SOME OF THE INNER WORKINGS OF A CYBERPATH

(taken from the work of Lundy Bancroft) 
The cyberpath is controlling; he insists on having the last word in arguments and decision making,

he may make rules for the victim about her movements and personal contacts, such as forbidding her to contact or to see certain friends, online or offhe is manipulative

he misleads people inside and outside of the family/ close friends about his abusiveness

he twists arguments around to make other people feel at fault

he changes times & dates to cover himself

he turns into a sweet, sensitive person for extended periods of time when he feels that it is in his best interest to do so

his public image usually contrasts sharply with the online reality

he is entitled; he considers himself to have special rights and privileges not applicable to other family members

he believes that his needs should be at the center of the target's agenda, and that everyone should focus on keeping him happy


he typically believes that it is his sole prerogative to determine when and how sexual relations will take place, and denies his partner the right to refuse (or to initiate) sex; he may even moralize to her when it is him that is the sex addict

he usually believes that work should be done for him, and that any contributions he makes to those efforts should earn him special appreciation and deference

he is highly and often subtly demanding 
he is disrespectful; he considers his targets less competent, sensitive, and intelligent than he is, often treating her as though she were an inanimate object

he communicates his sense of superiority in various ways


after a break-up or negative event with the target, the cyberpath sometimes becomes quickly involved with a new partner whom he treats relatively well; sometimes he carries on multiple affairs slowly & painfully dropping one for the other

cyberpaths are not out of control, and therefore can be on "good" behavior for extended periods of time - even a few years - if they consider it in their best interest to do so

the new target may insist, based on her experience with him, that the man is wonderful to her, and that any problems reported from the previous relationship must have been fabricated, or must result from bad relationship dynamics for which the two cyberpath and a former target are mutually responsible. The cyberpath can thus use his new partner to create the impression that he is not a risk.




When caught:
Cyberpaths increasingly use a tactic I call "preemptive strike," where he accuses the target of doing all the things that he has done.

he will call his target a "predator too!"

he will say that she was 'harassing' him and his friends/family, that she was extremely "controlling" (adopting the language of domestic violence experts), and that she was 'unfaithful' and/or 'also at fault'.

he will call her: a scorned woman, crazy, a stalker, obsessed with him, jealous, etc ....

BELIEVE NONE OF IT!!

(remember that females can just as abusive & controlling as men)

Are Online Threats Taken Seriously?

by Jackie Ibanez

Are online threats taken seriously? This question has been raised in the wake of fitness club shooting near Pittsburg.

George Sodini killed three women and himself after bringing in a gun to his health club. Before the shootings, Sodini outlined his plot and reasons for his rage against women on the internet.

Although many said they would dismiss threatening comments posted on the web, others said they would immediately contact authorities.

"I would call the police and let them know because I am very aware of what goes on around me," said Robbin Delgrande of West Stockbridge.

Sodini had a history of ranting about women and his failed love life online.

Post Your Answers Here

Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

There's a whole world of people out there, and boy, are they pissed off.

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling. Indeed, there are even whole sites devoted to venting, such as justrage.com (one screed there was titled, "I don't give a flying f***, so f*** you") and mybiggestcomplaint.com.

This is not a world Emily Post would want to be caught in after dark.

"The Internet can be a great tool," said Sara Black, a professor of health studies at St. Joseph's University who takes a particular interest in online bullying. "Like any tool, it can also be misused."

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim.

"In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people's moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. iReport.com: Second Life avatars grapple with reduced nonverbal communication

"It's hard to be aggressive when you're face to face," he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.

"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women's studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to "Mean Girls" or "Heathers."

"Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign," she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups -- which can be bad enough -- "they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it's as easy as clicking a button."

"Kids don't realize that one post can destroy somebody's life forever," she added.

Indeed, such incidents have made headlines. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier committed suicide after becoming attracted to a boy on MySpace who then turned on her. The boy turned out to be a hoax created by a neighbor family that included a former friend of Meier's.

In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.

Adults aren't immune by any means. A Japanese woman, angry at her online "husband," killed his avatar after he divorced her. A South Korean actress committed suicide after being harassed by online rumors following a divorce. Celebrity gossip sites are full of snarky comments about stars; reaction from readers is often brutal, turning the story into the online equivalent of a pile-on.

Markman is quick to observe that he doesn't believe there's more anger out there. But, he said, "there are more ways of expressing it on the Internet."

"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."

Indeed, though electronically transmitted anger has parallels throughout human history -- the bitter letter, the village gossip -- the speed at which it travels, and the number of people who may come in contact with it, is something new, says St. Joseph's Black.

"[Electronic] media can increase potential for violence in a number of ways," she said in an e-mail interview. "First, it introduces ideas (good and bad) that people may not have come up with on their own. Second, it is easier to depersonalize the victim, facilitating perpetration. Third, aggressive behaviors may be reinforced with points, attention or status, especially in games."

Withers has seen that first hand. She teaches a course on the "dark side of communication" at Central Michigan, involving "the mean or evil things we do on a day-to-day basis," as she describes it: cheating, for example, or lying.

As part of the course, several of her students work on a collaborative project with students at other schools, and they come together in Second Life, the virtual reality environment. If someone isn't pulling his or her weight, says Withers, others can be harsh in their judgments -- harsher than in real life, because the anger is expressed at the person's avatar. Sidebar: Dealing with anger in Second Life

Which led at least one of Withers' students to forget that the avatar was attached to a real person.

"One student went off on another student and she was sitting in the classroom a few rows behind him," she said. "He knew she was there, but didn't -- there was that distancing."

Is there a way to restore civility to the Internet? Among children and teenagers, say Dellasega and Black, it's up to parents to exercise control.

"I think parents need to take responsibility," Dellasega said. "They give kids computers and leave them alone. ... When a child is 8 or 9, the computer should be in a public place. Kids should understand that using a computer is a privilege, not a right."

Schools can also play a role, she says.

Black adds that parents should set clear rules on behavior and build empathy in their kids by having them reach out to those who are different.

As for adults, human nature dictates that people will always lash out at others, whether it's over a perceived insult or simply because of a power differential. Web sites may ban the worst offenders, but they'll almost always pop up elsewhere, using a different name, e-mail address or even computer.

"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

Whether the problem will get control of us, or we will get control of the problem, is in the way we face up to it, he says. Anger, he says, is rolled up with anxiety and fear, and nothing creates more fear like a lack of understanding.

"I tell patients that I'd rather know everything about people; information is powerful," he said. "When the climate of the world is more fear-based, it permeates everything."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

SITES BY VICTIMS OF CYBERPATHS
(we believe many of these people have a right to be upset and using writing as a healing & informational tool for them can be very empowering)

Cyberstalker: Felicity Jane Lowde

Marilyn McAboy

Jakob Maltese

The Laura Knight-Jadczyk Fraud

Nancy Lynne

Too Good To Be Real

Kim Stewart - Bink, Briesis, Allie

Victim of Gareth Rodger Speaks Out

One Victim of William Michael Barber Tells Their Story

Sandra Brown MA - No License


(readers -- if you know of others, please tell us!)

"Annoying" someone via the Internet is now a Federal crime?

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. In 2006, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16, 2005.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd have realized that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he'd sworn to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush had the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the new president rises to the occasion.

It's illegal to annoy

A 2006 federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We felt this is going to be VERY hard if not impossible to enforce under Constitutional rights. And in the 2 years since it was signed - we were proved right.

Also the person who says they are being harassed - would have to legally disclose their relationship to the harasser during any discovery period and why the alleged harasser is doing it. (Most of our exposed cyberpaths? That's the LAST thing they want -- UNLESS they can twist history in their favor; which they can't - unless they are completely delusional)

Another good reason to always surf on a person's name or nickname before getting involved with them and saving ALL chats with them once it goes over the boundaries of simple conversation (i.e. 'love', cybersex or emotional affairs)

Cyberpaths would be out of luck! - Fighter

Technorati Tags: cyberharassment, online,free speech, abuse, federal crime, Justice Department, annoy, threaten

"Annoying" someone via the Internet is now a Federal crime?

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. In 2006, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16, 2005.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd have realized that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he'd sworn to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush had the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the new president rises to the occasion.

It's illegal to annoy

A 2006 federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We felt this is going to be VERY hard if not impossible to enforce under Constitutional rights. And in the 2 years since it was signed - we were proved right.

Also the person who says they are being harassed - would have to legally disclose their relationship to the harasser during any discovery period and why the alleged harasser is doing it. (Most of our exposed cyberpaths? That's the LAST thing they want -- UNLESS they can twist history in their favor; which they can't - unless they are completely delusional)

Another good reason to always surf on a person's name or nickname before getting involved with them and saving ALL chats with them once it goes over the boundaries of simple conversation (i.e. 'love', cybersex or emotional affairs)

Cyberpaths would be out of luck! - Fighter

Technorati Tags: cyberharassment, online,free speech, abuse, federal crime, Justice Department, annoy, threaten

E-mail threat leads to cyberstalking charge

A Wilmington, North Carolina man faces a charge of cyberstalking after a Gastonia man told police he e-mailed death threats.

Keith Bailey, 39, told Gastonia Police that Melvin Franklin Douglas Lutz, 38, sent him threatening messages.

Bailey gave Gastonia Police an e-mail message sent May 24, 2007, where Lutz writes that Bailey had messed up their business and lied about raising profits.

"I sold my home out of desperation because of my legal responsibilities. You used that money to buy a motorcycle...," Lutz wrote via e-mail.

"This is a declaration of war. I am going (to do) everything I know to destroy your life both metaphorically (sic) and in reality. Every word out of your mouth is a lie, the world will be a much better place once I put you 6 feet under."

Bailey responded to his message with an e-mail of his own.

"What the hell are you talking about? I don't talk about you, think about you or do anything to you," Bailey wrote. "I have my own problems to deal with thanks to trying to help you and I don't have time to "(expletive) up" anything you're doing. I haven't a clue what you're doing, planning to do or have don't and don't want to know unless I have to."

Lutz faces a charge of cyberstalking and is in Gaston County Jail under a $1,000 secured bond.

E-mail threat leads to cyberstalking charge

A Wilmington, North Carolina man faces a charge of cyberstalking after a Gastonia man told police he e-mailed death threats.

Keith Bailey, 39, told Gastonia Police that Melvin Franklin Douglas Lutz, 38, sent him threatening messages.

Bailey gave Gastonia Police an e-mail message sent May 24, 2007, where Lutz writes that Bailey had messed up their business and lied about raising profits.

"I sold my home out of desperation because of my legal responsibilities. You used that money to buy a motorcycle...," Lutz wrote via e-mail.

"This is a declaration of war. I am going (to do) everything I know to destroy your life both metaphorically (sic) and in reality. Every word out of your mouth is a lie, the world will be a much better place once I put you 6 feet under."

Bailey responded to his message with an e-mail of his own.

"What the hell are you talking about? I don't talk about you, think about you or do anything to you," Bailey wrote. "I have my own problems to deal with thanks to trying to help you and I don't have time to "(expletive) up" anything you're doing. I haven't a clue what you're doing, planning to do or have don't and don't want to know unless I have to."

Lutz faces a charge of cyberstalking and is in Gaston County Jail under a $1,000 secured bond.