her daily activities were being monitored. While investigating the complaints police say they uncovered evidence that the suspect had "made comments to others that he had been monitoring his ex-wife's activities."

Police say they had the ex-wife's computer examined for evidence and uncovered a "Web Watcher" program that works by recording all activities on a computer without the user being aware that it is there. According to a Tredyffrin Police news release the Web Watcher program also logs every key stroke, capturing emails and internet activities.

The investigation led police to get a search warrant and an arrest warrant for Anthony Ciccarone. He was arrested last week. A $7,500 cash bail was set in the case, which the defendant posted.

original article here

Stalkers Cause PTSD - Sometimes for Years... or Life

by Kimberly Tsao



It's an ordinary day. You step into a bookstore and start to browse through the shelves. Next thing you know, the feeling of being followed isn't something just in movies anymore - it's real. It's now.



A tall, lanky man weaves in and out of the same aisles you do. Then, suddenly, he's not behind you anymore. Coincidence, you think.



Huge mistake.



You turn to get a closer look at the book titles, and he's right there - peering at you from the other side of the bookshelf. His eyes pierce yours in the space between the top of several books and the shelf above them.



You look away for a second, and your eyes flicker to the children's book, "The Rainbow Fish," an illustration that will be burned in your mind forever, an image that you will flashback to and allow to fester in your mind in the years to follow.



Seventy percent of stalking victims fall prey to post-traumatic stress disorder, which can manifest itself into depression, sleep problems. anxiety, behavior problems, inability to cope with everyday life, heart problems, autoimmune problems and more, according to a 1998 New York Times article. Often victims live with PTSD issues, irrational thinking, panic attacks and seemingly odd behavior for years.



One California woman was stalked for 31 years before the police made an arrest, according to the same New York Times article. That's more than 11,000 days of being stalked, of feeling helpless and afraid.



Stalking only became a crime in 1990, according to the same article. One can't help but wonder, what about the centuries and centuries of victims before that?



Fifty percent of stalking cases involve violent threats. The stalkers who carry out their threats have been known to hurt their victims' pets or vandalize their victims' properties. As a result, some victims are forced to move, find new jobs and change their identities. In extreme cases, the stalker kills the victim.



Unfortunately, the Internet has placed stalking in a whole new arena. Stalkers don't need to constantly dial the victims' phone numbers or drive over to the victims' homes anymore. Cyberstalkers can haunt people from other states and countries.

In a 2002 Christian Science Monitor article, the president of SafetyEd, a group for stalking victims, was quoted as saying, "The majority of police departments, district attorneys and attorneys do not understand (cyberstalking), and the laws do not really protect you from this type of problem."

But most cyberstalkers usually stop after one visit by the local authorities, according to the same article.

If only all police forces would make that visit.

Even if the police and private investigators were vigilant, there is no profile for your everyday stalker. Stalkers can be psychotic, have a personality disorder (narcissism or psychopathy) that is almost impossible to detect, or both, according to the New York Times article. They may also be alcoholics or drug addicts.



Some people turn into stalkers because they've suffered abuse or abandonment, according to the same article. Other times, the trigger is "a recent loss."

But none of them are legitimate excuses. Everyone who is grieving or abusing drugs doesn't necessarily become a stalker.

A stalkers register was shut down in 2000, according to a 2005 BBC News article. It would have been akin to a sex offender register. The reasons for scrapping the plan?

"Practical issues and existing monitoring safeguards," according to the same BBC News article. What does that even mean? What could be more practical than keeping tabs on potentially dangerous stalkers? And what "existing safeguards"?

The law and ALL those who enforce it need to catch up. Restraining orders, when it comes down to it, are pieces of paper. They don't do much. Almost 25% percent of the time, the stalkers remain undeterred, according to a 2007 ABC News article.





One million women and 400,000 men have been the victims of stalking, and one in 20 women will be stalked in her lifetime, according to the New York Times article.



To the victims: Persevere.



To the law enforcement (including local police, FBI, private investigators and IC3): Protect and serve. Start taking victims seriously!



To the stalkers: Get a life.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE

IS IT LEGAL TO EXPOSE THESE PREDATORS?

Written by the Fighter Team
(originally published December 02, 2005)

Here's the question - is it LEGAL to expose a cheater or abuser online? We remind you that this piece contains our personal OPINIONS only and was written for the purpose of consideration and discussion.
In short, it appears the current answer is YES. But this could change in the near future.

Most of these type of sites have rules for exposing the people listed. The current interpretation seems to say if you have proof to back up what you say, and it is truthful, it is not libel or slander or defamation. But remember, laws can be changed with enough pressure.

One site that exposes cheating men recently had a group attempt to launch a lawsuit against them. Guess what happened? Other than whining & moaning about how the cheaters and their families were harmed? Not much. The cheaters' website was looking for advertisers and money to help support their "cause." (Their site & cause are now BOTH defunct) Besides, now there are so many other choices of sites available to expose people, both men and women! (Additionally, the men trying to launch a lawsuit all admitted to affairs, cheating and lying to others online... but were angry about their families being harmed. -- Sounds like Dorksy, gridney/ Yidwithlid, Beckstead, etc. Maybe they should have thought of that before they went online to prey on innocent, vulnerable women and then treat them and smear these victims when they were caught in the lies & game playing. In short, they had NO SUIT!)

This same site had a man named Todd Hollis attempt to sue them for defamation. It got to court and rather than "having his day," the suit was tossed out by the judge before it even got that far.

According to judge R. Stanton Wettick, the "Defendant’s Web site is accessible to anyone connected to the Internet anywhere in the world. Under plaintiff’s argument, defendant could be hauled into court in any state for any controversy. This result would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the requirements of due process."

Exposure sites have very specific terms of use - honesty is a must and the legal onus is on the poster. Site owners and posters believe the men are angry they have been caught and exposed. (these cheaters & abusers always deny what they did, play the victim, say their family is being hurt or that the victim(s) 'knew what they were doing' or were psychos, scorned, etc. Always! It's a red flag that the person smearing them is attempting to defame his victim(s) so no one will listen to the REAL STORY)

Recently we were asked if most of these abusers and cheaters feel ashamed, sorry or sad about what they have done. Answer: "Not that we have seen!! In fact, it seems that they usually become indignant, angry and lash out at the person(s) that exposed the truth about them. They only "feel sorry" to try to rope the victim into saying nothing about them and to stop the tide of truth from exposing all the rest of their evil deeds."

Sad? Yes they are. Sad they got caught. And some of them do clean up their act for a few weeks, months or even years - but usually go RIGHT BACK to it and are sneakier about it next time.

If you consider that many of these people fall into a destructive sociopathic and narcissistic pattern you will find that many of them will go to therapy or even make long, carefully-crafted confessions to their partners. They even keep tweaking their stories until they find one that works. Here's one beaut that one of our predators tells to this day, that is the exact opposite of really happened, is pure slander and leaves out a lot of pertinent facts to make them (the Cyberpath) appear the victim:

You were an old girlfriend of Yidwithlid from an upstate NY college. You used the internet to track him down after 30 years, which wasn’t too hard because he’s a published writer.

You had cyber-sex with him and then got him to agree to meet up with you. When he did meet up with you, to his horror, he saw that his ex-girlfriend from college had ballooned into a 275 lb fat pig with poor hygiene and he didn’t want to bang you.

He politely excused himself by saying he couldn’t do this to his wife. You then began stalking him and his family, driving by his house, sending letters to his wife, his parents, his in-laws, his rabbi, the police, anyone with whom you thought you could slander his good name. His poor wife was left with no choice but to report you to the police after you threatened to harm her children.

Sound familiar porkchop?

Or there's the old "she's a scorned crazy woman" that this guy uses. Or this Cyberpath who says the victim who exposed him is "mentally unbalanced." Or this guy who has sworn for the last few years it's "all lies" and he's "writing a book to tell the truth" and "suing everyone." Don't buy it!

Once they find themselves "CURED" (We use that term loosely because deep down they justify everything and see NOTHING wrong with their behaviors) they will, step by step, go right back to their predatory ways either online or off. Being an online cheater is an addiction and takes a lot of honesty and giving up personal time to break an addiction or not trade it for something equally addicting and destructive.

The worst part is these cheaters and abusers usually accuse their wounded targets of harassing both them and/or their partners/ families and even stalking them. This is nothing more than a preemptive strike.

It common for internet predators, abusers and cheaters to enlist their local police in harassing their victims by showing the police carefully selected instant messages and emails to support their claims and need to cut down the once "beloved' target." This move sometimes makes their victims back down but usually the retributive attack can't be backed up.

• Be careful, the law regarding internet communications is still new so ask yourself:
• Are you exposing them to be mean or get revenge?
• Or are you doing it to warn others and possibly stop the cyberpath from destroying themselves and their families?
• Are you being vindictive or shedding real light on the situation?

When you point the finger at someone there are always three fingers pointing back at you. Your stories may help some potential victim see the patterns of behavior displayed by these people and avoid a lot of heartache. They may be cathartic as well. Telling is well known in psychiatric & medical communities as healing for victims.

As it stands, these communications are considered like any internet bulletin board posting as long as it doesn't contain telephone numbers or other information someone could use for identity theft. The exposure site owners say it is a matter of opinion.

In many cases, the cheater's spouse, therapist or partner may even stand up for the cheater/ abuser. These people do "seem" so contrite. They tell them to NEVER speak to their victim(s) again. Is that right? Maybe not. It doesn't offer an outlet for the cathartic anger and venting these exposure sites allow. It doesn't allow for healing on either side. It shows no empathy towards the victim.

Counselors for internet addiction say the cheaters should come clean with their partner AND all their victims. They also suggest trying to reframe the relationship into something more productive and honest for both people. Cutting off the victim is cruel and allows the abuser to then bend their stories without reproach, launch a smear campaign against their victims, run away from any responsibility and lie to everyone even more... including themselves. 12-Step addicts know that you must make direct amends.

Of course, some hide behind the step that says "unless to do so would cause more harm." In this case the cheater convinces themselves it would harm the victim even more. Baloney. The truth is not only a great leveler but also a great healer. In fact, new programs for restorative justice bring some prison inmates together with their victims which has been proven to be very healing for both of them.

So, think about it: if you internet predators, cheaters and abusers truly want to mend your ways then trying to erase what you did online by creating new identities and blocking victims isn't the solution, is it?

Now back to the lawsuit mentioned above. The owner of the site that was threatened with a lawsuit says:

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

Domestic Violence advocates say this is classic and typical abuser-speak. It's never the cheater or abuser, it's always the person who found them out! Sort of a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished moment. Unlike the public posting of the locations of known, convicted sex-offenders, this does seem to be more problematic in terms of fairness.

The another site sheds more light on the process:

"I don't want to ruin someone's life.... But, I can't control if you are player and a bunch of women post things about you. That is just a karma thing."

In one case, City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, Bill Sheehan, a man in Washington State says he put up a website in an effort to make the police more publicly accountable. He published information about local police officers from the City of Kirkland and other municipalities in Washington including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, spouses' names and more. The police officers claimed this required them to enhance their personal and job security measures as well as expend funds in response to the listings. The case also alleges the site caused stress to both them and their families. This allegation is similar to the one made by the group attempting to shut down the cheating man site.

The ruling on the case held that the First Amendment protected the site:

"[I]n the absence of a credible specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers, while certainly unwelcome to those who had desired a greater degree of anonymity, is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech. Publication may arguably expose wrongdoers and/or facilitate peaceful picketing of homes or worksites and render other communication possible."

As for the cheating man site? 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 this 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."

And think about this: The people who post the pictures/profiles on any site are making an "allegation" — nothing more. Many of them aren't offering evidence that is irrefutable and verifiable other than their account. With sites that do, they make sure they have evidence. But what are the reasons for doing this? Is it a warning, catharsis, revenge or a credible threat? That's something the poster needs to ask themselves before they get into a very sticky legal situation.

In an article on FindLaw, writer Anita Ramasastry brought up some current cases involving exposure sites, digital information and their interesting findings. One case stated that the First Amendment does not protect all personally identifiable information in every context, even those published online. In a 6-5 decision (close), in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a web site that did publish personal information of abortion doctors.

This particular case involved a website called the "Nuremberg Files." It published the addresses, photographs, addresses and other personal information of physicians and others who either provided or supported abortion services. The website also had strike throughs on the names of those who had been murdered and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded. The majority in this close decision held that the "pattern" in which the posters appeared — coupled with the fact that other abortion providers had been killed — transformed the posters into something of a symbolic threat. As such, the information was not protected by the First Amendment.

One owner of a website about cheating, abusive men says this about their site:

The Terms of Agreement and Privacy Policy are currently being re-revised and there are some terms that a woman needs to agree to before she can add a man to the database. All this basically comes down to two issues - Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and the issue of a private person's right to privacy.

However, in a sense, aren't search engines such as Google merely large databases of information which also include personally identifying information of millions of humans?! If Google can do it, why shouldn't smaller websites such as mine be able to do it without legal reprecussions?So, okay, we have people who are exposing the misdeeds of others in a cyberspace court of public opinion. Of course this pisses off the cheaters because they want a higher threshold standard of guilt/proof or because they disagree with the concept of outting anyone publicly for what they feel should be a private matter. However, here's our personal look at another beneficial perspective of the people making these claims.

If someone posted our pictures/profiles in a database and we learned of it but it wasn't true, then we probably wouldn't waste time even rebutting it. Why? Because if we're innocent, then the burden is not on us to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And we don't use and abuse people online or off - so we are not afraid of scrutiny. Misinformation and slander is easily proved and then we'd ask the site administrator to remove it. Threats such as being "out to get you" or "you're done" or "I will not hesitate to kill you if I see you" - are illegal and should be reported immediately to the FBI nearest where the threatener lives. (CLICK HERE for U.S. Offices)

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?

One exposure site owner says:

It is better than going out and slashing his tires. It makes the victims feel better and gives them a way to express their bitterness and hurt."

In light of precedents like these, it's extremely likely that any law that simply tried to ban cheating men/ women sites, information aggregators like Zabasearch or "digital dossiers," would be struck down as contrary to the First Amendment. But could a more narrowly written law constitutionally restrict such sites and dossiers and be on the books soon? Some feel yes, such a law would be desirable. Some feel no, that the internet should not be restricted in such a manner as long as it does not pose a threat, symbolic or otherwise, to the persons posted as long as the information is true and proveable.

Perhaps if you are a guilty party, rather than trying to cut down the person(s) exposing you it would be better to call a qualified internet addiction counselor to stop your abusing ways. You would be doing everyone, including yourself, a favor.

Then, see what you can do to get the posting removed without a counterattack. Just talking to the person(s) you suspect posted it and working on amends honestly seems better than a Judge Judy or Jerry Springer hate-fest.

Ramasastry says in her article "... legislators should consider regulating how densely information can be collected online - regulating, that is, how thick our digital dossiers really can be. Doubtless, any attempt to do this will raise First Amendment objections. But this is one issue where privacy and the First Amendment truly clash - and the First Amendment cannot win every time."

And to the victims of these cheaters, liars, internet predators and abusers, remember: NOTHING beats sunshine and fresh air to disinfect abuse! Tell, but do not do it to endanger the person you are angry at or their families in the process. The laws are still being worked out. These sorts of internet exposures won't go away. Think of the National Enquirer and Globe articles that have caused ugly lawsuits.

Write your representatives and tell them your concerns or feelings about internet privacy.

And if you have been cheated on? Vent but exercise caution in posting anyone's personal information.

DISCLAIMER: We are not lawyers and this article is our personal opinion. It should not be construed as legal advice, in part or in whole, in way, shape or form.

OUR ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE

IS IT LEGAL TO EXPOSE THESE PREDATORS?

Written by the Fighter Team
(originally published December 02, 2005)

Here's the question - is it LEGAL to expose a cheater or abuser online? We remind you that this piece contains our personal OPINIONS only and was written for the purpose of consideration and discussion.
In short, it appears the current answer is YES. But this could change in the near future.

Most of these type of sites have rules for exposing the people listed. The current interpretation seems to say if you have proof to back up what you say, and it is truthful, it is not libel or slander or defamation. But remember, laws can be changed with enough pressure.

One site that exposes cheating men recently had a group attempt to launch a lawsuit against them. Guess what happened? Other than whining & moaning about how the cheaters and their families were harmed? Not much. The cheaters' website was looking for advertisers and money to help support their "cause." (Their site & cause are now BOTH defunct) Besides, now there are so many other choices of sites available to expose people, both men and women! (Additionally, the men trying to launch a lawsuit all admitted to affairs, cheating and lying to others online... but were angry about their families being harmed. -- Sounds like Dorksy, gridney/ Yidwithlid, Beckstead, etc. Maybe they should have thought of that before they went online to prey on innocent, vulnerable women and then treat them and smear these victims when they were caught in the lies & game playing. In short, they had NO SUIT!)

This same site had a man named Todd Hollis attempt to sue them for defamation. It got to court and rather than "having his day," the suit was tossed out by the judge before it even got that far.

According to judge R. Stanton Wettick, the "Defendant’s Web site is accessible to anyone connected to the Internet anywhere in the world. Under plaintiff’s argument, defendant could be hauled into court in any state for any controversy. This result would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the requirements of due process."

Exposure sites have very specific terms of use - honesty is a must and the legal onus is on the poster. Site owners and posters believe the men are angry they have been caught and exposed. (these cheaters & abusers always deny what they did, play the victim, say their family is being hurt or that the victim(s) 'knew what they were doing' or were psychos, scorned, etc. Always! It's a red flag that the person smearing them is attempting to defame his victim(s) so no one will listen to the REAL STORY)

Recently we were asked if most of these abusers and cheaters feel ashamed, sorry or sad about what they have done. Answer: "Not that we have seen!! In fact, it seems that they usually become indignant, angry and lash out at the person(s) that exposed the truth about them. They only "feel sorry" to try to rope the victim into saying nothing about them and to stop the tide of truth from exposing all the rest of their evil deeds."

Sad? Yes they are. Sad they got caught. And some of them do clean up their act for a few weeks, months or even years - but usually go RIGHT BACK to it and are sneakier about it next time.

If you consider that many of these people fall into a destructive sociopathic and narcissistic pattern you will find that many of them will go to therapy or even make long, carefully-crafted confessions to their partners. They even keep tweaking their stories until they find one that works. Here's one beaut that one of our predators tells to this day, that is the exact opposite of really happened, is pure slander and leaves out a lot of pertinent facts to make them (the Cyberpath) appear the victim:

You were an old girlfriend of Yidwithlid from an upstate NY college. You used the internet to track him down after 30 years, which wasn’t too hard because he’s a published writer.

You had cyber-sex with him and then got him to agree to meet up with you. When he did meet up with you, to his horror, he saw that his ex-girlfriend from college had ballooned into a 275 lb fat pig with poor hygiene and he didn’t want to bang you.

He politely excused himself by saying he couldn’t do this to his wife. You then began stalking him and his family, driving by his house, sending letters to his wife, his parents, his in-laws, his rabbi, the police, anyone with whom you thought you could slander his good name. His poor wife was left with no choice but to report you to the police after you threatened to harm her children.

Sound familiar porkchop?

Or there's the old "she's a scorned crazy woman" that this guy uses. Or this Cyberpath who says the victim who exposed him is "mentally unbalanced." Or this guy who has sworn for the last few years it's "all lies" and he's "writing a book to tell the truth" and "suing everyone." Don't buy it!

Once they find themselves "CURED" (We use that term loosely because deep down they justify everything and see NOTHING wrong with their behaviors) they will, step by step, go right back to their predatory ways either online or off. Being an online cheater is an addiction and takes a lot of honesty and giving up personal time to break an addiction or not trade it for something equally addicting and destructive.

The worst part is these cheaters and abusers usually accuse their wounded targets of harassing both them and/or their partners/ families and even stalking them. This is nothing more than a preemptive strike.

It common for internet predators, abusers and cheaters to enlist their local police in harassing their victims by showing the police carefully selected instant messages and emails to support their claims and need to cut down the once "beloved' target." This move sometimes makes their victims back down but usually the retributive attack can't be backed up.

• Be careful, the law regarding internet communications is still new so ask yourself:
• Are you exposing them to be mean or get revenge?
• Or are you doing it to warn others and possibly stop the cyberpath from destroying themselves and their families?
• Are you being vindictive or shedding real light on the situation?

When you point the finger at someone there are always three fingers pointing back at you. Your stories may help some potential victim see the patterns of behavior displayed by these people and avoid a lot of heartache. They may be cathartic as well. Telling is well known in psychiatric & medical communities as healing for victims.

As it stands, these communications are considered like any internet bulletin board posting as long as it doesn't contain telephone numbers or other information someone could use for identity theft. The exposure site owners say it is a matter of opinion.

In many cases, the cheater's spouse, therapist or partner may even stand up for the cheater/ abuser. These people do "seem" so contrite. They tell them to NEVER speak to their victim(s) again. Is that right? Maybe not. It doesn't offer an outlet for the cathartic anger and venting these exposure sites allow. It doesn't allow for healing on either side. It shows no empathy towards the victim.

Counselors for internet addiction say the cheaters should come clean with their partner AND all their victims. They also suggest trying to reframe the relationship into something more productive and honest for both people. Cutting off the victim is cruel and allows the abuser to then bend their stories without reproach, launch a smear campaign against their victims, run away from any responsibility and lie to everyone even more... including themselves. 12-Step addicts know that you must make direct amends.

Of course, some hide behind the step that says "unless to do so would cause more harm." In this case the cheater convinces themselves it would harm the victim even more. Baloney. The truth is not only a great leveler but also a great healer. In fact, new programs for restorative justice bring some prison inmates together with their victims which has been proven to be very healing for both of them.

So, think about it: if you internet predators, cheaters and abusers truly want to mend your ways then trying to erase what you did online by creating new identities and blocking victims isn't the solution, is it?

Now back to the lawsuit mentioned above. The owner of the site that was threatened with a lawsuit says:

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

Domestic Violence advocates say this is classic and typical abuser-speak. It's never the cheater or abuser, it's always the person who found them out! Sort of a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished moment. Unlike the public posting of the locations of known, convicted sex-offenders, this does seem to be more problematic in terms of fairness.

The another site sheds more light on the process:

"I don't want to ruin someone's life.... But, I can't control if you are player and a bunch of women post things about you. That is just a karma thing."

In one case, City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, Bill Sheehan, a man in Washington State says he put up a website in an effort to make the police more publicly accountable. He published information about local police officers from the City of Kirkland and other municipalities in Washington including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, spouses' names and more. The police officers claimed this required them to enhance their personal and job security measures as well as expend funds in response to the listings. The case also alleges the site caused stress to both them and their families. This allegation is similar to the one made by the group attempting to shut down the cheating man site.

The ruling on the case held that the First Amendment protected the site:

"[I]n the absence of a credible specific threat of harm, the publication of lawfully obtained addresses and telephone numbers, while certainly unwelcome to those who had desired a greater degree of anonymity, is traditionally viewed as having the ability to promote political speech. Publication may arguably expose wrongdoers and/or facilitate peaceful picketing of homes or worksites and render other communication possible."

As for the cheating man site? 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 this 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."

And think about this: The people who post the pictures/profiles on any site are making an "allegation" — nothing more. Many of them aren't offering evidence that is irrefutable and verifiable other than their account. With sites that do, they make sure they have evidence. But what are the reasons for doing this? Is it a warning, catharsis, revenge or a credible threat? That's something the poster needs to ask themselves before they get into a very sticky legal situation.

In an article on FindLaw, writer Anita Ramasastry brought up some current cases involving exposure sites, digital information and their interesting findings. One case stated that the First Amendment does not protect all personally identifiable information in every context, even those published online. In a 6-5 decision (close), in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a web site that did publish personal information of abortion doctors.

This particular case involved a website called the "Nuremberg Files." It published the addresses, photographs, addresses and other personal information of physicians and others who either provided or supported abortion services. The website also had strike throughs on the names of those who had been murdered and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded. The majority in this close decision held that the "pattern" in which the posters appeared — coupled with the fact that other abortion providers had been killed — transformed the posters into something of a symbolic threat. As such, the information was not protected by the First Amendment.

One owner of a website about cheating, abusive men says this about their site:

The Terms of Agreement and Privacy Policy are currently being re-revised and there are some terms that a woman needs to agree to before she can add a man to the database. All this basically comes down to two issues - Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and the issue of a private person's right to privacy.

However, in a sense, aren't search engines such as Google merely large databases of information which also include personally identifying information of millions of humans?! If Google can do it, why shouldn't smaller websites such as mine be able to do it without legal reprecussions?So, okay, we have people who are exposing the misdeeds of others in a cyberspace court of public opinion. Of course this pisses off the cheaters because they want a higher threshold standard of guilt/proof or because they disagree with the concept of outting anyone publicly for what they feel should be a private matter. However, here's our personal look at another beneficial perspective of the people making these claims.

If someone posted our pictures/profiles in a database and we learned of it but it wasn't true, then we probably wouldn't waste time even rebutting it. Why? Because if we're innocent, then the burden is not on us to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And we don't use and abuse people online or off - so we are not afraid of scrutiny. Misinformation and slander is easily proved and then we'd ask the site administrator to remove it. Threats such as being "out to get you" or "you're done" or "I will not hesitate to kill you if I see you" - are illegal and should be reported immediately to the FBI nearest where the threatener lives. (CLICK HERE for U.S. Offices)

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?

One exposure site owner says:

It is better than going out and slashing his tires. It makes the victims feel better and gives them a way to express their bitterness and hurt."

In light of precedents like these, it's extremely likely that any law that simply tried to ban cheating men/ women sites, information aggregators like Zabasearch or "digital dossiers," would be struck down as contrary to the First Amendment. But could a more narrowly written law constitutionally restrict such sites and dossiers and be on the books soon? Some feel yes, such a law would be desirable. Some feel no, that the internet should not be restricted in such a manner as long as it does not pose a threat, symbolic or otherwise, to the persons posted as long as the information is true and proveable.

Perhaps if you are a guilty party, rather than trying to cut down the person(s) exposing you it would be better to call a qualified internet addiction counselor to stop your abusing ways. You would be doing everyone, including yourself, a favor.

Then, see what you can do to get the posting removed without a counterattack. Just talking to the person(s) you suspect posted it and working on amends honestly seems better than a Judge Judy or Jerry Springer hate-fest.

Ramasastry says in her article "... legislators should consider regulating how densely information can be collected online - regulating, that is, how thick our digital dossiers really can be. Doubtless, any attempt to do this will raise First Amendment objections. But this is one issue where privacy and the First Amendment truly clash - and the First Amendment cannot win every time."

And to the victims of these cheaters, liars, internet predators and abusers, remember: NOTHING beats sunshine and fresh air to disinfect abuse! Tell, but do not do it to endanger the person you are angry at or their families in the process. The laws are still being worked out. These sorts of internet exposures won't go away. Think of the National Enquirer and Globe articles that have caused ugly lawsuits.

Write your representatives and tell them your concerns or feelings about internet privacy.

And if you have been cheated on? Vent but exercise caution in posting anyone's personal information.

DISCLAIMER: We are not lawyers and this article is our personal opinion. It should not be construed as legal advice, in part or in whole, in way, shape or form.

OUR ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE

Voyeurs 'Held ' After Filmed Men getting Changed at Leisure Centre

Two men have been arrested over claims they secretly recorded men getting changed at a leisure centre and then put the footage on a gay website.

Up to 28 men are believed to have been filmed in various states of undress at the FX Leisure Centre in Gateshead.

Existence of the footage only came to light when one of the men said to have been taped as he changed at the gym saw pictures of himself on a gay website.

Two men have been arrested after allegations that men getting changed at a leisure centre were secretly filmed. The footage is then said to have been posted on a gay website

The businessman contacted the club's management and police after seeing footage of himsself, according to the Daily Mirror, and two men were then arrested.

A staff member at FX Leisure Centre told the newspaper the man ‘thought it was a joke at first but then realised he had been filmed in the changing room’.

‘He went straight to the club management to complain. Some of the members are not too happy about their manhood making an unwanted guest appearance on a gay website.’

A spokesperson for Northumbria Police confirmed: ‘A 30-year-old man and a 34-year-old man were arrested on suspicion of voyeurism and have been bailed.'

Officials at the Gateshead leisure centre have declined to comment on the police investigation.

original article here

Voyeurs 'Held ' After Filmed Men getting Changed at Leisure Centre

Two men have been arrested over claims they secretly recorded men getting changed at a leisure centre and then put the footage on a gay website.

Up to 28 men are believed to have been filmed in various states of undress at the FX Leisure Centre in Gateshead.

Existence of the footage only came to light when one of the men said to have been taped as he changed at the gym saw pictures of himself on a gay website.

Two men have been arrested after allegations that men getting changed at a leisure centre were secretly filmed. The footage is then said to have been posted on a gay website

The businessman contacted the club's management and police after seeing footage of himsself, according to the Daily Mirror, and two men were then arrested.

A staff member at FX Leisure Centre told the newspaper the man ‘thought it was a joke at first but then realised he had been filmed in the changing room’.

‘He went straight to the club management to complain. Some of the members are not too happy about their manhood making an unwanted guest appearance on a gay website.’

A spokesperson for Northumbria Police confirmed: ‘A 30-year-old man and a 34-year-old man were arrested on suspicion of voyeurism and have been bailed.'

Officials at the Gateshead leisure centre have declined to comment on the police investigation.

original article here

CyberStalking - A Very Real Problem

(U.S.) Cyberstalking is defined as threatening behavior or unwanted advances directed at another using the internet and other forms of computer communications. It can involve the use of email, instant messaging, chat rooms, bulletin boards and/or other electronic communication devices to repeatedly harass or threaten another person.

The process of stalking a person in real life generally requires that the perpetrator and victim be in close physical proximity. Cyber stalkers can be across the street, the country, or the globe from their victims.

"Cyber stalking can cause the same kind of trauma to its victims as traditional forms of stalking," says Holly Quist, public health educator at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County, Tennessee Health Department. She continues, "But, behind a username, stalkers can be difficult to identify."

Most stalkers repeatedly change usernames and accounts to slow down or deter the identification process. The anonymity of the Internet makes it easier for perpetrators to carry out their attacks against their victims. The most popular targeted areas are: Live Chat or IRC (Internet Relay Chat) in which a user talks live with others, Message Boards (IM) and Email.

Cyber Stalking Prevention Tips:

• Never be gender specific- Use a neutral gender name. Use a nickname your stalker won't know if you create a new email account.
  
• Change your password often- Never share your password or personal information with anyone.
• Use the private settings on social networking sites and let friends know not to share your information.

If you do become a victim of cyber stalking, let the offender know that contact is unwanted. But when harassment continues, contact your local police authorities and collect evidence by documenting all contact by the offender.

Visit http://www.haltabuse.org for more information on cyberstalking and how to prevent becoming a victim.

The Rape Prevention Program of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Health Department focuses on reducing the number of rapes and educating the community on how to prevent rape from happening. Through partnerships with local domestic violence advisory boards and other local domestic violence agencies, the program is able to provide resources for contacts, educational materials, and programs. For additional information, please call (423) 209-8282.

CyberStalking - A Very Real Problem

(U.S.) Cyberstalking is defined as threatening behavior or unwanted advances directed at another using the internet and other forms of computer communications. It can involve the use of email, instant messaging, chat rooms, bulletin boards and/or other electronic communication devices to repeatedly harass or threaten another person.

The process of stalking a person in real life generally requires that the perpetrator and victim be in close physical proximity. Cyber stalkers can be across the street, the country, or the globe from their victims.

"Cyber stalking can cause the same kind of trauma to its victims as traditional forms of stalking," says Holly Quist, public health educator at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County, Tennessee Health Department. She continues, "But, behind a username, stalkers can be difficult to identify."

Most stalkers repeatedly change usernames and accounts to slow down or deter the identification process. The anonymity of the Internet makes it easier for perpetrators to carry out their attacks against their victims. The most popular targeted areas are: Live Chat or IRC (Internet Relay Chat) in which a user talks live with others, Message Boards (IM) and Email.

Cyber Stalking Prevention Tips:

• Never be gender specific- Use a neutral gender name. Use a nickname your stalker won't know if you create a new email account.
  
• Change your password often- Never share your password or personal information with anyone.
• Use the private settings on social networking sites and let friends know not to share your information.

If you do become a victim of cyber stalking, let the offender know that contact is unwanted. But when harassment continues, contact your local police authorities and collect evidence by documenting all contact by the offender.

Visit http://www.haltabuse.org for more information on cyberstalking and how to prevent becoming a victim.

The Rape Prevention Program of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Health Department focuses on reducing the number of rapes and educating the community on how to prevent rape from happening. Through partnerships with local domestic violence advisory boards and other local domestic violence agencies, the program is able to provide resources for contacts, educational materials, and programs. For additional information, please call (423) 209-8282.

Man speaks out about libelous internet posts

Gene Cooley says untrue internet posts amounted to "character assassination" and cost him his job and home in Blairsville. Now he's pushing to make such libelous posts illegal.

SOURCE

Man speaks out about libelous internet posts

Gene Cooley says untrue internet posts amounted to "character assassination" and cost him his job and home in Blairsville. Now he's pushing to make such libelous posts illegal.

SOURCE

Killer Used Facebook to Communicate

By Lori Brown

Prisoners are supposed to get limited contact with the outside world. That's why they're in prison - to be removed from the outside world. But at least one prisoner found a way to stay connected, in real time, through Facebook.

For months, convicted murderer William Joseph Hogan used Facebook to mentally escape prison life, communicating with friends from all over, as well as his mother.

"If the pen gets any better, I might not want to leave," he wrote in one post. "Tattoos dirt cheap, sleep all day, play volleyball, sun tan, workout and read."

Hogan's posts came from behind bars as he serves a life sentence at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.

"Hello free world folks, hope everyone is doing well," he wrote in one post.

"Good thing I have a way to stay in touch with my 'friends,'" he wrote in another.

Hogan was imprisoned for murdering Reba Garrett's granddaughter, Wendy Renee Thweatt Hogan, just over two hears ago in Horn Lake.

"He shot her eight times," Garrett said. "We had to have her cremated. We didn't get to say goodbye."

Garrett's three great-grandchildren were in the home as Hogan killed the only parent they had left. Their dad died in a car crash. They now live with their aunt.

"It changed their life forever," Garrett said.

There's been little change for Hogan, though, according to his posts on Facebook. He lists himself as widowed, and interested in dating and relationships with women.

"He's trying to act like he's an ordinary guy. (He posted) Pictures of himself in a boat. Sitting there in a boat like, ''Here, I'm just a regular, Joe,'" Garrett said.

"No, you're not widowed, you killed your wife!"

Hogan has broken the correction center's rules time and time again by using a cell phone. On Facebook, he's even posted swastikas and other Nazi symbols.

One Facebook friend replied, "Lol I didn't know they let u guys use Facebook."In another post, Hogan wrote, "Just got through visiting my mama everything went great..."

His mother wrote back,"I enjoyed my visit with you too. You are a great young man... you make a bad situation the best you can. Love ya."

Action News 5 asked Mississippi's Department of Corrections why Hogan was allowed to be on Facebook. At first, corrections officials thought someone from the free world may have been making posts on Hogan's behalf, because prisoners do not have Facebook access.

But the following day, a spokesperson replied in an email, saying, "Thank you Ms. Brown for bringing this to our attention. When we find instances where inmates have violated the rules, measures are taken. MDOC has reported to Facebook that this is an illegal account."

According to Mississippi State Senator Merle Flowers, with 21,000 inmates across the state, things like this are bound to happen.

"We want to thank Action News 5 for bringing it to our attention," she said. "Certainly, you don't know about some things until people tell you about them."

MDOC placed Hogan on lock down, and transferred him to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, home of the new Operation Cellblock. There, new technology intercepts illegal cell phone transmissions by inmates.

"It could have gone on for months or years," Garrett said.

Before prison officials shut down Hogan's Facebook account, his final post read, "Nothing goin on down here". Maybe now that's a little more accurate.

MDOC says the new cell phone blocking technology marks a turning point. The Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman was the first prison to use the new technology in the United States. During its first month of operation, the state intercepted nearly 216,000 illegal phone calls.

The technology is expected to be in place in all Mississippi State prisons within this fiscal year.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Killer Used Facebook to Communicate

By Lori Brown

Prisoners are supposed to get limited contact with the outside world. That's why they're in prison - to be removed from the outside world. But at least one prisoner found a way to stay connected, in real time, through Facebook.

For months, convicted murderer William Joseph Hogan used Facebook to mentally escape prison life, communicating with friends from all over, as well as his mother.

"If the pen gets any better, I might not want to leave," he wrote in one post. "Tattoos dirt cheap, sleep all day, play volleyball, sun tan, workout and read."

Hogan's posts came from behind bars as he serves a life sentence at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.

"Hello free world folks, hope everyone is doing well," he wrote in one post.

"Good thing I have a way to stay in touch with my 'friends,'" he wrote in another.

Hogan was imprisoned for murdering Reba Garrett's granddaughter, Wendy Renee Thweatt Hogan, just over two hears ago in Horn Lake.

"He shot her eight times," Garrett said. "We had to have her cremated. We didn't get to say goodbye."

Garrett's three great-grandchildren were in the home as Hogan killed the only parent they had left. Their dad died in a car crash. They now live with their aunt.

"It changed their life forever," Garrett said.

There's been little change for Hogan, though, according to his posts on Facebook. He lists himself as widowed, and interested in dating and relationships with women.

"He's trying to act like he's an ordinary guy. (He posted) Pictures of himself in a boat. Sitting there in a boat like, ''Here, I'm just a regular, Joe,'" Garrett said.

"No, you're not widowed, you killed your wife!"

Hogan has broken the correction center's rules time and time again by using a cell phone. On Facebook, he's even posted swastikas and other Nazi symbols.

One Facebook friend replied, "Lol I didn't know they let u guys use Facebook."In another post, Hogan wrote, "Just got through visiting my mama everything went great..."

His mother wrote back,"I enjoyed my visit with you too. You are a great young man... you make a bad situation the best you can. Love ya."

Action News 5 asked Mississippi's Department of Corrections why Hogan was allowed to be on Facebook. At first, corrections officials thought someone from the free world may have been making posts on Hogan's behalf, because prisoners do not have Facebook access.

But the following day, a spokesperson replied in an email, saying, "Thank you Ms. Brown for bringing this to our attention. When we find instances where inmates have violated the rules, measures are taken. MDOC has reported to Facebook that this is an illegal account."

According to Mississippi State Senator Merle Flowers, with 21,000 inmates across the state, things like this are bound to happen.

"We want to thank Action News 5 for bringing it to our attention," she said. "Certainly, you don't know about some things until people tell you about them."

MDOC placed Hogan on lock down, and transferred him to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, home of the new Operation Cellblock. There, new technology intercepts illegal cell phone transmissions by inmates.

"It could have gone on for months or years," Garrett said.

Before prison officials shut down Hogan's Facebook account, his final post read, "Nothing goin on down here". Maybe now that's a little more accurate.

MDOC says the new cell phone blocking technology marks a turning point. The Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman was the first prison to use the new technology in the United States. During its first month of operation, the state intercepted nearly 216,000 illegal phone calls.

The technology is expected to be in place in all Mississippi State prisons within this fiscal year.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE