Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Defamed by an anonymous poster on a forum? Profit   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Stanford Law School, paraphilias, landmark ruling, Tarrant County, Clarksville, Ryan Calo, criminal trials, Rhonda Lesher  
•       •       •

16606 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2012 at 6:41 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-25 11:03:58 AM  

chewielouie: chewielouie: allthesametome: Bankruptcy would not provide relief from this judgment. They may be able to get out of all their other debt (if they have debt), but this isn't going anywhere.

Nope, that judgement goes bye bye too.

I may have spoken too soon. While they judgements may not be discharged by filing bankruptcy, the Plaintiffs will most likely never see any of that money.


It's an open question. Judgments stemming from intentional torts MAY be non-dischargeable at the discretion of the presiding judge. Assuming the judment surivive bankruptcy its going to be up to the plaintiffs how vindictive they want to be in enforcing it. Since the main barrier to that is usually the time and expense of hiring a lawyer to pursue it, and one member of the defamed couple IS an attorney with nothing better to do currently, I'm guessing life is going to suck for the defendants for a while.
 
2012-04-25 11:06:24 AM  

Magorn: What I'd like to know is WHY these folks decided to falsely accuse them and destroy thier lives like that?


If I understand the situation correctly, the people who made the accusations own a competing small business.

My guess is, this may have started as a simple dispute between them, or the accusers are evil bastards who plotted a way to get rid of their only competition in the area.
 
2012-04-25 11:07:34 AM  

Magorn: There used to be a poster on Usenet forums named Joe Dunphy who was the international gold standard for trolls. It didn't matter WHAT the topic was, Turkish history, child rearing, Unix networking, if Joe wandered into the forum, within days there would be a pitched, vitriolic flame war raging in the forum with Joe on one side and nearly everybody else on the other.

After a while I just assumed this was some sort fo high-concept Andy Kaufman-esque performance art for him and just chuckled when I ran across another of his 'gems". Then, completely by chance, I met him in a bar in Chicago. He was just the same in real life as he was on the internet, two seconds away from boiling over with anger about nearly any topic imaginable. How he managed not to get his ass kicked on a regular basis by drunken bar patrons I will never know.


Met a member of an usenet troll group "the Meowers" back in the day. He was a bit less of an asshole in real life and backed the hell off online when he realized that not only did people know his real life address, one of the people he was trying to piss off lived a few miles down the road from him.
 
2012-04-25 11:15:20 AM  
I wish this precedent had been in place during Usenet's Grubor days.
 
2012-04-25 11:25:19 AM  

Magorn: chewielouie: chewielouie: allthesametome: Bankruptcy would not provide relief from this judgment. They may be able to get out of all their other debt (if they have debt), but this isn't going anywhere.

Nope, that judgement goes bye bye too.

I may have spoken too soon. While they judgements may not be discharged by filing bankruptcy, the Plaintiffs will most likely never see any of that money.

It's an open question. Judgments stemming from intentional torts MAY be non-dischargeable at the discretion of the presiding judge. Assuming the judment surivive bankruptcy its going to be up to the plaintiffs how vindictive they want to be in enforcing it. Since the main barrier to that is usually the time and expense of hiring a lawyer to pursue it, and one member of the defamed couple IS an attorney with nothing better to do currently, I'm guessing life is going to suck for the defendants for a while.


Willful tort judgements are not discharged under any circumstances, or am I mistaken? If the defendant(s) wanted to, he/she/they could live in verifiable poverty for the next 25 years or so. That would be the only way that would remove the ability to make good on the obligation, besides a trust.
 
2012-04-25 11:32:09 AM  

Cybernetic: imontheinternet: [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 400x400]

That's a huge verdict. Guess it's time to file bankruptcy.

Pretty much this. The plaintiffs can frame the judgement and hang it on the wall. But they'll probably have a hell of a time enforcing it.


No. They can take everything this asshole has. Bankruptcy does not protect from judgement for malicious acts. They will never get their 18mil, but they can crush this f**k for life, and confiscate anything he ever gets or has, except his Social Security. - and I'd love to see the same happen to a lot more shiatheads who talk too much on the internet.
 
2012-04-25 11:34:11 AM  

JonZoidberg: sniderman: meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

[i49.tinypic.com image 396x309]

/lawsuit ahoy!

Please don't respond to meow, it makes meow's post show up on my FARK.


For fark's sake people, learn to use Fark's ignore features if you're going to ignore people! There are settings that let you ignore posts from people who are not on your ignore list who quote people who are on it... Posting stupid shiat like this telling people not to respond to someone that you don't like is rude, selfish, and assholic... Not everyone hates the same people you hate...
 
2012-04-25 11:42:39 AM  

RobSeace: JonZoidberg: sniderman: meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

[i49.tinypic.com image 396x309]

/lawsuit ahoy!

Please don't respond to meow, it makes meow's post show up on my FARK.

For fark's sake people, learn to use Fark's ignore features if you're going to ignore people! There are settings that let you ignore posts from people who are not on your ignore list who quote people who are on it... Posting stupid shiat like this telling people not to respond to someone that you don't like is rude, selfish, and assholic... Not everyone hates the same people you hate...


I have never been able to wrap my head around the "ignore" function. When I decide that somebody is a bore or a jerk, I just ignore them in the old fashioned sense - I don't pay them any mind. It does not offend me that jerks, fools, and assholes are permitted to speak here - in fact, I approve of that philosophy.
If some clown is talking shiat on the bus, I ignore him. If some clown does the same on Fark, I do the same. And I don't need an "app" to do it, either.
 
2012-04-25 11:45:03 AM  
I'd prefer a finding that anonymous people automatically have no credibility and should be believed by no one, therefore nothing an anonymous person says that is not factual can be injurious, because it is equivalent to imagination.
 
2012-04-25 11:47:24 AM  

Nem Wan: I'd prefer a finding that anonymous people automatically have no credibility and should be believed by no one, therefore nothing an anonymous person says that is not factual can be injurious, because it is equivalent to imagination.


Heh. The courts addressed that issue long before the Internet was a gleam in DARPA's eye.
No.
 
2012-04-25 11:58:26 AM  
fraudulent case handled by a fraudulent judge. common sense says that if you don't like something someone says about you on a website..... ignore them, go to a different site, or just turn off the computer and do something constructive.
 
2012-04-25 12:04:21 PM  
How fortunate the defamers are multimillionaires who will likely write a check soon.
 
2012-04-25 12:06:44 PM  

Frehar: Yore an a idiot.


/pet peeve
 
2012-04-25 12:08:53 PM  
These people [ **** * ***** * * * * * * * * ***** *** ****** * * ********* ** *********** ** * * ** * ***]
REDACTED BY MY LAWYER
 
2012-04-25 12:18:55 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: My mother is going to sue the bejeesus out of each and every one of you freaks.

/I bet she hasn't banged at least half of you. And none for money.


Well, she took my tip.


/and more.
 
2012-04-25 12:19:09 PM  

gravebayne2: fraudulent case handled by a fraudulent judge. common sense says that if you don't like something someone says about you on a website..... ignore them, go to a different site, or just turn off the computer and do something constructive.


See, if you bothered to read the article, you'd realize that:
1) A couple accused another couple of sexual crimes
2) The original accusation was proven in court to be baseless
3) The accusing couple and two of their employees then created 179 troll accounts and 25,000 posts declaring that the accused did commit the crimes (despite having been exonerated by due process).
4) The accused couple lost their home, business, and had to relocate as a direct result of this.

I think justice was served appropriately in this instance.
 
2012-04-25 12:31:15 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: 3) The accusing couple and two of their employees then created 179 troll accounts and 25,000 posts declaring that the accused did commit the crimes.


So, it IS like Fark.
 
2012-04-25 12:35:39 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gravebayne2: fraudulent case handled by a fraudulent judge. common sense says that if you don't like something someone says about you on a website..... ignore them, go to a different site, or just turn off the computer and do something constructive.

See, if you bothered to read the article, you'd realize that:
1) A couple accused another couple of sexual crimes
2) The original accusation was proven in court to be baseless
3) The accusing couple and two of their employees then created 179 troll accounts and 25,000 posts declaring that the accused did commit the crimes (despite having been exonerated by due process).
4) The accused couple lost their home, business, and had to relocate as a direct result of this.

I think justice was served appropriately in this instance.


yeah, a simple trolling is fairly obvious, and generally comes from less than a handful of people and in general there are many people arguing the other side. This is not trolling, it is a coordinated effort in using the internet to publicly defame.
 
2012-04-25 12:37:01 PM  
This reminds me of the New York subway shooter. IIRC, he has a huge civil judgment against him, and has never paid a penny. It seems like these people have won the right to be large scale jerks to the trolls for a long time. But if the couple think they are going to get much else, they are mistaken.
 
2012-04-25 12:54:02 PM  

jeanwearinfool: Frehar: Yore an a idiot.

/pet peeve


Yore an a idiot.

it was right the first time.

an apple, an orange,
a cow, a chicken
I before E except after C. Cmon!
 
2012-04-25 12:56:42 PM  

germ78: This is bad news for fark alts and trolls.

/my IP is 127.0.0.1


Better lookout, I just pinged you!
 
2012-04-25 01:25:08 PM  
www.wired.com
Tablo should take note and rake in the billions.
 
2012-04-25 01:31:57 PM  

cherryl taggart: This reminds me of the New York subway shooter. IIRC, he has a huge civil judgment against him, and has never paid a penny.


Yeah, and Goetz has been living in voluntary squalor doing charity work for the past 20 something years in order to avoid it.

It's like his whole life is defined by making extremely poor personal decisions for the sake of petty retribution.
 
2012-04-25 01:51:06 PM  

Julie Cochrane: The internet is not private. You are not anonymous. Your IP address can probably be tracked to you if you give the legal system or the government reason to care enough.

At a certain level, defamation is reason to care enough.

When someone gets prosecuted on serious charges, then cleared, but suffers serious damages to their reputation and serious losses in the process of clearing themselves, then that's the kind of situation that makes for enough defamation to get the system to care about tracking your IP address back to you.

Or, in this case, it makes the system care enough to provide the necessary government intimidation to require internet providers to cough up the IP address information to the concerned third parties.

Anonymity on the internet is a figleaf that you have only so long as you stay unimportant enough for your identity not to matter---OR you have to be technically astute, creative, lucky, and exercise foresight. It also helps to have resources of some sort.

Most people don't have enough of importance (even importance to themselves) to say to have it matter that much to them. 99.9% of trolls are just in love with the sound of their own "voice."

Where trolls run afoul of defamation law is when their self-importance and their desire for attention leads them to make false accusations against others---the the troll gets unlucky enough to be believed.

Trolls make false accusations all the time. People made false accusations all the time before the internet, and for the same AW reasons. Generally nobody bothers with a defamation suit unless people start believing the lies so that the lies are hurting your life or have done a lot of ruin to your life.

Trolls are just like non-internet AWs when they spread nasty lies about somebody. The trolls get sued when regular people with common sense start believing the lies.

Oh---That word "troll"---my 16 year old daughter tells me the meaning of the word has shifted. Twenty years ago, a troll was a sociopathi ...


Most of this is simply your incorrect opinion, and the fact that you cite a teenage girl as a source of anything is hilarious.
 
2012-04-25 03:07:09 PM  

Julie Cochrane: Oh---That word "troll"---my 16 year old daughter tells me the meaning of the word has shifted. Twenty years ago, a troll was a sociopathic asshole who would start off a discussion sounding like a member of the opposition who was almost reasonable but whose real purpose there was to gradually punch people's buttons until they were frothing at the mouth. Someone who'd argue a point until it was disproven, then drop it and go on to another point until that was disproven, and then who'd go back to start and re-iterate the first point as if the first discussion had never happened.


Those are now known as "concern trolls." Other symptoms are having an elaborate back-story that continually changes as the topic demands, often multiple alts with different ones. Your daughter's artful trolls are rare and beautiful, and hardly representative of troll culture.

Far more common are shock trolls, who just anonymously spew negative vulgarity as loudly as they can, and agenda trolls, who bring their pet off-topic cause into every single discussion and have a habit of completely destroying tight-knit communities if not banned. Closely related are the bitter trolls, who at least are on-topic but just as angry, and the combative trolls, who will argue about any topic, especially living to disagree with particular people. None of them are the least bit new or artistic, and the only time they get a pass is from people who are entrenched on a "side" of a particular issue.

Dive bars are a great place to admire every category of troll in real-life, along with the real-life consequences of being one.
 
2012-04-25 03:26:26 PM  

jso2897: I have never been able to wrap my head around the "ignore" function. When I decide that somebody is a bore or a jerk, I just ignore them in the old fashioned sense - I don't pay them any mind. It does not offend me that jerks, fools, and assholes are permitted to speak here - in fact, I approve of that philosophy.
If some clown is talking shiat on the bus, I ignore him. If some clown does the same on Fark, I do the same. And I don't need an "app" to do it, either.


I agree with you completely... My Fark ignore list is also empty... But, if some people feel the need to have Fark screen out people they don't like hearing from, then I'm fine with them doing so, as long as they shut the fark up about it! We don't need to hear that you just put someone on ignore... We don't need to hear you complaining that someone else is quoting someone you put on ignore so now you're seeing their posts... (Especially since that one is easily solved by correctly setting your Fark preferences!) Just do it quietly and move on with your sheltered life...
 
2012-04-25 03:29:35 PM  

RobSeace: JonZoidberg: sniderman: meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

[i49.tinypic.com image 396x309]

/lawsuit ahoy!

Please don't respond to meow, it makes meow's post show up on my FARK.

For fark's sake people, learn to use Fark's ignore features if you're going to ignore people! There are settings that let you ignore posts from people who are not on your ignore list who quote people who are on it... Posting stupid shiat like this telling people not to respond to someone that you don't like is rude, selfish, and assholic... Not everyone hates the same people you hate...


Don't worry, I'm going to favorite you as "strangely angry cocksucker."
 
2012-04-25 03:42:30 PM  

JonZoidberg: Don't worry, I'm going to favorite you as "strangely angry cocksucker."


1.bp.blogspot.com

The anger wasn't really directed solely at you, but you were merely the last straw in a long line of people doing the same thing, which finally drove me over the edge... The last person I saw complain about it, I actually calmly and helpfully detailed exactly how to get to the proper profile settings and change them, only to see them continue complaining about the same person being quoted in another thread later... So, yeah, I'm out of patience...
 
2012-04-25 07:43:56 PM  

Durendal: I was going to react with incredulity, but then I read further...

The jury in the defamation lawsuit heard that since the ultimately unfounded rape allegations were heard in 2008, a total of 25,000 comments on 70 threads on Topix message boards were posted onto the Internet.

Christ, that's a lot of posts.

They discovered that 70 percent of the postings on Topix came from only a narrow number of IP addresses.

As it turns out, a handful of people responsible for over 15,000 of these. Now that is getting well above the level of your garden-variety internet asshat and going into the level of total lifeless trolltard.

The amount is still absurd, but then again, the article doesn't go into great detail as to how this affected them in real life (apparently it did), or whether it was the news stories about the charges in general that forced them to move or a result of this kind of asshattery. If it was a direct result, then I understand the amount demanded. If it's not really clear what stacked up, then this is a stupid amount of money.


You know, in this specific case, I think that I have to put a little faith in the Jury system. Twelve people collectively should have been able to work this out.
 
2012-04-25 07:56:44 PM  
Now they can rape like Kings!
 
2012-04-26 06:21:39 AM  
Saying that someone is an idiot, dumbass, jerk, etc. is an opinion. And therefore, though the person saying it may be what they're calling the other person, it's protected free speech.

Persistently saying that someone commited crimes they didn't commit, as was the case here, is slander. Slander is not and should never be protected free speech. Refusing to accept evidence that the accused is innocent (It's flawed, a lie, faked, etc.) is no excuse.
 
2012-04-26 07:42:31 AM  

Magorn: There used to be a poster on Usenet forums named Joe Dunphy who was the international gold standard for trolls. It didn't matter WHAT the topic was, Turkish history, child rearing, Unix networking, if Joe wandered into the forum, within days there would be a pitched, vitriolic flame war raging in the forum with Joe on one side and nearly everybody else on the other.

After a while I just assumed this was some sort fo high-concept Andy Kaufman-esque performance art for him and just chuckled when I ran across another of his 'gems". Then, completely by chance, I met him in a bar in Chicago. He was just the same in real life as he was on the internet, two seconds away from boiling over with anger about nearly any topic imaginable. How he managed not to get his ass kicked on a regular basis by drunken bar patrons I will never know.


I used to be a moderator on a third party discussion board. We had one guy who had formed some kind of attachment to baiting specific of our users. I guess in his weird and twisted mind he thought of them as his friends or something. Or something.

Anyway, he wanted to troll this specific group of users.

So no matter what we did to ban this guy, he would keep coming back and re-joining under aliases. And since it wasn't a pay site and we had a set-in-stone policy that we weren't going to ask people for a credit card or something to verify identity, we were stuck.

So we were limited to identifying this guy by his particular subject matter preferences, his textual idiosyncrasies, his logical blind spots, and his particular preferences of people to target. Also his geographical area.

He would always swear it wasn't him.

We would block whole ranges of IP addresses linked to hotspots of coffee shops around where this guy lived, because of dynamic IP addressing.

And yes, he was that much trouble, that he made himself worth blocking whole ranges of IP addresses and too bad for any other user that tried to reach us from that Starbucks. lol

And we may have occasionally blocked some schmuck from a case of mistaken identity, but this guy had some pretty specific biscuit textual biscuit tics. If you biscuit biscuit biscuit know what I mean.

/sorry
//woman with Tourettes is actually cool and courageous
///chocolate-chip biscuit
 
2012-04-26 09:28:10 AM  

Nrokreffefp: Julie Cochrane: The internet is not private. You are not anonymous. Your IP address can probably be tracked to you if you give the legal system or the government reason to care enough.

At a certain level, defamation is reason to care enough.

When someone gets prosecuted on serious charges, then cleared, but suffers serious damages to their reputation and serious losses in the process of clearing themselves, then that's the kind of situation that makes for enough defamation to get the system to care about tracking your IP address back to you.

Or, in this case, it makes the system care enough to provide the necessary government intimidation to require internet providers to cough up the IP address information to the concerned third parties.

Anonymity on the internet is a figleaf that you have only so long as you stay unimportant enough for your identity not to matter---OR you have to be technically astute, creative, lucky, and exercise foresight. It also helps to have resources of some sort.

Most people don't have enough of importance (even importance to themselves) to say to have it matter that much to them. 99.9% of trolls are just in love with the sound of their own "voice."

Where trolls run afoul of defamation law is when their self-importance and their desire for attention leads them to make false accusations against others---the the troll gets unlucky enough to be believed.

Trolls make false accusations all the time. People made false accusations all the time before the internet, and for the same AW reasons. Generally nobody bothers with a defamation suit unless people start believing the lies so that the lies are hurting your life or have done a lot of ruin to your life.

Trolls are just like non-internet AWs when they spread nasty lies about somebody. The trolls get sued when regular people with common sense start believing the lies.

Oh---That word "troll"---my 16 year old daughter tells me the meaning of the word has shifted. Twenty years ago, a troll ...


That's like, your opinion, man!

/I actually agree with most of what he says
//who uses the net more than 16 year old girls these days?
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report