Investigator to Internet Defamers: "I'll find you"

 

[caption id="attachment_10985" align="alignleft" width="215" caption="New York Detective"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - "I think it sends a very clear message to people both in this state and throughout the United States that the Internet is not to be used for means to destroy people whether intentionally or unintentionally."  

Attorney Brett Jaffe, who represented Kauffman Racing Equipment in an Internet case underlined the seriousness of using the web to defame.  The Ohio Supreme court decided the case in June 2010 in favor of his client who had pursued an out-of-state resident for defamation.  The court decided for the plaintiff, stating that no one from out of state or in state can defame an Ohio resident. 

More and more cases are cropping up where the identity of an Internet defamer has been found, investigated and brought to justice.  In some states like Louisiana it is a criminal offense.   There are 17 other states where that is the case.

There are investigators who say, "I can find you" and do if you happen to be one of those people who thinks it is either funny or revenge can be taken by posting negative material that is destructive about a business or another person. 

The problem of defamation on the Internet is widespread, and although it happens frequently and often involving people who might be fringe types, remarks can carry across the Internet and remain there for an indeterminate amount of time.

 

Bitten Bound, a media source covering celebrity stuff, reported  on a case regarding Vogue model Liskula Cohen who became outraged at the remarks of an anonymous blogger. Cohen maintained she had been defamed by the blogger who posted photos of her, along with derogatory comments. The blog was entitled “Skanks in NYC.”  Google was the target of the lawsuit, and the plaintiff won.

In rendering a decision against Google and requiring the Internet industry giant to reveal the blogger’s identity, Judge Madden who rendered the decision in the case declared, “The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions.”

The Seattle Post Intelligencer examines the “Skank Case” as it is now famously called, maintaining how privacy groups will likely be especially concerned about a precedent set by this case. The court had ordered Google to identify the blogger who had made what was alleged to be defamatory comments. The issue of defamation wasn’t ruled on, but the blogger’s service responsibility was examined instead. 

Nearly four years ago USA Today reported a Florida jury awarded a woman $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman. Carey Bock was found guilty of posting messages on the Internet accusing Sue Scheff of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." Scheff declared she had pursued the lawsuit even though she knew Bock didn’t have any money because, "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

Another case was Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995)where someone posted an accusation about Daniel Porush, the President of Stratton Oakmont, that Porush was “soon to be proven criminal” and that the company itself was a “cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired.” Porush, through his company, argued that the fact Prodigy had editorial control over content it could be classified as a publisher and thereafter had responsibility to filter material that was defamatory. The court awarded damages to Stratton Oakmont against Prodigy.

Last year, the Huffington Post and other media outlets wrote about how Sarah Palin, through her attorney, threatened to serve papers on a blogger, accusing the blogger of defamation for posting material about Sarah Palin’s marriage and a possible divorce. A number of writers throughout the Internet world pounced on the blogger’s story and spread it, bringing consternation and concern to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. This incident revealed that whether left or right of the political spectrum, even the politicians are considering lawsuits to stop what they consider verbal abuse over the Internet.

Are all cases pursued like this given a judgment for the plaintiff? A review of court cases by Stanford University online reveals some plaintiffs lose, and the cases themselves sometimes have underlying issues that may not be known by the public at the outset when the case is first filed. On the other hand, the cases do present questions, and concerned experts say the cases might make a difference in the use of the Internet, since they underline the seriousness of posting defamatory material, even if it is done anonymously. The cases also reveal issues of consistency and the fact that responsibility and blame are yet a part of the controversy over what one can or cannot write about others.

Defamation over the Internet was written about by this author a year ago after observations of this issue occurring on citizen journal websites.  It was decided to review some of the material that had defamed others and post it as an educational article within a citizen journal community. 

"Provision for anonymous free discourse has to be safeguarded at all costs. Still like all noble things open to misuse," remarks Michael Roberts, a case analyst and specialist in assessing defamation on the Internet and pursuing it to aid in judgment.   

On material previous citied, Roberts discusses how "lowlifes" and "anti-social" people will use anonymity to make false assertions and slanderous assaults.  He asserts that most people understand that is what can happen on the Internet, but it raises questions at the same time about what he refers to as "unchecked anonymous online libel."  He also tells us what extra harm can be caused by unchecked defamation besides the emotional impact felt from the attack: