Warning: About Posting Abuse on Twitter and Facebook

By Declan Harvey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

original article found here

ONLINE ATTACKS

by Robin M.

Why So Many Feel Big When They Hide Behind A Screen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

original article here

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

by Tom Gardner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

original article here

Website Ordered to Close Because of Harassment

(U.K.) A website that allows users to 'name and shame' lawyers whose services they are unhappy with has been ordered to close after the High Court ruled its publisher had breached libel, data protection and harassment laws.

The High Court ruled that solicitorsfromhell.co.uk should be shutdown and its publisher Rick Kordowski permanently barred from re-publishing some information contained on the site in the future. Kordowski was also banned from transferring control of the personal data contained about solicitors named on the site from himself to others.

The Law Society, representing all firms and solicitors in England and Wales, led the calls for the injunctions against Kordowski. It successfully claimed the comments on Kordowski's website contained "malicious and defamatory allegations about solicitors" and that personal data contained on the site had been processed unlawfully. It also successfully argued that Kordowski had caused harassment to the lawyers because the postings had caused them distress and alarm.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that Kordowski was a "public nuisance" who was "in effect a vexatious litigant who is a defendant". The judge rejected his claims that solicitorsfromhell.co.uk provided a "public service". Kordowski had said the 'blacklist' of firms and solicitors contained on the site helped people choose legal services and encouraged members of the public to "expose wrongdoing" in the legal profession.

The judge rejected Kordowski's claims that the comments contained on the site were protected by a general right to freedom of expression. Kordowski had failed to claim "any defence known to the law of libel" in order to justify the comments about lawyers and firms on his website, he said

"He has not pleaded truth or honest opinion, and although he mentions [the right to freedom of expression] and public service, he has not formulated any defence of qualified privilege on a basis recognised by the law," the judge said.

The judge ruled that Kordowski be banned from further libelling law firm Hine Solicitors and individual lawyer Kevin McGrath. Kordowski was also banned from further personal data processing and harassment in relation to Hine's lawyers or McGrath. Mr Justice Tugendhat applied the data processing and harassment ban to all solicitors named or at risk of being named on solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, permanently preventing Kordowski from unlawful personal data processing or harassing activity against those individuals in the future. The judge said that it was "beneficial" to extend the ban to cover those individuals and said it was in the public interest to do so.

"Freedom of expression can only advance the objective of truth if the participants in a debate aim at truth," Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling.

"If a free market is to work, consumers must assume that suppliers are offering their goods or services in good faith, and not deliberately misleading the public. Participation in a market involves responsibilities. In the same way the right to freedom of expression ... is subject to ... responsibilities. Deliberately to introduce falsehoods into public debate is like contaminating food in the shops. And where the internet is concerned, the motive is often the same: extortion or revenge," the judge said.

"Discouraging people in need of legal advice from instructing good lawyers is as much against the public interest as encouraging them to instruct bad lawyers. At worst it may lead to miscarriages of justice ... At the least it will lead to restrictions on the consumers' freedom of choice, and to distortion of the free market in legal services," he said.

"If restrictions are to be enforced on behalf of the public, Parliament normally does this by legislation which makes the conduct in question a criminal offence. The Data Protection Act (DPA) goes some way towards this. It can protect from unfair discrimination those suppliers who trade as individuals, as solicitors happen to do, as well as employees or prospective employees. And it does create criminal offences and a mechanism for enforcement by the Information Commissioner. Where the DPA does not apply, the suppliers who have large resources may invoke the common law to protect themselves. But there is a need for someone to protect the public. The procedural remedy of representative proceedings, coupled with an injunction, may be the best that the law can offer at present to protect the public from the unjustifiable dissemination of false information about the suppliers of goods and services. It is also the means by which the court may protect its limited resources in time and judiciary from having to deal with large numbers of claims by different claimants against the same individual on the same or similar facts," the judge said.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that because solicitorsfromhell.co.uk had contained false statements about lawyers Kordowski, as the data controller, had breached basic principles of UK data protection laws that require personal data to be accurately stored and processed fairly and lawfully.

Because Kordowski had not processed lawyers' personal data in accordance with their rights – another principle of UK data protection laws – the judge ordered Kordowski to "block, erase and destroy the data which is the subject of this action".

Under the DPA "if a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data".

The Law Society had written to Kordowski asking him to delete the personal data of lawyers mentioned on the site but Kordowski said he would only delete the information if he received a fee to do so. When Kordowski indicated his intention to transfer ownership of the data contained on the site to foreign owners the Law Society obtained an injunction temporarily banning the transfer. The Law Society claimed that transferring ownership of lawyers' personal data contained on the site would amount to unlawful data processing and harassment.

Under the DPA individuals have a right, under certain conditions, to require organisations that store their personal data to "cease, or not to begin" processing of that information if it "is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted".

Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that the requests made in its letter to Kordowski were justified because Kordowski had not processed personal data of lawyers listed on the site fairly and lawfully. The judge therefore ordered Kordowski to stop processing that personal data. He also extended the temporary ban on Kordowski transferring ownership of the data to permanent.

Under the DPA "If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice [that they want damaging and distressing personal data processing to stop] which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit".

The Law Society had argued that solicitorsfromhell.co.uk contained "malicious and defamatory allegations about solicitors" which "causes serious damage to the reputations of the solicitors, firms and others who are listed on it, causing them financial loss, embarrassment, anxiety and distress". It said Kordowski was "harassing those listed" on the site and doing the public a "disservice" by "encouraging them to use inaccurate information to choose a solicitor".

Under the Protection from Harassment Act a person is generally deemed to have committed an offence if, on more than one occasion, they "pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment" of someone else.. Under the provisions of the Act a person is deemed to "ought to know" that their conduct "amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment".

Those who are in breach of the Act can be jailed or fined. The High Court can issue an injunction "for the purpose of restraining [an individual] from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment" and if the person who requested the injunction believes that the individual "has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction", they can "apply for the issue of a warrant for the[ir] arrest".

Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that because solicitorsfromhell.co.uk was a "prominent website" and contained "ongoing" publication of the comments made about solicitors that it would be "reasonable to infer in every case that those [lawyers] posted [about] would suffer such distress and alarm on at least two occasions". The judge has prohibited Kordowski from harassing the lawyers listed or at risk of being listed on solicitorsfromhell.co.uk in the future.

original article found here

IS IT LEGAL (redux)

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

CLICK HERE TO READ

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

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

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

If the Postings are False, Are They Defamatory?

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

and

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

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

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

And this from Canada.com:

According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

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

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

FOR THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CLICK HERE

Warning About E-Personation Bill

By Edward Berridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

original article here

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

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.)

Woman Loses Job Thanks to "Poison EMailer"

by GERRY LOUGHRAN



(U.K.) Poison pen letters used to be a staple of crime fiction. Hand-written but unsigned, they would circulate around a closed community such as a small village, spreading poisonous lies about some innocent person until the writer was unmasked by a clever amateur detective.



Usually the culprit was the vicar’s wife. I thought that sort of thing had died out, both in fiction and, if it existed to any extent, in real life.



I forgot about the Internet. There you can be both anonymous and poisonous, and you don’t even have to pay postage. Claire Chirnside, 23, says she is the victim of a poison emailer, whose lies have already cost her her job.



Back in April, Claire was working as a temporary administrative assistant at a children’s centre in Wilmslow, Cheshire, when an email was sent to her managers claiming she was a con artist and had a criminal past.



The centre launched an internal investigation. Claire was subjected to an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check and asked to provide a credit report. Nothing detrimental was found and she was cleared to continue work. When the temporary position ended, Claire returned to her native northeast with her fiance, Lee North, and they settled in Northumberland.



Within weeks, she had secured a permanent job at the Royal Institute of British Architects in Newcastle, where she was praised for her customer service skills.



But within two months, the cyber stalker traced her and fired off a vindictive email to her new employers. Claire protested her innocence and explained about the previous incident, but she was sacked anyway.



It happened just three weeks before her planned wedding. “Someone out there is stalking me and spreading these rumours and it’s devastating,” she said.



“For the rest of my life, I am going to wonder if people I work for will get an anonymous email and I will be investigated over and over again.”



Claire said she will appeal against the architects’ decision. “What do I say next time I go for a job? Whoever is doing this could make me unemployable.”



Police in Cheshire and Northumberland confirmed they are carrying out investigations into reports of the anonymous emails.





original article

Defamation in the Internet Age

With the proliferation of the Internet, communication is fast, easy and convenient. Within the past few years, social networking has grown at an astonishing rate. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter allow us to share our thoughts and ideas with the masses. But, what if those thoughts are not so nice?

Can you bring a defamation suit against others who have made negative public postings about you? It depends on what is said and to whom.

Defamation comes in two types: spoken statements (called slander) and written statements (called libel). On the Internet, I would submit that it is possible to encounter both types. For example, a YouTube video could contain spoken statements (such as from a person's webcam) that would constitute slander. On the other hand, Twitter or Facebook posts are typed statements and would be examples of libel.

The key to establishing a defamation case is to prove someone made false statements with a degree of fault to one or more third parties. There also has to be some type of harm.

Falsity is a must. Basic trash talk or calling people names does not count. Opinions do not constitute defamation either.

Most of the cases I see, especially from the Internet, fall into this category. That's not to say that you have to sit and take it, but it is not defamation. Such statements still could constitute false light, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, harassment, etc., but those are potential topics for other columns.

If someone makes a false statement to your face, that is not defamation unless it is heard by someone else. The statements have to be made to a third party, but it is not necessary that you hear it firsthand. As long as you can prove the statement was made (such as a public forum), that is good enough.

Whether the statement is made or published to a third party is a tough element to prove in slander cases. It usually is a he-said, she-said case. Who is the jury going to believe? If there is some type of recording of the statement, that is the best proof of what was said. Obviously, written statements are easier to prove as to their content. (If it was said on a private forum or private email - it can not be considered defamation or libel)

You also must prove there was some sort of harm done. You do not have to show actual monetary loss. Damage to your reputation, humiliation, and mental anguish are examples of harm.

What about that "degree of fault" language I mentioned? Well, if you are a private citizen, you have to prove only that the false statements were made negligently by the offender. However, for public figures, it is harder to prove defamation because you must show the statements were made maliciously. If you are a public figure, you have placed yourself in a position of some important public controversy. You are willingly in the limelight. So, if you ever run for public office, make sure you have a thick skin.

There are other nuances to the law, but those are the highlights. If you believe you have been the victim of defamation, consult an attorney.

DISCLAIMER: Every situation is different. Nothing in this article should be considered specific legal advice.

Jonathan Schmidt is a partner with Benson & Schmidt LLP.

(this does not cover "False Light" when truthful statements can be made in a 'false light' to discredit another's reputation - which is actionable in many states in U.S.)

original article here

Smear Campaign Lands Man in Court

Homebuyer 'launched smear campaign' against estate agents

after being gazumped

By James Tozer

(U.K., 2010) Martin Frostick is alleged to have sent out faxes falsely claiming the estate agent had gone bust

A gazumped homeowner took drastic revenge by launching a smear campaign to try to drive the estate agency he blamed out of business, a court heard today.

Martin Frostick, 53, was so aggrieved at losing the house that he circulated bogus bankruptcy petitions falsely claiming the Ryder & Dutton chain was going bust, it was alleged.

As a result, the agency was 'deluged' with inquires from clients worried about its financial state, the court heard.

It had to issue urgent public statements dismissing the notices as a 'malicious rumour' to save its reputation from being fatally damaged, it was claimed.

Frostick allegedly walked into a branch of the agency - based in Oldham, Greater Manchester - last June demanding information about a house sale back in 1997.

The complaint related to a house he had owned which had been repossessed, and he had later been gazumped in a sale, the court was told.

Staff said they didn't keep records that far back and Frostick left, slamming the door.

The following day he sent an email to Richard Powell, one of the directors, said Roderick Priestley, prosecuting at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester.

'It was some sort of grievance the defendant had with the firm over a repossession of a house which Mr Frostick owned in Oldham. He seemed to have been gazumped in a sale.'

Mr Powell then received 'abusive and threatening' faxes followed by a document purporting be a petition regarding the winding up of Ryder & Dutton, the court heard.

Mr Priestley said the notice was a fictitious one drawn up by Frostick. 'It was made by the defendant to damage the company,' he added.

The firm called the police after receiving a further email from Frostick containing 31 pages of names and numbers of companies to which he allegedly planned to send the fax.
Ryder & Dutton estate agents in Royton near Oldham

In addition, Frostick allegedly circulated a copy of an article from the London Gazette - which carries insolvency notices - altered to suggest Ryder & Dutton had gone bust.

He is also accused of sending a newspaper article about the collapse of Northern Rock which had been manipulated to carry the firm's name instead.

'The firm was deluged with enquires about the financial health of the company,' Mr Priestley said.

One leasing firm actually terminating a contract as a result of the rumours.

'What this man did caused significant inconvenience, stress and time,' Mr Priestley told the jury.

'So in order to protect their reputation they issued an urgent statement where they made it very clear that this was a dishonest and malicious rumour.

'What is clear is that Mr Frostick perceives that he has been wronged and 11 years later has decided to proceed with a complaint.

'But he, in effect, says because they wouldn't respond successfully to him, he then embarked upon this campaign.'

Frostick of Delph, near Oldham, was arrested two weeks later. Told about the cancelling of the lease agreement, he allegedly retorted: 'Good, I'm delighted.'

The trial heard Frostick admits coming up with the idea but denies fraud by making false representations.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Someone can only be DEFAMED if what you are saying about them is FALSE, NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, ASSUMED FROM SCANT INFORMATION or UNTRUE.

If it IS TRUE - it is not: defamation, slander and/or libel. And you'd best be able to PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW that it is true. (Information that might possibly indicate something or you are assuming it indicates something is usually non-admissible.)

EOPC is held legally harmless - all claims of posted misinformation must be pursued THROUGH THE PERSON THAT SIGNED THE RELEASE TO US AND SUBMITTED IT IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Smear Campaign Lands Man in Court

Homebuyer 'launched smear campaign' against estate agents

after being gazumped

By James Tozer

(U.K., 2010) Martin Frostick is alleged to have sent out faxes falsely claiming the estate agent had gone bust

A gazumped homeowner took drastic revenge by launching a smear campaign to try to drive the estate agency he blamed out of business, a court heard today.

Martin Frostick, 53, was so aggrieved at losing the house that he circulated bogus bankruptcy petitions falsely claiming the Ryder & Dutton chain was going bust, it was alleged.

As a result, the agency was 'deluged' with inquires from clients worried about its financial state, the court heard.

It had to issue urgent public statements dismissing the notices as a 'malicious rumour' to save its reputation from being fatally damaged, it was claimed.

Frostick allegedly walked into a branch of the agency - based in Oldham, Greater Manchester - last June demanding information about a house sale back in 1997.

The complaint related to a house he had owned which had been repossessed, and he had later been gazumped in a sale, the court was told.

Staff said they didn't keep records that far back and Frostick left, slamming the door.

The following day he sent an email to Richard Powell, one of the directors, said Roderick Priestley, prosecuting at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester.

'It was some sort of grievance the defendant had with the firm over a repossession of a house which Mr Frostick owned in Oldham. He seemed to have been gazumped in a sale.'

Mr Powell then received 'abusive and threatening' faxes followed by a document purporting be a petition regarding the winding up of Ryder & Dutton, the court heard.

Mr Priestley said the notice was a fictitious one drawn up by Frostick. 'It was made by the defendant to damage the company,' he added.

The firm called the police after receiving a further email from Frostick containing 31 pages of names and numbers of companies to which he allegedly planned to send the fax.
Ryder & Dutton estate agents in Royton near Oldham

In addition, Frostick allegedly circulated a copy of an article from the London Gazette - which carries insolvency notices - altered to suggest Ryder & Dutton had gone bust.

He is also accused of sending a newspaper article about the collapse of Northern Rock which had been manipulated to carry the firm's name instead.

'The firm was deluged with enquires about the financial health of the company,' Mr Priestley said.

One leasing firm actually terminating a contract as a result of the rumours.

'What this man did caused significant inconvenience, stress and time,' Mr Priestley told the jury.

'So in order to protect their reputation they issued an urgent statement where they made it very clear that this was a dishonest and malicious rumour.

'What is clear is that Mr Frostick perceives that he has been wronged and 11 years later has decided to proceed with a complaint.

'But he, in effect, says because they wouldn't respond successfully to him, he then embarked upon this campaign.'

Frostick of Delph, near Oldham, was arrested two weeks later. Told about the cancelling of the lease agreement, he allegedly retorted: 'Good, I'm delighted.'

The trial heard Frostick admits coming up with the idea but denies fraud by making false representations.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Someone can only be DEFAMED if what you are saying about them is FALSE, NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, ASSUMED FROM SCANT INFORMATION or UNTRUE.

If it IS TRUE - it is not: defamation, slander and/or libel. And you'd best be able to PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW that it is true. (Information that might possibly indicate something or you are assuming it indicates something is usually non-admissible.)

EOPC is held legally harmless - all claims of posted misinformation must be pursued THROUGH THE PERSON THAT SIGNED THE RELEASE TO US AND SUBMITTED IT IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUCH JERKS ONLINE

The concept of the flame war online is certainly nothing new. It's been around since before most people were even aware the internet existed. However, more people are starting to look into the issue of why people tend to be such incredible jerks online when they might be perfectly nice in person. It seems that there are few different things contributing to the effect.

First is that people somehow feel "disinhibited" when sitting behind a keyboard and monitor -- whether it's because of the supposed anonymity, the fact that you're effectively "invisible" or even the fact that there's a time lag between being a jerk and any response to it. The fact that you're somewhat separate from the response just makes it that much easier to be a jerk.

Some feel that it has even more to do with the lack of direct human contact in terms of either seeing hurt feelings or hearing someone's voice. There's just less empathy involved in seeing black and white text then seeing a physical reaction to being mean. Some of the latest research on this actually looked at how brains process messages during a conversation, and noted that in a normal conversation the person is tracking a variety of different cues in terms of how the other person is responding, and those cues help moderate what we say. Without any such cues when sitting behind a keyboard, you don't get any of the warning lights to moderate what you're saying, and the natural tendency is just to go right to the extreme edge without ever cooling off.

(Right now, EOPC is dealing with a couple individuals - one on another discussion board where we occassionally post; who have strung together a bunch of unrelated facts to try and indict us for our anonymity. Most of the facts revolve around an old victim we helped who they are trying to 'prove' is us. This victim went on to do a lot of work with DV victims like herself. Unfortunately DV advocated attract just as many disordered naysayers who are desperate to place blame as we do. We are hanging in there.

If things like this are happening to you - take a breath and step back before you react to accusations or disordered or negative individuals (such as your cyberpath) who string together unrelated things in attempts to construct a 'gotcha' moment for you. If you try to defend yourself? These 'jerks' will take it as your 'admission of guilt' thereby setting up a no win situation for you. Stay in what you know to be truth and distance yourself from these types of people. We are.)

Of course, so far, it doesn't seem like the research is coming up with many good solutions to get people to moderate what they say online -- other than suggesting that using video communications might help. Other than that, perhaps just being more conscious of the fact that it really is a human being at the other end might help -- but so far that kind of "self awareness" hasn't caught on. And, even if it has, as long as one person in the group is unable to moderate his or her speech, it tends to set off many others as well.

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUCH JERKS ONLINE

The concept of the flame war online is certainly nothing new. It's been around since before most people were even aware the internet existed. However, more people are starting to look into the issue of why people tend to be such incredible jerks online when they might be perfectly nice in person. It seems that there are few different things contributing to the effect.

First is that people somehow feel "disinhibited" when sitting behind a keyboard and monitor -- whether it's because of the supposed anonymity, the fact that you're effectively "invisible" or even the fact that there's a time lag between being a jerk and any response to it. The fact that you're somewhat separate from the response just makes it that much easier to be a jerk.

Some feel that it has even more to do with the lack of direct human contact in terms of either seeing hurt feelings or hearing someone's voice. There's just less empathy involved in seeing black and white text then seeing a physical reaction to being mean. Some of the latest research on this actually looked at how brains process messages during a conversation, and noted that in a normal conversation the person is tracking a variety of different cues in terms of how the other person is responding, and those cues help moderate what we say. Without any such cues when sitting behind a keyboard, you don't get any of the warning lights to moderate what you're saying, and the natural tendency is just to go right to the extreme edge without ever cooling off.

(Right now, EOPC is dealing with a couple individuals - one on another discussion board where we occassionally post; who have strung together a bunch of unrelated facts to try and indict us for our anonymity. Most of the facts revolve around an old victim we helped who they are trying to 'prove' is us. This victim went on to do a lot of work with DV victims like herself. Unfortunately DV advocated attract just as many disordered naysayers who are desperate to place blame as we do. We are hanging in there.

If things like this are happening to you - take a breath and step back before you react to accusations or disordered or negative individuals (such as your cyberpath) who string together unrelated things in attempts to construct a 'gotcha' moment for you. If you try to defend yourself? These 'jerks' will take it as your 'admission of guilt' thereby setting up a no win situation for you. Stay in what you know to be truth and distance yourself from these types of people. We are.)

Of course, so far, it doesn't seem like the research is coming up with many good solutions to get people to moderate what they say online -- other than suggesting that using video communications might help. Other than that, perhaps just being more conscious of the fact that it really is a human being at the other end might help -- but so far that kind of "self awareness" hasn't caught on. And, even if it has, as long as one person in the group is unable to moderate his or her speech, it tends to set off many others as well.

Gary Stone Persists with the Craziness - Now a Laughingstock

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.