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

Probation for Man Posting Fake Orgy on Craigslist

Connecticut, USA - A Connecticut man has been sentenced to probation for posting a bogus ad about an orgy at the house of a neighbor with whom he had been feuding.

Court records show 44-year-old Philip Conran pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a
child last week in Hartford Superior Court.

He has been sentenced to three years of probation and 200 hours of community
service. He also has been ordered to pay for the West Hartford neighbor's house
alarm system.

Police say Conran posted the Craigslist ad in April 2010 and that several strangers
knocked on the neighbor's door. One man went to the wrong home, groped a teenage girl and was arrested.

Conran's attorney, Michael Georgetti, says his client regrets his actions.

original article here

The Internet & the First Amendment

INSIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
By Gene Policinski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001.
Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Original Article Here

LATEST INTERNET FIRST AMENDMENT CASE IN THE NEWS - CLICK HERE

Proving a Stalkers Guilt Causes Distress for Victims

The impunity with which a Brooklyn man stalks a neighbor exposes legal ambiguities that force victims to prove harassment before cops will act, an expert said Sunday.

"In stalking cases, the experience has been that victims suffer a great amount of frustration," said security consultant Sal Lifrieri."It becomes more dependent upon the victim to put the case together themselves and then bring it to the authorities."

That difficulty has been at the heart of a four-year-long campaign of harassment suffered by a Daily News freelance photographer at the hands of an elderly neighbor.

She says Allen Novell, 73, has followed her around the city for years, but since he has never directly threatened or communicated with her, authorities can't bring charges.

Novell - who has a history of assault - has denied stalking the photographer.

"Finding that line where you really cross over to criminal territory is kind of arbitrary," Lifrieri said. "If he is not approaching you, and not doing anything or causing any harm, it's much harder to prove."

In recent high-profile celebrity stalking cases involving Madonna, Uma Thurman and Ivanka Trump, the stalkers made threatening phone calls or posted creepy Internet messages.

In a case where there is no overt harassment, it is key to document the pattern of contact in as much detail as possible so there is clear evidence to give to police.

"You need to document all those times that it occurs. It'll show a history of the occurrences in very specific detail," Lifrieri said.

He also suggested that victims look carefully at their online profiles to make sure they aren't revealing too much about themselves or their whereabouts for a potential stalker to see.

original article here

NIKKI CATSOURAS - ANOTHER VICTIM OF INTERNET PREDATION

During the flap over the Megan Meier case, we've met a few new and great bloggers who are out there - like us - speaking truth and trying to bring needed attention to victims of internet predation. As we all know telling is the first big step to healing.

Danny Vice, of The Weekly Vice, just wrote a wonderful post about a deceased young woman who, in death, like Megan Meier - was preyed on by attention seeking sensationalists. Someone(s) who could have cared less about her or the grief of her family and friends in doing what they did. We are reprinting it, with permission, below our commentary.

Internet predators are basically bullies and cowards. They are, as we have said, possibly narcissistic or (at their worst) sociopathic in their need for attention. It varies from cyberpath to cyberpath - do they want sex, do they want a high from illicit online "love", do they want attention, do they enjoy causing pain or heartache, do they just like playing with people's minds? The reasons for predation vary but they are all sick, twisted and wrong. The cyberpath believes they are powerful and anonymous behind a keyboard. And, as you will see in this story - and as Danny Vice so eloquently puts it:

Example after example, the story is the same. Internet predators who victimize the innocent with calculating, heinous acts of disregard, continue to go free. Their activities sometimes even condoned as "free speech".

What may be most troubling however is the ever present excuse making of our elected officials who continue to hide under a desk when the public calls upon them for justice in these cases.

In the case of harassing emails, why didn't officials track down the author behind these offensive attacks? The technology certainly exists. Why would tossing a cigarette butt out a vehicle window constitute a graver offense in the eyes of law enforcement, thus prompting immediate action while cases like these languish in silence?

The excuse lawmakers use to let themselves off the hook stem from the growth of the Internet and how fast it's changing. This is a sham. Chat rooms, message boards, instant messengers and email have been in existence for far over a decade now. While the software used to transmit messages changes slightly, the basic essence of using the Internet to send a message is largely the same. Is a decade or two long enough to establish some basic decency laws in regards to Internet usage? The Vice certainly believes it is.

EOPC believes it is too. The law needs to be expanded so vulnerable persons who may not have the money or resources (predators LOVE targeting these people figuring they will get away scott-free!) can sue for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress with proper proofs. Using a computer and the world wide web as a weapon is a crime. (Like these cyberbullies did using 'free speech' as a cover for slamming victims)

One prime example is the bigamists we have reported here on EOPC. These people use the internet as one-click-shopping for new victims, often on 'single parent' or 'adult social networking' - yet they get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and the police most often make victims do ALL the legwork (often with no money or support) of trying to dig up paperwork that is almost impossible to get without law enforcement's help! That's a great way to avoid responsibility, again! Bigamy victims are usually broke, have PTSD and all sorts of problems to deal with while the law lays back and still calls bigamy a "rare crime." (CLICK HERE FOR MORE)

Lawmakers and law enforcement's responses are piss poor to internet predators; unless they're a pedophile. There are laws on the books such as INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS or the COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996 - yet they do nothing. Even when victims bring them proof after proof of what was done. They sit back and make the same lame excuses that the law did in Megan Meier's case. This has to stop. And only we, the public, can put pressure on the law to do the right thing and hold this sort of predator and harrasser accountable for their heinous & exploitive behavior. Usually the victims hear that either 'there is no crime here' or 'no law applies' or 'you were an adult you should have known better.' One of our victims was told the last response and when she got up to leave the police station the Sargeant said "oh, we forgot, you KNEW this guy for a long time!" Nice job validating people who are already completely ripped to shreds emotionally & mentally.

Some say what EOPC does is a crime. Probably the cyberpaths. We make sure our victims are NOT out for revenge and we make them jump through hoops for truthfulness & verifiability before we do an exposure. We are not lying to anyone, exploiting them, using them for money, sex or kicks, neither are we getting our jollies posting graphic and/or salacious materials on the net. No. Our goals?

1. To help the victim feel less alone, less 'stupid & naive' and give them support
2. To call the cyberpath into accountability for what they have done. This is not a faceless, nameless, victimless crime - there are people on the other side of the screen
3. To offer direction to counseling for the victim, and the cyberpath - if they ask for it
4. To alert webusers to the pervasive patterns all cyberpaths and cyberbullies follow
5. To alert webusers to the patterns of blame shifting, excuse, disappear, non-closure and non-apologies all cyberpaths and cyberbullies follow
6. To bring attention to these issue in hopes that the law will catch up and give our victims and other some measure of justice for their pain

So please read the story of Nikki Catsouras - a lovely young girl whose death allowed internet web-vultures to feed off of her and her family's pain:

Nicole "Nikki" Catsouras - Another Example Of The Internet Predator Problem
by Danny Vice

Meet Nikki Catsouras, a beautiful 18 year old who's life was brutally cut short in a gruesome car crash Halloween night, 2006. Traveling at what the California Highway Patrol estimates to be about 100 miles per hour, an intoxicated Nikki slammed her father's Porche 911 into a concrete tollbooth.

The accident is really nothing unique unfortunately, but the events that followed provide an extremely sobering example of the evil that lurks within the Internet. It also exposes the tragic reality of how unreasonably ineffective our laws are for dealing with online predators, bullies and harassers.

The details:

Shortly after Nikki Catsouras accident, photographs of the accident were taken by the California Highway Patrol. This is normal policy and a widely followed practice of accident scene investigators who are seeking to preserve the accident scene. Unfortunately for the Catsouras family, this is the point where the their daughter's tragedy would be turned into an ongoing nightmare.

While some details of the case have yet to emerge completely. We do know that someone from the California Highway Patrol leaked these photos to the public. Within a matter of weeks, the accident scene photos succeeded in saturating the internet.

The photos in question were extremely graphic. The twisted wreckage of the accident are convincing enough, however the most upsetting images were those of Nikki, who's nearly decapitated head was smashed open. Parts of her head were scattered across the scene while Nikki was still seatbelted in the driver's seat of the car.

It's important to give a description of the photos, so you'll understand the Heinousness of what came next, however the Vice has chosen to NOT display these images in consideration of the Catsouras family, and it's pending lawsuit against the CHP.

While the leaking of these images opens many issues about how law enforcement handles it's investigative material, the real outrage is what the Catsourus family was forced to experience next.

Soon after the release of these photos, while the Catsouras family were still mourning their daughter's death, the family began to receive taunting messages along with the most graphic images from their daughter's accident scene. The photos quickly made their way to an estimated 1,600 websites across the Internet.

Just a few days after the accident, Nikki's teenage cousin opened her cell phone and was confronted with an image of of Nikki's mangled remains. This was no isolated event as many members of the Catsouras family began receiving emails, text messages and links to websites which repeated these graphic images over and over.

The statements that accompanied the images were often cruel, poking fun at the beautiful girl who was no longer beautiful. Even the deceased girl's MySpace page had contained anonymous postings of the accident scene, and a tribute site that was created for Nikki was eventually found to be little more than another front for displaying the grizzly photos.

Christos (Nikki's father) and Lesli Catsouras no longer go online or use email accounts. The Catsouras' three children also avoid using the Internet.

"It's evil!" says Nikki's mother Lesli Catsouras. "It's evil, and this was done maliciously as a joke. And it has devastated our lives completely. People should know that this can happen to them."

"There was threats that people were gonna put the pictures on my locker, in my locker," said Danielle (Nikki's sister). "I remember her in such a great way, I don't wanna see it and have that image stuck in my head."

Nikki's mother agrees. "I've stopped using my email," she says. "I don't want to see these every single day. ... And you know, I take a risk every time I go to the computer.

"We talk about Nikki all the time," says Nikki's father Christos. "We've got pictures of her everywhere. We laugh about her, cry. I always called her Angel."

Tyler Offenhauser, the family's attorney laments the utter lack of legal recourse in cases like these. "The Internet is growing in leaps and bounds. The law is not," he explains.

The Catsauras family's lawsuit against the CHP for allegedly releasing releasing the accident scene pictures to the public was recently confirmed by a judge who set the case for trial before a jury.

"They were crime scene pictures that never, ever should have gone out," says Christos. "There was a big mistake made by the California Highway Patrol that was never really acknowledged, or they never wanted to help us once the mistake had been made".

While the CHP has admitted in a letter to the Catsouras family that it's dispatchers violated department policy, it has said it is not responsible for the Catsouras' anguish.
Vice Reaction:

Example after example, the story is the same. Internet predators who victimize the innocent with calculating, heinous acts of disregard, continue to go free. Their activities sometimes even condoned as "free speech".

What may be most troubling however is the ever present excuse making of our elected officials who continue to hide under a desk when the public calls upon them for justice in these cases.

In the case of harassing emails, why didn't officials track down the author behind these offensive attacks? The technology certainly exists. Why would tossing a cigarette butt out a vehicle window constitute a graver offense in the eyes of law enforcement, thus prompting immediate action while cases like these languish in silence?

The excuse lawmakers use to let themselves off the hook stem from the growth of the Internet and how fast it's changing. This is a sham. Chat rooms, message boards, instant messengers and email have been in existence for far over a decade now. While the software used to transmit messages changes slightly, the basic essence of using the Internet to send a message is largely the same. Is a decade or two long enough to establish some basic decency laws in regards to Internet usage? The Vice certainly believes it is.

In both the Nikki Catsouras case and the Megan Meier case, we're continually reminded of how inept our laws are to combat such egregious acts of lawlessness, however these same officials ignore the call to pass the laws they say would convict such acts. We'd like to know what the hold up is.

In very few instances have I ever seen such a great disconnect between lawmakers and the public it claims it serves. In very few instances have I seen such a clear, concise message being sent to lawmakers to act. It isn't every day that an entire nation becomes outraged at the lack of law, yet lawmakers fail to heed the call.

In many Internet stalking/harassment cases, perpetrators refuse to take responsibility for their actions. In both cases here, we have a complete lack of real concern from officials towards victims of these cases. They simply continue to point out the lack of legal recourse as if it were a bragging right.

Why wouldn't voters be outraged at lawmakers who waste massive amounts of time running American troop activities into the ground, while our own children are exploited, harassed, stalked and even murdered - all the while excusing themselves from responsibility by casting it off as a freedom of speech. (and other adults Danny. Mostly vulnerable members of the population who are looking for support and get a cyberpath! Most of our victims did NOT meet their predator in online dating but something much more inocuous, where these cyberpaths lie in wait for the 'wounded' to come by - Fighter)

Laws that are eventually enacted are so weak, they often times rival the seriousness of a speeding ticket. It's really time the issue be fully explored as a priority at both the state and federal levels. Unfortunately we aren't optimistic that this will be the case - as lawmakers have already played the "freedom of speech" card in both cases here.

SOURCE

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEB PAGE ABOUT THE CASE BY THE CATSOUROS FAMILY'S LAWYERS.

UPDATE: We have been trading emails about the hits we are getting on this story under "Nikki Catsouras Crash Photos." We thought Megan Meier was getting loads of hits but no - in just the few hours this has been on our site, the hits are astronomical. This just shows how voyeuristic people are to be LOOKING for graphic crash photos of someone's child. Unreal.

We are not distrubed by the fact that Nikki was driving fast but that sick people find it necessary to SEND these pictures to her family and friends over & over & over to do nothing more than harrass & torture them. Any comments suggesting this is O.K. to do to her family & friends will be deleted.