Another Revenge Site - Another Lawsuit

by Anna North


(2012) A New York attorney is suing two of his exes for posting about him on the website liarscheatersrus.com. We took a look at the website he claims is ruining his career.

According to FindLaw, Matthew Couloute, Jr. is suing Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz for posting on the site that he "Cheated on ALL of ex-girlfriends" and "lied and cheated his entire way through his 40 years of life." They also allegedly wrote, "BE FOREWARNED, HE'S SCUM. RUN FAR AWAY." Couloute is alleging that the posts have cost him clients, but FindLaw's Stephanie Rabiner writes that he probably doesn't have a case — she notes that "if true, these statements are not fraudulent misrepresentations or defamation." And Blitsch and Ryncarz are now suing Couloute with the help of Gloria Allred.

[A] review of some cached pages reveals an interesting — and disturbing — mix of rage, misery, and revenge. The homepage addresses infidelity victims directly:

Has anyone dated your spouse? Have you trusted and put yourself on the line for someone who turned out to be a player or a married person? Are you the victim of a home wrecker? You can not only find others that have been similarly victimized, but you can also report the perpetrators of these games to the world and save others from the heartache. Wouldn't you like to help others and prevent the people who cheated on you or tried to steal your husband and wife from doing it again?

Whether the posters on the site want to help others or simply vent is an open question. Some of the posts make serious allegations:

• This man has cheated on his wife with more women than is humanly imaginable. His looks get him anything he wants, and he lies as easily as most of us breathe. He has beaten his wife, is currently incarcerated, but will be out in one year, doing it all over again…. So sad….

Some mix the serious with the trivial:

This man is the worst person I've ever met in my entire life. He lied from the day we met. He said he was 31 years old, but he is 38. He said he was a physician at a local hospital, and when I found out he wasn't, he lied and said it was my misunderstanding, and he was in medical school currently working as a PA while he's in school. He's really just a lab tech at a local hospital. He said he has been divorced for 2 years, and has one son. He is STILL married, and has 3 children with his wife of 14 years. He claims to be 6′ tall, but he's only 5'10″.

And some seem to speak to relationship problems that have nothing to do with lying or cheating:

He will come on strong, the complete charmer for the first 3 months. After he has made his score, he will back off and run. Then if you ever remind him of all the things he said or wrote to you about love, he will not remember. He will blame you for every single thing that is wrong in his life even if you have poured out 100% of your life to support his dreams and goals. I know because I did for year.

As Rabiner says, if these statements are true, they fall well within the bounds of free speech. But liarscheatersrus also seems like a great place to smear your ex, whether or not he or she actually did anything wrong. The site doesn't employ any obvious fact-checking, and so it has the potential to become a sort of "slut list" for grownups, a place where people can anonymously bash others without any proof.
Don't Date Him Girl has already mined this territory — and a lawsuit against that site was dismissed in 2007. Still, Rabiner notes that "even though Matthew Couloute may not prevail on this claim, keep in mind that, with slightly different facts, a posting on liarscheatersrus.com (or any other such site) could form the basis of a successful and costly lawsuit." And even if alleged liars and cheaters don't find legal recourse, posting anonymously on a website may not be a particularly good response to infidelity. In response to a woman wondering whether to tell her ex's new lady that he was in the closet, Slate's Emily Yoffe recently wrote,

Let's say you were the happy young woman engaged to the man of your dreams. Would you want his ex to come along and ruin everything by telling you that he is a closeted gay man who is secretly having promiscuous sex? I sure would! It's always easier in cases like this to just let adults make their own decisions and find out (or not) what's really going on.

That's doubly true if you're planning on posting incriminating (or false) information on the internet. It may feel good at the time, but it's unlikely to sway somebody who's intent on dating your nasty ex. And it might get you sued.

original article can be found here

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. - first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review - represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

thanks to BETH for this find!

REVENGE.COM: HOW THE INTERNET FUELS THE BATTLE OF THE EXES

by Katy Guest
Famous people do it in the press, but the rest of us have always had to seek revenge on errant lovers in the courts, or by cutting up their clothes. Not any more. The internet is providing the perfect means for ordinary men and women to strike back at their exes.

Several websites have been set up to exploit the taste for vengeance, the latest of which is (now defunct) myexwifesabitch.com.

"Demonic, resentful and spiteful" is how one man describes his former partner during a lengthy rant about access to their daughter, who is named. He also describes his ex as "vindictive, malicious, mean and a cheat".

Most revenge sites are for women. But myexwifesabitch. com has been set up for men by Dave Schofield and Bryan Sibbald from Bristol.

"I went through a divorce and it ended up costing me over pounds 20,000," says Mr Schofield. "You end up financially stuffed and the worst thing is you are forced by law and by an angry ex-partner not to see your daughter.

"We wanted to help people get through the situation."

For a fee of pounds 25, members tell their own stories and look for friends in similar positions. "It's not anti-women," the site insists - although women may disagree. "In a world when the legal system penalises men and the world kowtows to women this is a great opportunity for men to stand up for themselves," it claims.

Mr Schofield is unrepentant about the name: "Every woman I have told the title to so far has laughed. My ex probably wouldn't, though."

Abused as she is, his ex-wife is at least allowed anonymity unlike the stars of www.cheated-on.com. The site was set up in June by Susan Hughes, 29, from Devon after she discovered that her dashing RAF pilot boyfriend had made like the hero of the song "Soldier, Soldier, Will You Marry Me?", and already had a wife.

So she got even, and created a forum for her fellow victims of infidelity. In the Cheats Gallery, devious exes are named and shamed. "For six quid for the bus fare he let my pet lizard lick Marmite from his nuts," writes one ex with admirable nonchalance, beside a named photo of the guilty man. "Revenge is a very natural human emotion," says Paula Hall, a relationship therapist with Relate. "How you decide to act on that varies. It can be constructive, very destructive or even illegal. But when it's done purely to hurt, one repercussion is the damage done to the self-esteem of the person doing the hurting."

Damaged self-esteem was not the only repercussion suffered by Paul Clarke when he took revenge on his unfaithful girlfriend. He created a website that showed videos of them making love, and told friends, family and colleagues. "I don't know who's seen this website," said his ex, Cara Whitehouse, in court. "My life is ruined." Clarke was jailed for three months.

So it may be worth thinking twice before visiting www.calastrology.com/spells and buying a "Retribution Spell" for your partner, or selling your "unwanted gift from a low-life rat" on eBay, like Sam Jones did when her partner denied paternity of her baby. But Thea Newcomb, of www.soyouvebeendumped.com thinks she has a better answer.

"SYBD is about positive revenge," she says. Since the site was set up, Ms Newcomb has helped dozens of cheated partners sell their stories to newspapers and magazines, and they have made a fortune.

"She went to university and from then on she started cheating on me. She is one of those girls that always gets her way and then gets away with all the bad things she has done. She even had sex with me after we broke up and was apparently in love with somebody else ... I can only imagine the stuff I haven't heard about her from my circle. Have I mentioned how much I hate her?"

A Welsh dumpee tells www.is-a-cheat.com about "Gemma":

"He had three long-term girlfriends (that we know of) at once, spanning three years. None of them knew about the existence of the others. Two lived with him at different times in his flat. He spoke of marriage and children with all three of us! His explanation for periods of separation was his dedication to looking after his elderly grandmother."

A member of (now defunct) cheated-on.com dishes the dirt on Jason from Hampshire:

GETTING EVEN
Laura Milnes, 40, above, from Maltby, south Yorkshire, became involved with a married man when they met up again through the website Friends Reunited. Earlier this year she found he was cheating on her with several different women he had met on internet dating sites. Laura went to see his wife. Together, they worked out the password to his email account and Laura forwarded his intimate emails to everyone in his address book.

"I had it all ready to send but I was scared at first. I felt like I'd wasted a whole year of my life, being devoted to him, and it was all a sham. I thought, nobody will write back, nobody will say anything. So I sent it. But then I got all these emails saying, `How awful for you' and `Good for you' for doing it. I just wanted them to see that he was not the honest, nice family man that they thought; he was actually a pig."He didn't get back in touch until a week later. He wasn't angry or anything, he just said, `Why did you do it?' I said, `Impulse. I was just so angry with you.'

"He says he doesn't hate me. But we're not in touch.

"I'm glad I did it because when somebody does something bad to you, you get all chewed up and angry and bitter and you've got to release it. It's like when you have a big argument; you clear the air.

"It's ironic how our relationship started on the internet, and that is also how I got my revenge. I think it's called poetic justice! I would recommend it, it's very satisfying."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

CHECK: SAVE 'THE PSYCHO EX-WIFE AND THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT BATTLE

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

'Gripe Site' Is Protected Free Speech, Not Defamation

(an article regarding 'disclaimers' about the type of site - exposure - EOPC is)

"The contents of a New Jersey man's "gripe site" -- a 45-page Web site dedicated to the perceived misdeeds of his car insurer -- were protected free speech that did not constitute defamation, a Manhattan judge has ruled.

"...alleged that Ronald DiGiovanni's site made eight libelous statements about its business, including that it is a "blatantly dishonest company" that has been "running scams," "committing fraud on a grand scale," and "ripping off its contract holders for quite a while...

"The court holds that the cause of action for libel ... should be dismissed because the challenged speech is merely a statement of defendant's personal opinion...

"...his statements reflect his personal opinion based upon his personal dealings with plaintiff. They're subjective expressions of consumer dissatisfaction [and] are not actionable because they are defendant's personal opinion."

(Stick to the truth and be sure you can back it up -- not just your assumptions or guesses.

The truth is a 100% defence to defamation. If you post something like "John had a criminal record" or "Sue has no licences for her job" WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS PROVING THAT - it is not defamatory in any way. However, saying something like "Diane is a lesbian" online with no proof... IS DEFAMATORY

Don't assume because someone was angry at you - that makes them abusive. The court could say you made 'assumptions.' And only the TRUTH is a complete defense to charges of slander or defamation.)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Website Posts Sex, Gossip, Hate, Rumor

The Cornell University junior was in his dorm between classes when the text message came in from a friend. Check out JuicyCampus.com, it said.

The student found his name on the Web site beside a rambling, filthy passage about his sexual exploits, posted by an anonymous student on campus. The young man could only hope the commentary was so ridiculous nobody would believe it.

"I thought, `Is this going to affect my job employment? Is this going to make people on campus look at me? Are people going to talk about me behind my back?" said the student, who asked not to be identified. He also wondered about his 11-year-old sister, who is spending more time on the Internet. "What if she Googles me? What will she think about her big brother?" he said.

JuicyCampus' endless threads of anonymous innuendo have been a popular Web destination on the seven college campuses where the site launched last fall, including Duke, UCLA and Loyola Marymount. It recently expanded to 50 more, and many of the postings show they've been viewed hundreds and even thousands of times.

But JuicyCampus has proved so poisonous there are signs of a backlash.

In campus debates over Internet freedom, students normally take the side of openness and access. This time, however, student leaders, newspaper editorials and posters on the site are fighting back -- with some even asking administrators to ban JuicyCampus. It's a kind of plea to save the students, or at least their reputations, from themselves.

"It is an expression from our student body that we don't want this junk in our community," said Andy Canales, leader of the student government at Pepperdine, which recently voted 23-5 to ask for a ban.

The vote came after a long and emotional debate on the limits of free speech, and was swayed by stories from students such as Haley Frazier, a junior residential adviser. She had recently come across a teary transfer student who had been humiliated on the site barely a week after arriving on campus.

"I can't imagine the disgust she must have for Pepperdine if that's what (students) say," Frazier said.

College administrators say they are appalled by the site but have no control over it since students can see it outside the campus computer network. They say all they can do is urge students not to post items or troll for malicious gossip -- and hope that in the process they learn about how to get along.

That tactic may be having an effect.

Playground meanness on the Web
At a number of campuses where JuicyCampus was a hot topic even just a few weeks ago, students and administrators say use and complaints have tapered off sharply. That's hard to confirm; Internet tracker comScore Inc. says the site's visitor numbers are too low to be counted by its system.

But more and more postings criticize the site, with comments like, "let's not ruin each other's lives," and, "If you can't personalize any of the stuff you read or write here, imagine it happening to your sister or your best friend."

"People have gotten just extremely sick of hearing all this stuff," said Rachelle Palisoc, a freshman at Loyola Marymount in California, who joined a Facebook group called "Ban Juicycampus!!!!" that has about 850 members.

Free to use and supported by advertising, JuicyCampus is a simple conduit urging users to post gossip and promising them total anonymity. There are threads on campus hook-ups, who's popular and who's overweight.

"Top ten freshman sluts" reads one typical thread, and "The Jews ruin this school" another. Homophobia is common. Many postings combine the cruelty of a middle school playground, the tight social dynamics of a college campus and the alarming global reach of the Internet.

JuicyCampus pledges that it blocks its discussion boards from being indexed by search sites like Google, and that appears to be true.

"College students are clever and fun-loving, and we wanted to create a place where they could share their stories," said Matt Ivester, the site's founder, who agreed to answer questions by e-mail.

"Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he said in response to calls he has rejected -- including one from his alma mater, Duke -- for him to shut down the site. "However, we believe that JuicyCampus can have a really positive impact on college campuses, as a place for both entertainment and free expression. Frankly, we're surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas."

Duke's vice president for student affairs, Larry Moneta, said the school asked Ivester to consider "moderating the venom or at least moderating the opportunity for venom." However, "my sense is that's not that person's interest," Moneta said.

Slut's okay, shooting's not
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."

But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a Web site when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard.
In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs.

JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises.

The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."

Fraternity and sorority leaders and student governments are mainly urging students to sap the site of advertisers by turning a blind eye.

"If we don't get on there it will die," said C.J. Slicklen, student government president at Cornell, where students vented at a meeting last week.

The concerns extend beyond hurt feelings. At Loyola Marymount, a now-former student was arrested after allegedly posting a threat of a campus shooting spree on JuicyCampus. And the dangers of social network bullying were highlighted by the recent death of a 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who committed suicide after receiving cruel messages on her MySpace page -- messages that turned out to be a hoax.

Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said the school applauds the student government's reaction, though Pepperdine has not banned the site.

"In the end," he said, "the site's shock value will diminish and it will be revealed for what it is: empty."

POLICE INVESTIGATE ANGRY EBAY-ER'S REVENGE SITE

By Chris Williams

Police are investigating a disgruntled eBayer who took online revenge after paying £375 for a laptop which, he said, did not work.

The buyer recovered the hard drive from the malfunctioning notebook, finding it full of personal details, allegedly including access to email accounts, 90 voyeuristic leg shots taken on the London Underground and gay porn. He posted the material on a website, naming and shaming Barnet 19-year-old Amir Tofangsazan as the seller.

Clearly, someone doesn't see the funny side. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said Barnet police are investigating a complaint made on 29 May at Fulham police station regarding improper use of a public electronic communications network. She added: "The allegation follows from a civil dispute. No arrests have been made and inquiries continue."

At time of writing the site had clocked up almost 950,000 hits. A dismayed Amir told the Daily Mail the website had made his life a "living hell", and that his family had received threats. He said: "The laptop wasn't even broken. It was in working order. The last few days have been a nightmare, some of my friends have seen it and my father is very angry."

Amir said he had not received any "polite requests" for a refund. On his revenge site the buyer counters: "This site is 100 per cent genuine, I swear I'm not making anything up."

Amir told the Daily Mail: "I will obviously be trying to get the website taken down as soon as possible." In the meantime, the site is available here

The buyer has been named as Thomas Sawyer, a 23-year-old student from Exeter. He offers to pull the site sown voluntarily in exchange for a refund.

Meanwhile, The Daily Mail reports that Amir allegedly pulled a similar scam on Newport Pagnell woman Debbie McInerney, who says she paid him £147 for an iPod which never arrived. Amir said: "The police are investigating the iPod case and I can't comment on it."