A warning on internet stalkers.

[Gob]

Unfortunately Lo has reported me to my employers.

As a consequence of this I am no longer employed, I am now on benefits.

We will have to sell up some stuff, the car etc, so we can get by. We are having to move out of our lovely home, and move in with Mother Hen.

We will have to pull Hatch out of college, as we can no longer afford the fees, her University application will have to be deferred. Trips home to visit my elderly mother, and my family, are now out of the question. My work, treating young people with psychosis and schizophrenia, was a great joy to me, and I like to feel I made some difference in the lives of these young and very ill people. I'll miss it dreadfully.




Or at least I'm assuming that was what she was hoping for.


Truth of the matter is Lo did put in a complaint.

Unfortunately for her, her complaint was so wrong in so many respects, contained so many errors, and was aimed so badly, that I can only assume she was intoxicated when she wrote it. I'm not going to spell out the three incredible huge mistakes she made, thigh slappingly funny as they may be. Nor will I help educate her by posting the dozen or more smaller, but still very funny, errors she made.

But this is the sort of person you are dealing with. This is the sort of person that has kept email exchanges from my wife dating back years to ‘use’ them against her. You may remember her recent swipes about dope.

If you are in contact with Lo off board, be warned, this is the sort of action she may take against you if you do not fulfil her needs. Believe me when I tell you that you can never fulfil her needs.

You have been warned.


Gob.

[The Hen]

Lo, to say I consider you as low as scum is downplaying the important role of scum in this world.

To hear you post about your stalking concerns, continually post about your incredibly stuffed up life, whilst having you attempt to fuck my life up, was one of the biggest interwebs shocks of my life.

You are lucky that Gob has a sound and level head on his shoulders.

Your user name would be "Shit On a Stick" if it were up to me.

I'd love to hear your explanation for your scum actions.

I'd love to hear you apologise as well.

It's over to you now, kid. How will this be my fault?


To the whole Board.


This is Lo's 'Stalking issue' as far as I am concerned.

She has been stalking me and my family for two years now, here and on other Boards.

So Board, what should be done about stalkers?

Do we ban them? How far do they go to trying to ruin your life before you stop being quiet about it?

Knowing this has been hanging over Gob's head, I do feel rather pleased that I have been able to control myself for so long without igniting.

Edited twice for fucking commas, dahling.

[Sean]

Hmmm... I replied but my reply has vanished. Probably my fault...

Seriously?

What could you possibly have said/written to her which she thinks is any business of your employers?

I think you'd better take some stress leave!

[The Hen]

Seriously. It happened.

This has been hanging over Gob's head for sometime and yet nothing has changed other than Gob has her on ignore, and until yesterday I was rarely responding to her.

[Sean]

My opinion Hen? She'd want to have a damn good explanation for taking online issues to Gob's employer.
Otherwise it's adi-fucking-os time!

The fact that this has been hanging over his head would suggest that this has caused at least some discomfort to his working life. That cannot be tolerated!

[The Hen]

I agree.

It has been shit.

I am only glad we had each other, and a damn good sense of humour between the two of us, to get through it.

[Gob]

I'd be grateful if some of our US based legal types would be willing to answer a few questions I have? In private, and confidence, of course.

[The Hen]

Seriously?

What could you possibly have said/written to her which she thinks is any business of your employers?

Didn't you realise Gob? This forum counts as part of your job...

It is unprofessional to psycho-babble, and a violation of confidence.

Exactly, Sean.

This forum is part of Gob's job as far as Lo is concerned.

[Sean]

Yep, and next thing she'll say is that I agreed with her!

[Daisy]

There are no words to describe how ridiculous this whole situation has become!

Is it time to be openly debating whether or not loCA be banned permanently from the Plan B board?

[Sean]

Actually Dais, I believe that the situation has gone from ridiculous to very serious indeed.

I would like to hear one good reason from anybody here as to why Gob should allow a person who has attempted to threaten his livelihood continue to be a member of his board. One good reason why he shouldn't ban her without any debate, poll or vote.

Just one...

[Daisy]

If I'm honest I was about ready to just hit the ban button as soon as I read this.

But, I'd like to see her try to explain her actions here first.

I can't imagine anyone would disagree with a ban this time.

[loCAtek]

~meh, then I should refer you to the Australian legal firm, that counseled me on that.

[Daisy]

Explain yourself loCA?

Why did you think any of this was an appropriate way to deal with the breakdown of an internet friendship?

[PMS Princess]

FWIW-Here are some links and good information on cyber-harassment and libel laws. Sorry it's so lengthy and unformatted.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/leg ... defamation

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.


What if I change the person's name?

To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.

Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more.

The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):

Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
Calling an attorney a "crook"
Describing a woman as a call girl
Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son
Not-libelous:

Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer"
Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

How do courts look at the context of a statement?

For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.

Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).

What is "Libel Per Se"?

When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.

What is a "false light" claim?

Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

Internet defamation refers to false or reputation-harming statements made on the Internet. It is a specific form of defamation, which is a cause of action available when an individual makes an express or implied claim about someone that is designed to produce a negative reaction. In other words, if Joe falsely claims Sally is a thief on his web page, Sally could potentially sue for Internet defamation.

In order to make a case for Internet defamation, the standard elements of defamation must be proven. There are two different tests to determine whether defamation occurred, depending on who is being defamed. Individuals are protected from defamation more so than companies or businesses. A private citizen who is defamed need only prove that the false and/or derogatory statements were made, and that he suffered harm to his reputation as a result.


http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-prove- ... ssment.htm

Cyber harassment is the crime of using Internet media, such as online messaging and Web pages, to intimidate or distress a specific individual. Proving cyber harassment requires creating solid documentation of the offender's actions, as well as finding reliable witnesses if possible. A professional opinion regarding the emotional effects of the harassment is also necessary.

Whatever form cyber harassment takes — it can range from false pictures and ads posted on your behalf, to sending you threatening messages — keep records. Print copies of such emails, blog posts, Web messages, and others directly from the website itself, using the print option from your Web browser’s Print button or File menu. This ensures the inclusion of essential details that might otherwise be left out when copying and pasting the text. Do not delete any such messages you might have from the offender. If you have engaged in online correspondence with the offender, preserve and print copies of your replies as well.


http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-report-cyber-crime.htm

The best way to report cyber crime depends on your specific circumstances, including the type of crime committed and the country, state, or province that you live in. Cyber crime is a broad term, encompassing a variety of offenses involving computers or technology, and while some of these offenses are handled by special government agencies or departments, many full under the jurisdiction of more than one government entity. In the US, a special organization known as the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) accepts complaints of cyber crime involving at least one US citizen and forwards them to the appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency. You may also want to report cyber crime of certain types to more than agency, to local authorities, or even to independent organizations

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-cyber- ... t-laws.htm

Harassment, in legal terms, is usually defined as continued and/or systematic unwanted actions by a party toward a victim. This may include threats, demands, or coercion, and may be based on an individual dislike of the person or on the race, nationality, political or religious beliefs, or sex of the person being harassed. Stalking generally includes harassment with the addition of a credible threat to the victim. Bullying is a relatively new legal term which is frequently interchangeable with harassment with the addition of the requirement that the victim is a minor.

With the advent of the Internet came cyber crimes, including cyber harassment. Cyber harassment is simply harassment carried out through electronic means. Common examples of this type of harassment include repeated unwanted or threatening e-mails, instant messages, or social network contacts. Cyber harassment may also take the form of bogs or entire websites designed to upset, bother or verbally attack a victim.

Existing harassment laws can sometimes be used to prosecute cyber harassment, but many jurisdictions have enacted separate cyber harassment laws designed to specifically address the act of harassing someone online. Cyber harassment laws may also be used in conjunction with existing laws, such as laws that protect victims of a crime from contact by the offender. Violation of a no contact order, for example, may be charged as a violation alone or may be charged under existing cyber harassment laws.

In many cases, the victim of cyber harassment knows who the perpetrator of the crime is, but sometimes the perpetrator may be hiding behind the shield created by the Internet. Another advantage of cyber harassment laws are that they often provide legal mechanisms for obtaining the identity of the perpetrator. Cyber harassment laws have put pressure on Internet providers, social network sites, and other websites to require identifying information when a user logs on or utilizes the site or service.

Penalties for violating cyber harassment laws vary widely by jurisdiction. In most cases, cyber harassment is charged as a misdemeanor. The more serious crime of cyberstalking, however, may be a felony in some jurisdictions and punishable by a lengthy prison sentence.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-dif ... -libel.htm

http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx
You file complaint with them and they forward it to the appropriate authorities local and federal.

[Reality Bytes]

I completely agree with Daisy, how on earth was this appropriate Loca?

What "Australian legal firm"? WTF did you think you were doing?

So you and Hen aren't friends anymore - so what? Fucksake it doesn't give you the right to do this Loca, you either fix it, live with it or simply move on to pastures new, you don't obsess and you dont fuck with their families and off board lives.

[Gob]

Thanks all for the support, it is much appreciated.

[Guinevere]

Holy shit, that is behavior completely beyond the pale, beyond the realm of any kind of decency.

Hen, I apologize for my comments to you yesterday, I did not know you were dealing with this. I'm sorry.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Get Jarl in here with Guin and that'll be a second time we all three agree.

I've changed my vote - the debates have decided me - ban her (and no more conversations about it; WGAF why she did it?)

Meade

[loCAtek]

I think Mr. Gob is confusing filing a lawsuit, with filing a complaint.

However, I have not to been notified that this case is closed; and will call later to see if it is wise to comment at this time.