↓↓↓ GET YOUR AD HERE TODAY! ↓↓↓

  • How to Abolish Child Sexual Abuse - Begin by asking: Is That a Sexual Predator Hiding Behind That Badge? (08/16/2013)
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
Showing posts with label Defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defamation. Show all posts

Sunday, May 26, 2013

OH - Man fights Facebook accusations of rape and being a pedophile

Original Article

05/23/2013

By Rob Wiercinski

TOLEDO - [name withheld] says being threatened by a total stranger was his first clue something wasn't right.

"I was walking at Highland Park yesterday, a guy comes up to me and said, ‘You shouldn't be around here, this is a kids' area, you're a rapist.' I'm like, ‘Excuse me, no I'm not.'"

On Monday, someone posting as Nicole McCarthy posted on Facebook [name withheld]'s picture, saying, "He's wanted by Toledo Police for 4 counts of rape. He raped three little girls and his own son."

It's a serious allegation which [name withheld] says isn't true.

"My girlfriend told me it was on Facebook," he said. "I was like, ‘Okay, what's going on? Send me the link.' Then my friend told me about it, too, so I went to the link. I was like, ‘This is not true.'"

While Toledo Police say [name withheld] is not wanted on rape charges, that one post has been shared more than 20,000 times.

"This is crazy, I'm scared to even walk down the street now because all of the drama that's been going on," he said.

According to [name withheld], Nicole McCarthy is a fake account set up by the mother of his son, and he's hoping to clear his name and put this in the past.

"It's getting aggravating because I'm trying to live my life, I'm not trying to do anything bad, I've changed my life around."



Friday, May 24, 2013

UK - Dad falsely accused of being paedophile on Facebook found hanged

Original Article

This is what happens when you have self proclaimed "saviors of children" who harass many people claiming they are "pedophiles" but who are not. Innocent people lose their lives. There are many groups online who claim to "out" pedophiles, but they do nothing except break the law, harass people, and make libelous claims.  The person or persons responsible should be sent to prison for murder.

05/24/2013

By Steve White

A dad found hanged in a cemetery was driven to suicide after he was falsely accused on Facebook of being a paedophile, his family claim.

Steven Rudderham, 48, was traumatised when his name, address and photograph were published online, with a message calling him a “dirty perv”.

Within 15 minutes, the message had been shared hundreds of times and he received death threats via the social network.

An inquest heard he was found hanged in the graveyard three days later.

His daughter Bethany Beaumont told the hearing: “They’ve destroyed an innocent life for no reason. It was disgusting.”

His mother Carol Matthews said: “I want to know why someone did something like that. I hope they rot in hell. It took a person’s life. We will never get over it.”

Mr Rudderham was a bricklayer and was working towards examinations as a building site manager before the internet accusations, an inquest in Hull heard.

The family explained that Steven spotted a 14-year-old girl giving out contact details to a 60-year-old man on Facebook and added a comment warning her not to give out her details to people she didn’t know.

Steven’s father, David Matthews, 66, said that another user then made a copy of his son’s profile picture and posted it with a banner labelling him a paedophile.

David, who lives with his wife Carol, 69, in Hull, said: “Within 15 minutes over 100 people had shared the picture of my son and it went viral.”

"Steven was getting death threats and threats that if he was spotted on the streets that he’d be castrated or hung.”

"He hated paedophiles so to be called one himself was devastating to him.”

Bethany, 19, told the inquest: “There were people who had known him for years commenting on it, he was so upset.”

"He stayed at my house that night because of what the comments were saying, about people coming to his house and smashing it up.”

The darts fan, who proudly posed with top pro Phil “the Power” Taylor, saw Bethany every day and she realised the profound effect the accusations were having on him.

She said: “He couldn’t believe it. He just looked at the wall and wouldn’t eat. It was like someone had ripped his life apart.”

Mr Rudderham discussed giving police a memory stick with evidence but it was recovered from Mr Rudderham's body. Police have also seized a computer hard drive.

Mr Rudderham's family say he served time in prison in 2010 for fighting but had no convictions for sex offences.

The inquest heard there had been no evidence of medical depression in the months before his death. No drugs and no significant amounts of alcohol were found.

Recording a verdict of suicide, Coroner Paul Marks said: “The medical cause of death was hanging.”

"He was actively pursuing a qualification to improve his status and job prospects. In the last few days of his life, he received a pejorative message on a social networking site which greatly troubled him.”

Police confirmed they are considering an investigation into the Facebook posts.

Mr Rudderham is said to have reported comments to Facebook who removed them.


Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Trial by Facebook - Dangerous Trends

Original Article

This kind of stuff happens all the time, and not just on Facebook. Facebook pretty much condones vigilantism. We've seen many photos, comments, etc, and flagged them, and we get a note back from Facebook that it wasn't removed because it doesn't violate their Terms of Service, which is a crock!

04/10/2013

We’ve seen it a lot lately. Posts identifying “guilty” individuals imploring others to identify, condemn, even exact revenge, on the people identified.

It’s called Trial by Facebook, or Trial by Social Media and it involves the posting of content on Facebook or other social media that identifies and condemns individuals allegedly guilty of a crime and implores others to share the content, thus exposing the accused to an angry public.

Such content goes further than to simply lay out the facts of an incident. Trial by Social Media/Facebook content condemns and judges, often unfairly or without proof. And it is for that reason it is potentially dangerous and unjust. Such posts play judge, jury and executioner.

Trial by Facebook content will often explicitly condone vigilante justice, but even if it does not then it will always – to some extent – encourage it implicitly.

Resisting this type of behaviour can often be difficult. Often the people identified in the photos could arguably deserve being shamed in public arena, and users may feel the victims of crimes deserve to see it happen.

Often Trial by Facebook/Social Media posts result from knee-jerk and impassioned reactions where we become the unwitting victims of our own emotions, only seeing what makes up feel better in the short term rather than looking at the big picture.

However we live in a world with legal justice systems, and whether you agree or disagree with your legal system or with a specific sentence handed out, there is still never a place in any civilised world for vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is exactly what Trial by Facebook promotes and encourages.

And if that isn’t reason enough to stop you posting Trial by Social Media content, then here is a whole bunch of other reasons.

Inaccurate Content? Trial by Social media posts can often accumulate thousands, even hundreds of thousands of shares. And sadly the vast majority of people who share this type of content will do so without any verification or proof that it is accurate.



Tuesday, February 19, 2013

NY - USA FAIR Demands Laura Ahearn of Parents for Megan's Law Retract NAMBLA Smear

Original Article

02/19/2013

By Shana Rowan

USA FAIR, Inc. (Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry) today demanded that Laura Ahearn, Executive Director of Parents for Megan's Law, immediately retract a statement she made to "Riverside Local" reporter Denise Civiletti that Shana Rowan, USA FAIR's Executive Director, is a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The accusation was made in an article published Friday, February 15th regarding the recent $2.7 million sole-sourced contract (PDF) awarded by Suffolk County to Parents For Megan's Law to help monitor the more than 1,000 former sex offenders residing in the county.

When asked to respond to USA FAIR's concerns about the propriety of a private victims’ advocacy group being granted quasi-policing authority and its lack of law enforcement or sex offender management experience, Ahearn responded that Rowan was "part of NAMBLA." When Ahearn was asked for proof, she responded, "Just search her name on the Internet."

"The allegation that I am an advocate for man-boy love would be laughable, if it weren't so slanderous. I have never been part of NAMBLA. I find pedophilia to be repulsive and I have always supported age of consent laws. For Ms. Ahearn to take an accusation made on an anonymous hate-site on the web and repeat it without any independent verification only underscores why USA FAIR believes she is unqualified to administer the Suffolk County contract. Monitoring former offenders requires objectivity and placing a high value on evidence, neither of which Ms. Ahern has demonstrated by her unfounded personal attack," said Rowan.

"Rather than respond to our legitimate concerns about Parents for Megan's Law's qualifications to have been awarded this contract, Ms. Ahearn chose to repeat a lie about me and to tell a half-truth about my fiancé, stating that he "raped a six year old child". Yes, his offense did involve a six year old child, but Ms. Ahearn conveniently left out that he was 12 at the time and also the victim of sexual abuse. To Laura Ahearn, context does not matter if it fails to serve her cause," concluded Rowan.

Rowan became active in sex offender law reform when she became engaged to a longtime friend she first met in high school who is on the registry.


Sunday, February 17, 2013

NY - Here comes the attack!

Original Article

02/16/2013

By Shana Rowan

USA FAIR is engaging the media on the inappropriate $2.7 million contract that Suffolk County is awarding to Parents For Megan’s Law to monitor former sex offenders.

Extreme ideological victims advocate groups should not be paid public funds to monitor the very people they demonize. It sets a disturbing precedent that we do not want to see spread across the country.

This is the first time that Parents For Megan’s Law has been directly challenged by the family members of people required to register and its Executive Director, Laura Ahearn, has responded by falsely accusing me of being a member of NAMBLA. Ahearn made this baseless accusation to “Riverhead Local” in an article on Suffolk County’s new misguided approach to sex offender management. You can read it HERE.

This is the “big smear” directed at anyone who was ever involved with RSOL – an organization that supports age of consent laws and was never affiliated with NAMBLA. The mere notion that parents and spouses of registrants are activists to promote man-boy love would be laughable – if it wasn’t so slanderous.

Yet, this attack on me only underscores USA FAIRs concern with Laura Ahearn being given a quasi-policing role. Law enforcement needs to deal in facts and evidence and Ms. Ahearn has a poor history with both. We have tried to get her to take down misleading recidivism statistics from her website to no avail – and now she makes a damning false attack on me based on a blog post by “Evil-Unveiled” an anonymous vigilante hate group. That is not the behavior of a fair minded and objective person who should be entrusted with monitoring other people’s lives.

We will continue to shine the light on this contract, which was sole-sourced by Suffolk County without any opportunity for an open or competitive process – because as they say… sunshine is the best disinfectant.

You can read this contract HERE (PDF).


Friday, February 15, 2013

NY - New sex offender bill signed, but questions persist

Original Article

02/15/2013

By DENISE CIVILETTI

County Executive Steve Bellone has signed a bill passed last week that ends "clustered" housing of registered sex offenders, putting an end to the two trailers used to shelter the county's homeless sex offenders. The legislature's minority leader, Republican John Kennedy of Nesconset still questions why the new law had to be pushed through so quickly and wonders aloud whether the $900,000 annual contract granted to a private contractor should have been subject to a competitive proposal process.

Though hailed by Suffolk Police Chief James Burke as "the most comprehensive law in the nation" for dealing with registered sex offenders — as well as by East End legislators delighted that the seven-year saga of the county trailers in Riverside and Westhampton will finally come to an end — both the law and the process by which it was enacted have drawn sharp criticism.

Civil rights advocates question the constitutionality of vesting a private entity with quasi-law enforcement authority to undertake intensive home surveillance of registered offenders. Others, including the legislative minority leader, Republican Jack Kennedy of Nesconset, are troubled by the hasty adoption of the law and the $900,000-a-year contract it awards to a the Stony Brook-based Parents for Megan's Law group, without first soliciting competitive proposals.
- It's a conflict of interest!  This is like having drug dealers help solve the "war on drugs."

The county executive pushed the bill through the legislature in a single day, submitting it to lawmakers on the morning of their Feb. 5 general meeting. It was called for a public hearing and submitted to a vote that very afternoon.

That flies in the face of democracy and sound public policy, according to the director of the Suffolk chapter of the N.Y. Civil Liberties Union.

"The bill was introduced, updated, subject to a public hearing and voted on within three or four hours," NYCLU Suffolk director Amol Sindha said in an interview this week.

Bellone's office issued a certificate of necessity, which allows the legislature to forgo its normal committee process in deliberating a bill. The CN, as it is known, is "a time-sensitive request" by the county executive on a resolution that requires "immediate consideration," according to the county's website.

But use of a CN is a sensitive subject around the horseshoe in the legislative auditorium — and one that doesn't sit well at all with Kennedy. At last week's meeting, Kennedy questioned the need to circumvent the committee process. He was joined in his reservations by members of the Republican caucus. In the end, they all voted to approve the measure.
- So with them all passing the bill, even though they bypassed the process, they are setting a precedent that we are sure, will be used more and more to bypass congress.  This is a dangerous situation!  If they had an issue with how the bill was put forward, they should've not passed it, and told the author to follow the standard process!

This week found the minority leader second-guessing himself in that decision.

"There is much ambiguity in the administrative code and the county charter," Kennedy said in a phone interview Wednesday. "We have, in essence, empowered the county executive to utilize this. But it clearly is supposed to be for a situation that's emergent," Kennedy said.

This was not such a situation, but instead was one of political expediency, he said.

Then why vote to approve? Lawmakers, including Kennedy, passed the measure unanimously — by a voice vote.
- Exactly!

Kennedy said both Bellone and Parents for Megan's Law executive director Laura Ahearn lobbied hard to get legislators on board with the bill and approval by CN. Kennedy said he knew most, if not all, other legislators would support Bellone's effort on this hot-button issue.
- Yeah, they just follow the leader, no questions asked!

"There was a sense of inevitability," Kennedy said.


And he did not want to stand alone in opposition to a bill that would be embraced by the public as a "get tough" law on sex offenders. Such opposition comes with a price tag, as he learned the hard way, he said. Kennedy cast the lone no vote on the county's residency restrictions law for registered sex offenders. It was a hugely unpopular vote and he lost the support of his party because of it. He found himself in a tough primary battle to win nomination for re-election.
- Yes, he didn't have the balls, and doesn't want to upset those who vote for him.  This one paragraph sums it all up!  Don't rock the boat!

"It was no fun," said Kennedy, who reiterated his belief that the residency law is unconstitutional. That issue is currently before a court and officials acknowledged last week the county is likely to lose the case — as has every other municipality that's enacted restrictions on where registered sex offenders can live.

"We put this feel-good pablum out there for the public, making them think they'll be safer," Kennedy said. "And now we've spent a tremendous amount of taxpayer money to defend bad legislation." The Republican leader said he's concerned the county is going down the same path with the new law, dubbed the "Community Protection Act."

Of particular concern, Kennedy said, is that the law empowers a private organization with responsibility for verifying the home addresses of the county's registered sex offenders.

Equally troubling, Kennedy said, is the approval of a $2.7 million, three-year contract with a private entity without details of the contractor's responsibilities being disclosed to lawmakers and without submitting the contract to any sort of competitive process, Kennedy said.

"Bellone will say they're a sole source provider and bring it before the waiver committee," Kennedy said. That will allow the administration to circumvent the county's procurement policy that otherwise requires the county to issue a request for proposals for all contracts in excess of $25,000 (PDF), he said. "That's the only way they could thread the needle."

"I wouldn't deem Parents for Megan's Law the only entity in Suffolk County to do what the contract requires," Kennedy said. "And we don't even know what that is. There's nothing defined yet," he said. "But there are other victim services agencies in this county."
- A private company should not be doing this.  It's a law enforcement issue and that is why the police have jobs, to enforce the laws.

"By local law and after public debate, the county has satisfied the procurement guidelines under state and local law for this type of contract," Vanessa Baird-Streeter, a spokesperson for Bellone said in an email yesterday.

The public had an opportunity to comment on the measure at both a presentation given to the legislature's public safety committee on Thursday, Jan. 31 and at the general meeting the following Tuesday, Feb. 5.

But the bill itself was not available to the public until the afternoon of the Feb. 5 hearing. It was not posted on the legislature's website until after it was adopted.
- Exactly, so how can anyone comment on a bill they haven't even read yet?

"To call it a public hearing is essentially a farce," NYCLU's Sinha said.

Others, like Kennedy, are troubled by the bill's lack of specifics about the duties of Parents for Megan's Law under the $900,000 annual contract.

Forensic psychologist Bill O'Leary, who, under contract with the state, works with registered sex offenders, points out that 95 percent of sex crimes against children are committed by people who are not on any registry.

"If we really want to protect our children from sexual predators, we need to address that instead of focusing all our resources on the registered offenders who re-offend, which represents a statistically small portion of those crimes," O'Leary said in an interview.

O'Leary made the same argument to lawmakers at the hearing last week, pleading with the legislature dedicate resources to prevention through education, and by strengthening its child protective services unit, which has suffered budget cuts.

"If there's money to be spent, that's where the county should spend it," O'Leary said at the hearing.

He got no response from lawmakers at the meeting.

The new law, in the section authorizing the contract with Parents for Megan's Law, lists six types of services the organization will provide. Item six reads: "the provision of community and prevention education."

Kennedy, who complained at last week's meeting that the bill did not have the proposed contract attached to it, which he said was the norm, reiterated that complaint in an interview with RiverheadLOCAL this week.

"When you look at the research, it's frightening — the small number of sex crimes committed by registered offenders, as opposed to people not on any registry. Yet we're still so focused on the registry," Kennedy said.

"It's missing the forest for the trees."

Riverhead Assessor Mason Haas, who spoke on behalf of the town in support of the bill at the hearing, agreed more emphasis should be placed on prevention and education.

"There's no doubt it needs to be tweaked," Haas said. But as a longtime advocate for closing down the homeless-offender trailers, Haas said the new program represents the local community's best shot at making that happen.

During a break in the public portion of last week's meeting, Haas engaged in a discussion with O'Leary about education and prevention initiatives needed and Parents for Megan's Law might do in that regard under the new contract.

Haas suggested the two speak with Ahearn, who was also in the lobby of the Hauppauge auditorium. Ahearn refused to discuss it in the presence of O'Leary, Haas said.

O'Leary said he was not surprised. He said Ahearn has refused to talk with him, or respond to his calls or emails for some time.

Laura Ahearn
Ahearn acknowledged her refusal in an interview this week.

"It's my understanding he has a practice in which he provides services to sex offenders," Ahearn said. In her opinion, she said, he has no place in a county program monitoring sex offenders, counseling victims or crafting education and prevention programs.
- And you have no place in monitoring them either!  The contract should be null and void.

"I'm sure if he [O'Leary] wants to expand his efforts he has the wherewithal to go out and find grant funding to do it," Ahearn said.

"If you saw the presentation, if you took the additional time to listen, you know the program includes significant victims services and prevention initiatives," Ahearn said.

Parents for Megan's Law would be hiring "additional prevention staff" to undertake those services, she said.

In a presentation to the county legislature's public safety committee on Jan. 31, Ahearn outlined a "sex offender tracking and community support eight-point plan." Under the new program, the organization would establish a 24-hour hotline providing access to a trained specialist, she said. An education supervisor will "conduct extensive outreach to schools and community organizations and train per-diem prevention educators to conduct sexual abuse, abduction and rape prevention workshops and Internet safety programs. The group will also enhance its existing crime victim advocacy support programs," she said.

The slide presentation given by Ahearn and the Suffolk police chief can be viewed here.

O'Leary said he does not understand how an effective program to prevent sexual crimes could be undertaken without consulting any mental health experts on the criminals themselves. He said he has expressed that sentiment to the county executive and was hoping for a meeting with him.

The county's process in crafting and adopting the new law was "not informed decision-making," O'Leary said. "It's not defining the real problem and putting the solution ahead of defining the problem."

O'Leary said the general public is terrified of registered offenders. "As the father of two young children, I completely relate," he said. "But that fear is largely misplaced. The real threat comes from trusted relatives and family friends. People you know. They are the people who are far more likely to molest your child. It's a difficult thing to come to terms with. But if we really want to prevent abuse, we need to teach parents and children where the real threat lies and teach them how to recognize warning signs. We don't need to use scare tactics and we certainly shouldn't lead people to believe the main threat is from people on a registry."

Advocates for reforming registry laws argue that's exactly what the registry laws and groups like Parents for Megan's Law do.

An organization called USAFair, established in 2012 by family members of registered sex offenders to advocate for the reform of registry laws, faults lawmakers, the media and groups like Parents for Megan's Law for what they say is exaggerating the likelihood of a registered offender re-offending.

"A 2010 survey by the Center for Sex Offender Management of the U.S. Department of Justice found that 72 percent of Americans believe that the sex crime recidivism rates are 50 percent or higher, with a third believing it is more than 75 percent. Only 3 percent believe it is less than 25 percent - even though actual recidivism rates are considerably below 25 percent," USAFair said in a Feb. 4 press release. "New studies are constantly confirming low recidivism, with the latest being released last month (PDF) showing a recidivism rate in four states of 10 percent after 10 years, with rates dropping sharply with years of offense-free tenure in the community."

USAFair faults Ahearn's group in particular, arguing that the Parents for Megan's Law website misrepresents recidivism statistics.

"USA FAIR has been attempting to get Parents for Megan's Law to take down misleading statistics from their website that reinforces the 'big lie' of high sex offender recidivism," the organization said in a statement. "Numerous studies, including a landmark 2003 study by the U.S. Justice Department have found that sex offenders actually have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the criminal justice system, about 5.3 percent."

Shana Rowan
Shana Rowan, a USAFair founder, said she wrote to Ahearn in December seeking changes to statistics on the PFML website that she says misrepresent the results of a study on repeat offenders. Ahearn never replied to the letter.

"As executive director of Parents for Megan's Law, Laura Ahearn has shown herself to be a zealot who has built a career demonizing the very people she is now to be charged with monitoring. She has perpetuated the myth of high sex offender recidivism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to enrich her organization," Rowan said.

Ahearn dismissed Rowan's criticism, pointing to Rowan's engagement to a registered offender who she said "raped a six year old child." Ahearn also said Rowan is "part of NAMBLA," the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Asked for documentation, Ahearn said, "Just search her name on the Internet."
- That is defamation!  Just because something is on the Internet doesn't mean it's true, and she didn't want to show where she got that BS from, which we know where she got it from.  It's all BS and we hope she takes you to court and wins!


Rowan categorically denies that she has ever in any way been associated with NAMBLA. A website called evil-unveiled has a page about her with her name in the URL, and it's the top hit in a Google search of her name. The page says she is a member of "the new NAMBLA" a name the website gives to "activists" seeking reform of registry laws, allegedly so that they can have sex with children.

"I think it's very telling that she [Ahearn] would resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the issues on the merits," Rowan said this week.
- We agree.  It's the usual Ad Hominem attack.

Rowan said as the recipient of signifcant public funding — Parents for Megan's Law's 2011 federal tax return reports the group received more than $946,000 in government grants in 2011, the lion's share of its total revenue of just under $1.1 million — the group should be held accountable for providing accurate information to the public. "That was really all we were seeking," Rowan said. "The new deal with Suffolk County is a whole other subject," she said.

"Parents for Megan's Law has no experience in sex offender management - none," Rowan said, questioning how the county could "sole-source such an important and costly contract without even considering truly qualified parties - such as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, who are mental health professionals and sex-offender policy researchers." Rowan said the vote by the legislature was "a political attempt to purchase Laura Ahearn's support for the controversial proposal at great cost to the taxpayer."

Asked to respond to the criticism of USAFair, Baird-Streeter, the county executive's spokesperson said, "No comment."


Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Friend Verifier - Facebook App Doesn't Work

We've installed and tested this application, and it doesn't work! Since ex-offenders are discriminated against on Facebook (See section 4, item 6), and elsewhere, many do not use their real names, and to be honest, neither should you! Even for those who do, it doesn't spot them, so this is another application which has good intentions, but is flawed and provides people with a false sense of security. We noticed they have other services, where you must pay, so, this is probably their way of getting to you, so you will use their other paid services, by exploiting the sex offender hysteria. When you allow the government to put criminal records online, it's only a matter of time before your personal records are also online. That is our opinion of course.

We posted a comment on their Facebook page, with a link to this post, and as expected, they posted the usual lies and slander, as seen in the photo below. This just shows the type of ignorance and biased people we are up against.


Click the image to enlarge, if needed

Video Description:
Friend Verifier is a Facebook App powered by Verify Anybody that allows you to scan your friends and pending friend requests on Facebook against the United States Sex Offender Registry.
- So what about all other criminal records?  Wouldn't you like to know if one of your "friends" is a serial killer or thief?



Tuesday, June 12, 2012

UK - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Original Article

06/12/2012

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

[name withheld] had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material."

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators."

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

Privacy concerns
But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions".

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International.

"However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."


Monday, June 11, 2012

UK - Facebook forced to reveal trolls' identities

Original Article

06/11/2012

By Emma Woollacott

The British High Court is to force Facebook to hand over the IP addresses of dozens of internet trolls who falsely accused a woman of being a pedophile.

[name withheld] only 'crime' was to post a message showing support for a contestant on the X Factor game show. "Keep your chin up, Frankie, they'll move on to someone else soon," she said.

But unfortunately for [name withheld], the trolls did exactly that. A barrage of abuse about her followed, with the trolls even setting up a fake profile page labelling her a pedophile and drug dealer, which was used to send explicit sexual messages to girls.

The trolls even published her address and a photograph of her daughter.

When an approach to the police failed to get anything done, [name withheld] launched legal action herself to force Facebook to hand over information that could help identify the trolls.

She says that, once their identities are revealed, she plans to launch private prosecutions against at least four of the people concerned.

She's highly critical of Facebook's reporting system, telling the Daily Telegraph that it 'doesn't work'.
- We agree with that!  We've been called pedophiles as well and reported the pages, nothing!

"The abuse is absolutely horrendous and nothing can be done about it and nothing can be stopped. No one in authority is stepping in to say enough. I know that what I am doing is right," she says.

"It might take a while because I am not going to stop until these people are found, exposed and held accountable to what they have done."

The case is a first in the UK. Facebook says it will hand over the IP addresses when it receives the court order, which needs to be phyically delivered to the company's headquarters in the US.


Wednesday, June 6, 2012

ID - Idaho Defamation Suit Latest Test Of Limits Of Anonymous Online Speech

Original Article

06/05/2012

By Carl Franzen

An ongoing nationwide battle against offending online comments has taken on a political tinge in Idaho, where a local Republican party official is suing a commenter on a newspaper website and trying to force the newspaper, the Idaho Spokesman-Review, to turn over the commenter’s information, as well as the information of two other commenters who replied.

Tina Jacobson, chair of the 71-member Kootenai Republican County Central Committee filed a defamation lawsuit against one of the Spokesman-Review’s commenters in April, seeking $10,000 in damages.

The lawsuit stems from a comment the lengthily-pseudonymed commenter posted on February 14 on a blog entry on the Idaho Spokesman-Review website featuring a photo of Jacobson and other Republican officials.

Although the post didn’t have anything to do with the issue in particular, “Almostinnocentbystander” questioned whether $10,000 that was allegedly missing from the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee could be “stuffed inside Tina’s blouse,” as the Spokesman-Review recalled the statements.

The original blog and the comments have since been deleted, and the Spokesman-Review noted that it had banned the commenter, who sent an apology note: “I apologize for and retract my derogatory and unsubstantiated commentary regarding Tina Jacobson.”

But in order to actually press the claim, she needs the commenter’s identity, as well as those of two others who posted replies to the original comment, which Jacobson’s attorney argued were witnesses to the alleged defamation.

And so, Jacobson’s attorney appeared in district court in Coeur D’Alene late last week, facing off against an attorney for the Spokesman-Review.

You can’t call someone a thief and expect to get away with it,” said C. Matthew Andersen, the aggrieved Republican chair’s counsel, according to the Spokesman-Review.

As the newspaper’s attorney Duane Swinton countered, as quoted The Associated Press: “We’re here for the rights of people to speak anonymously on the Internet…We’re here as an advocate for First Amendment rights.”

The judge’s ruling on whether or not to quash Jacobson’s subpoena against the newspaper is expected soon. But the case has taken on national significance as the latest test of the limits of anonymous speech in the electronic age.

As far back as 1784, Thomas Jefferson wrote anonymous letters published in various newspapers,” wrote attorney Brian D. Spitz from Ohio, in an email to TPM. He continued:

“John Adams, Ben Franklin, both repeatedly had anonymous letters published in newspapers. Anonymous publications have always been a strong foundation for the open exchange of ideas in the United States. I think that publications that want more interaction with their end-users will continue to allow anonymity. But, that anonymity is not a license to post unlawful comments without any possible legal consequence. Back then, if our founders’ identities were revealed, they would have been hung. Now, posters are only sued.

Spitz has more experience than most when it comes to navigating the uncharted legal waters of anonymous online commentary. He represented Shirley Strickland Saffold, an Ohio judge who sued The Cleveland Plain Dealer for $50 million back in April 2010 after an editor with the paper disclosed that an email address she used was attached to an online pseudonym that made comments questioning the mental health of a relative of a newspaper reporter, as well as opined on Saffold’s own case.

Saffold, who denied leaving the comments and said they were the work of her 23-year-old daughter, accused the newspaper of violating its contract to keep online commenters’ identifying information confidential. Saffold was removed from a high-profile serial killer case as a consequence of the controversy, and eventually dismissed the lawsuit against the newspaper and settled out-of-court with a company that helped manage the newspaper’s website.

The distinction in these cases is who is being sued and what is the role of the website provider,” Spitz told TPM. “In the Saffold case, the suit revolved around the website hosts’ voluntary disclosure of supposedly anonymous identities contrary to the terms of the privacy policy and conditions of use, which was the basis of a breach of contract claim against the website hosts.”

Beyond the involvement of a political leader, I’m not seeing anything particularly novel here,” wrote Kashmir Hill, a technology reporter and online privacy expert at Forbes, who has various similar lawsuits in the past three years, in an email to TPM.

Indeed, it’s worth putting the Idaho case into context. There have been at least three additional cases of nationwide interests where online commenters or the websites that host them were sued for their content.

Just at the end of April, a couple in Texas won a $13 million judgement from formerly anonymous commenters on the local discussion forum website Topix, which was forced to disclose their identities by a court after they left comments accusing the couple of sexual assault (Topix, notorious for its noxious online discussion, still maintains anonymity as a cardinal value, its CEO previously told TPM).

A New York judge in October 2010 ordered Google, parent company of YouTube, also known for its vile commentary, to turn over the names of those who made disparaging comments on a video featuring a then-graduate student of Columbia Business School.

And in May 2010, an interim local Louisiana official filed a lawsuit against online against anonymous commenters on NOLA.com, the website of The Times-Picayune newspaper, although he later dropped the lawsuit.

Two years later, in May of 2012, two New York state lawmakers began advocating a bill that could ban anonymous online speech, only to be met with a barrage of criticism (they later clarified the bill was only meant to target “factual concerns).

Still, the Idaho case may turn out to be a seminal one when it comes to deciding the future of trolling online.

Given the involvement of a public figure, the court may be less likely to out the anonymous speaker,” Hill told TPM.

In the end, I’m curious to see if there is even a pot at the end of this rainbow,” wrote Spitz. “If the Court grants Jacobson’s motion to compel, there could be provided another false identity supported by a throw-away email address sent from a Wi-Fi connection at Starbucks.”


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

CANADA - Police suggest not posting about alleged sex offenders

Original Article

05/30/2012

By Nancy MacPhee

SUMMERSIDE — The public should be extremely cautious if posting information on social media sites about alleged criminals and their crimes, say police.

The warning comes after recent postings on Facebook regarding an alleged sex offender living near an East Prince school. The original source of the posting is not known but several people have reposted the warning and commented.

We’re actually saying nothing at all,” said Summerside police deputy chief Sinclair Walker. “If there was a person of high risk in our community then we have a protocol in place. We have a high-risk offender committee on the Island to deal with that sort of thing and the public would be notified.”

Asked what classifies an individual as a high-risk offender, Walker said, “Usually they are classified when they leave the prisons but I can’t get into this at all.”

He did confirm his department has received a number of calls as a result of the postings on social media sites.

The high-risk offender committee consists of representatives from the Crown’s office, all Island police agencies and the province’s director of policing services.

Walker sits on the committee. The committee makes a recommendation but it is the police chief in that jurisdiction who decides if a public notice is issued.

I can say I did see the information on Facebook. I know, myself, personally, I would not be putting that kind of stuff on there,” added Walker. “If it’s not true, it’s libelous because they’re printing it.”

Neither Walker nor East Prince RCMP Sgt. Kent MacKay could divulge if the individual in question is registered on the National Sex Offender Registry.

That’s because it is against the law to divulge who is on the registry.

The registry database is housed and maintained by the National Police Services Network under the stewardship of the RCMP. Accredited police agencies in every province and territory are able to access the database either directly or indirectly through their provincial or territorial sex offender registration centre.

Police in the various jurisdictions are responsible for inputting the data and enforcing of the registration provisions.

The public doesn’t have access to the sex offender registry,” said MacKay. “It’s for police information. That is part of the act. Initially, there is a public record from the court. Subsequent to that, no one is allowed to release information about anyone or identify anyone that could be on the sex offender registry.”

Police do know if a registered sex offender is living within their jurisdiction.

Part of the obligation under the act is that if someone is under the registry, anytime they move, they must report their change of address to the nearest sex offender registration centre,” added MacKay.


Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Facebook mom trolled so badly she sues to stop the madness

Original Article

05/14/2012

By Suzanne Choney

A mom who dared to share words of encouragement on Facebook to an unpopular reality-show contestant found herself as the target of a hate campaign that's raged for six months. After trolls allegedly set up a fake Facebook page in her name and used it to solicit girls as young as 9, Nicola Brookes decided to sue Facebook to find the names of the unseen people who persist in harassing her.
- How familiar this sounds.  Many people we've came in contact with over the years, have done this same thing to others, and they continue to this day posting lies about people, just because they speak out and do not agree with their warped reality.

Brookes, who lives in Brighton, England, has been the target of troll hatred on Facebook since last fall, when Frankie Cocozza, an "X-Factor" contestant, was thrown off the British equivalent of "American Idol" for boasting about drug use. Brookes, whose daughter is a fan of the show, was looking at a Facebook page about Cocozza and saw all the snarky remarks posted to him.

"Keep your chin up, Frankie," she said in her Facebook post. "They'll move onto someone else soon." Move on they did, to Brookes herself.

On the fake Facebook page they created in Brookes' name, the trolls apparently solicited young girls for drugs and for sex, then posted comments on the same page calling Brookes a pedophile. The trolls also later posted Brookes’ Brighton home address and a photo of her daughter, says Brookes.
- Hopefully they were or will be arrested and thrown in prison?

Facebook removed the fake page, but Brookes wants the social network to turn over the Internet addresses of the perpetrators, hiding behind various identities. She maintains that she did nothing more to inflame their bile than share her "keep your chin up" remark.

"As soon as she posted that comment about the singer, people started hurling awful, nasty comments toward her," attorney Rupinder Bains told msnbc.com in a phone interview. Her London-based firm, Bains Cohen, took the case on a pro bono basis. Brookes, in her 40s, has Crohn's disease and has not been able to work for a while. The Facebook fiasco has made her scared to leave her home, with threats continuing, Bains said.

When the law firm asked Facebook to remove the fake page last fall, it did so quickly — "they were great," said Bains.

"But the trolling hasn't stopped," she said. "The trolls will constantly be on there, making comments about Nicola ... and then they say things on other blogs elsewhere and on their own Facebook pages. We have to take steps to get the identity of these trolls."

Facebook, contacted for comment by msnbc.com, shared this statement:

Nothing is more important to us than the safety of the people that use our service. Unlike other websites and forums Facebook has a real-name culture, which provides greater accountability and a safer and more trusted environment. We are clear that there is no place for bullying or harassment on Facebook and we respond aggressively to reports of potential abuse.

The site gives users "the tools to report abuse on every page and the option to block people from having any further contact with them. Reports involving harassment are prioritized, reviewed by a trained team of reviewers and removed if they violate our terms."

In a story in the Telegraph, a Facebook spokesman said much of the same, adding that the site responds "aggressively to reports of potential abuse," but declining to comment on the legal action.

Bains believes there may be four or five people behind the harassment/bullying effort on Facebook, but she doesn't know for sure. The law firm plans to request an injunction from the court in Britain to compel Facebook to turn over the computer addresses of those involved in the cruel campaign.

What happens if such an order is granted and the law firms gets ahold of the names? "We would see criminal prosecution once we've identified the trolls," Bains said. Charges could include violations of harassment and communications laws in Britain.

The case, she said, "just goes to show how the veil of anonymity gives an individual so much strength and power," including the power to wound.
- And it's these same idiots who are going to ruin it for everyone else.

Meanwhile, Brookes has been "through times of depression because of this," but she remains on Facebook, Bains said: "She refuses to be beaten by them."


Tuesday, December 13, 2011

My Interview on the Dr. Drew show today

Lynn Gilmore
Original Article
Earlier Story

12/12/2011

By Lynn Gilmore

"Once a Fry Cook, Always a Fry Cook"

I'll explain that in a minute.

First, pedophile defined, as found on wikipedia: As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.

Um, hello? My husband is NOT a pedophile, Dr. Drew.

Today, I was interviewed by Dr. Drew for his show which aired tonight on HLN. I was told by the very nice producer that I would be asked questions about SOSEN, my book, and my feelings about the Sandusky case. Wrong-o! I spent the whole time defending my decision to marry a sex offender. GAH!!!! The interview went horribly wrong. So horribly wrong that it is almost comical.

OK, it IS comical. I am actually laughing.

I was totally and completely ambushed by Dr. Drew who's objective was clearly to sensationalize and belittle women who choose to marry sex offenders. And the worst part was seeing, "THE MAN IN MY LIFE WAS A PEDOPHILE" in a banner above my name during the whole interview. Let me clear this up right now: I did NOT marry a pedophile!!!!
- And this would be defamation as well.

Not only did Dr. Drew call my darling, loving husband of ten wonderful offense-free years a pedophile, Dr. Drew continually interrupted me and wouldn't let me explain my reasons for choosing him as a husband.

The state of Arkansas has NEVER labeled my husband as a pedophile. He is not, nor has he ever been a pedophile. I'd like to add that not all offenders NEED treatment, as suggested by Dr. Drew. Just because a guy makes a mistake one time does not mean he is a predator, pervert or pedophile. My husband went through a lengthy invasive stringent interview and assessment. If the professionals who assessed him felt he needed treatment, then he would have certainly received it. No one has ever suggested he get treatment because no one ever felt he needed it.

I, however, as a child sex abuse victim, DID need treatment in therapy, and I DID receive it. I went to counseling for about 2 or 3 years after the abuse, and it did me a world of good. I KNOW, without a doubt, that I was not "attracted to pedophiles" as Dr. Drew luridly suggested.

My explanation is this: I felt that with my unique experience with child sex abuse, that I would be acutely alert to any inkling of sexual deviant tendencies of any man I brought into my life. Prior to meeting my current husband and during my divorce, I was cautioned by my own father how common it is for men to molest their children, ESPECIALLY if they are step-children. I knew I would have to be extraordinarily cautious about who I brought into my life.

When I met my husband, I did not know he was a sex offender. Once we began to build a relationship and once we saw that there was a potential future together, he told me about his one and only crime that happened in 1996. It was now 2001, I did the math, it had been five years and no offense since then. As he explained to me what happened, I could see that he was completely remorseful and ashamed of what happened. He had learned a very hard lesson in life and had paid his debt to society. He was not on the registry at the time and was not made to register. At that time, he was leading a normal life as a free citizen and a successful contributor to society. I figured, well, it's a low-level crime, after all, the girl was well known in the community as being a sexually active teenage girl and she had wanted to drop the charges. I met her personally and talked with her myself.

Finally, I concluded that my children were actually SAFER with a man who had made a mistake, paid dearly for it and learned his lesson, than they would have been with someone who had never offended who had the potential to offend. 95% of all sex crimes are committed by first offenders - people who are NOT on any list.

Still, I took every precaution I could in preparing to bring this man into my life and into the lives of my children. I even sat them down and told them that if he ever touched them or ever made them uncomfortable in any way, to come and let me know immediately. That never happened.

He has been a very good father to not only my two older children, but also our young daughter. He has also been a very good husband for me. We have been married ten years. It has been 15 years since his offense, his one and ONLY offense.

Studies show that offenders who re offend do so within the first three years.

So at what point do we stop punishing people for what they did one time many, many years before?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I was once a fry cook. And not just once, either. Multiple times, over and over again for a period of just under a year. Am I still a fry cook? No, that's ridiculous. I am no more a fry cook than my husband is a pedophile.



Saturday, May 21, 2011

WA - Sex offender sues family of girl he abused, after vigilante mom posts slanderous blog posts

Original Article

05/21/2011

TACOMA (KING/CNN) - A sex offender in Washington is suing the family of a little girl he sexually assaulted, claiming the mother's story of how her family is healing slanders his name.

He wants her to stop telling it.

"Today my family has what we need, and that's what we try to focus," said Danielle Schneider, who now spends her days cleaning, cooking and caring for her family.

But when all of her six kids are asleep it's time to hit the computer and blog, about one specific person.

"His story became my story when he chose to abuse my child," Schneider said.

She is talking about 26-year-old [name withheld], a level two sex offender, convicted four years ago of inappropriate contact with her then 11-year-old child.

"I just felt if I could save one child from being sexually abused I could take being vulnerable myself and sharing our story," Schneider said.

But sharing her story has come at a price.

[name withheld] is now suing Schneider for $60,000 because he said she is slandering his name.

But the Schneiders are almost broke thanks to mounting legal and counseling bills for their daughter.

"My husband and I have had to go to food banks," Danielle Schneider said.

[name withheld]' attorney, Mike Davis, said he sympathizes with the Schneiders, but asks that they take down details that are private and simply not true.

"For my immediate anxiety of paying the doctor bills or paying the lawyer and needing to go to the food bank, is worth what I believe the big picture and what I hope the outcome will be," Schneider said.

Davis said his client has served his sentence, and has undergone treatment.

He also said they're trying to negotiate a compromise so the case does not go to trial.



Friday, January 21, 2011

GA - Man awarded $404,000 for libelous Internet postings from Sybil Denise Ballew

Original Article

I wonder if ex-sex offenders and families who have been harassed online by AZU and PJ (YouTube) can be sued as well? It would appear so, if all are treated equal under the law.

01/20/2011

By Rhonda Cook

In just a few days, Gene Cooley lost his fiancee, his job, his future in-laws and his home.

It started with the murder of Cooley's fiancee by the woman's ex-husband. While still reeling from that loss, he became a target of Internet postings from someone he barely knew. The anonymous poster went on a community website for Blairsville, where Cooley lived at the time, and accused him of being a pedophile with a criminal record and a drug addict. None of it was true.

A Union County jury last week said the damage those postings did to Cooley was worth $404,000, the largest award ever handed down in this North Georgia county. The poster was identified through her computer's numeric IP address.

"She absolutely ax-murdered this boy's life," said Russell Stookey, Cooley's lawyer.

Cooley barely knew his web attacker, a woman who worked at a Blairsville store where he sometimes shopped. Had it not been for the willingness by the website, Topix.com, to out Sybil Denise Ballew, her identity may never have been known.

Stookey took an infrequently used route to find Ballew's identity. He used a subpoena to get the IP address, which is something unique to every computer, behind the libelous postings on Topix.com. The website, which acts as a news aggregator for local communities, readily complied.

"She [the poster] might have said these things in the past, but you write it down and it can be traced back to your computer," said Topix.com CEO Chris Tolles. "People are going to find it's hard to have complete anonymity."

Cooley's saga began with the murder of his fiancee, Paulette Harper, at the hands of her ex-husband in September of 2008. A few days later, the postings on the Blairsville page of Topix.com started showing up.

The poster wrote Cooley was a "pervert" and drug addict with a lengthy criminal record, a man who had been in prison and rehab. Harper’s daughter, who was 9 at the time, must be protected from Cooley, the poster wrote.

I didn’t really even know the woman. I knew her in passing,” Cooley, 44, told the AJC. “She worked at two places [where] I was a customer.”

Cooley had a criminal background check run on himself showing that he had no such past, but people didn’t seem to care. Eventually he had to leave Blairsville, where his mother, sister and two sons lived, to find another job. He now lives in Augusta and works as a hairdresser.



Monday, November 1, 2010

Internet Trolls, Beware! 'Bounty Hunter' Can Expose You

Original Article

11/01/2010

By KI MAE HEUSSNER

Digital Forensics Experts Follow Trail of Cyber Breadcrumbs to Identify Individuals

He has been called a bounty hunter for the digital era, and for good reason.

After Michael Roberts' own name was smeared across the Internet by an online antagonist, crushing his successful business and threatening personal relationships, Roberts made it his mission to help other victims of online defamation rout out the anonymous Internet trolls trying to upend their lives.

The Australian native launched a Las Vegas-based company called Rexxfield, dedicated to digital forensic analysis and online reputation defense. (Nevada was chosen as the home base because its state laws are more favorable for those suing for libel damages.)

Since starting the firm in 2008, Roberts said he has helped more than 150 people unmask their online attackers. His firm boasts an 80 to 90 percent success rate for positively identifying anonymous Internet posters. He recently launched the non-profit FreespeechV3.org, a pro bono arm of his company, to give victims of online defamation even more support.

By the time people contact him, they've been branded whores, child abusers, liars and other vicious epithets on the Internet. They're spirits are so deflated, some consider ending their lives, he said.

"You can hear it in the voice of the people when they first contact you," he said. "And once the problem is solved they're like a different person."

Billionaires, Royalty Among Those Looking to Expose Anonymous Online Harassers

Roberts counts billionaires and royalty among his clientele and two of the most recent high-profile cases involving unmasking anonymous posters were ones in which he was involved.

A couple of weeks ago, one of his pro bono clients, Carla Franklin, succeeded in obtaining a court order from a New York judge instructing Google to identify people who posted defamatory content about her on YouTube.

Another pro bono client, Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen, made headlines last summer when she successfully sued Google to uncover the name of an anonymous blogger who slandered her online.

But how does this modern-day bounty hunter track down his prey?

Roberts said it often starts with the Internet Protocol (IP) address, which is the unique number assigned to any device connected to the Internet.

Read the rest of the article here



Saturday, September 25, 2010

FRANCE - Google to Pay Damages in France for Sex-Offender Search Terms

Original Article

09/25/2010

By Laurence Frost

Google Inc. was ordered by a French court to pay 5,000 euros ($6,750) in damages to a convicted sex offender because its search engine suggested keywords including “rapist” when his name was entered.

The ruling by the Paris high court on Sept. 8 is carried in full by website Legalis.net, an aggregator of French legal decisions. It was reported earlier today by Le Monde, which said the unidentified plaintiff was separately appealing a conviction for “corruption of a minor.”

In the ruling published online, the court found that some search terms proposed by the “Google Suggest” and “Associated Search” tools in response to the plaintiff’s name were defamatory.

It ordered Google to block the suggested search terms and pay the plaintiff damages as well as full costs.

Myriam Boubil, a spokeswoman in France for Mountain View, California-based Google, said she couldn’t immediately comment when contacted today by Bloomberg News.


Saturday, August 28, 2010

UK - Law student wins £10,000 after being branded a pedophile on Facebook by Jeremiah Barber

Original Article

07/28/2010

By Edward Joffe

The British Telegraph announced today that a law student falsely named as a pedophile on Facebook has won a £10,000 libel damages payout at the High Court.

Chef, Jeremiah Barber, 24, posted child porn on the Facebook page of student, [name withheld], along with the comment: "[name withheld], you like kids and you are gay so I bet you love this picture, Ha ha." Barber, who had fallen out with Mr [name withheld] over an £80 debt, removed the post, made on 23 November 2008, within 24 hours.
- So was Mr. Barber arrested and thrown in jail/prison for posting child porn online?

Mr [name withheld] said there had been 11 links to the post, 2 comments from viewers, and more than 800 people would have been able to view the material But he later pleaded guilty to making and distributing an indecent image of a child at Stafford Crown Court and was ordered to carry out 150 hours unpaid work and handed a £1,200 costs bill.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, has awarded Mr. [name withheld] £10,000 in libel damages for the stress he endured, including anxiety that hundreds of people in his local area may have seen the post.

Mr [name withheld], 24, who lives with his parents in Stone, Staffs, suffers from high functioning Asperger's Syndrome, but has secured a place on a full time degree course studying law at Stafford University. The dispute between him and Barber, from Stafford, arose after Mr [name withheld] lent his former pal £80 and he failed to pay it back, said the judge. Mr [name withheld]'s efforts to secure repayment included obtaining a County Court order. Judgment was entered for Mr [name withheld] in the libel case in November last year but he had to return to the High Court for an assessment of his damages.

In the witness box, Mr [name withheld] said:

Jeremy Barber put a defamatory blog (sic) on Facebook and made me appear to be a pedophile with homosexual tendencies, neither of which is true. He did so with intention and malice. When I viewed the pictures I was shocked because they were repulsive and disgusting and in no way reflected my attitude to life. I asked for an apology which I have not to this date received. The whole thing has been distressing, not only for myself but for my family.

Mr [name withheld] said there had been 11 links to the post, 2 comments from viewers, and more than 800 people would have been able to view the material.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "This was not only defamatory, but a defamation which goes to a central aspect of Mr [name withheld]'s private life as well as his public reputation."

This post was deeply offensive to him, but also a cause for alarm. He could not go out in public because he feared he would be a victim of violence, which is not infrequently the result for those accused of pedophilia. It is well known that people accused of being pedophiles may be subjected to serious violence, even when there is no basis for the accusation. I can infer that the number of people who saw this Facebook page would have been in the hundreds. "This post was clearly a malicious act and the defendant has done nothing to express any regret. "Damages in libel actions are awarded as compensation, not as punishment, to vindicate reputation, to compensate for harm to that reputation and as compensation for injury to feelings.

"I assess the damages in this case at £10,000," the judge concluded, also imposing an injunction banning Barber from repeating the libel.


Thursday, March 11, 2010

Facebook Threatens to Sue Daily Mail Over Sex Predator Claims

Original Article

Just the average cop out stirring up fear! What else is new?

03/11/2010

By Stan Schroeder

According to the Guardian and Global Dashboard, Facebook has threatened to sue Daily Mail over an article that wrongfully claimed Facebook makes it easy for older sex predators to approach and seduce minors.

Daily Mail’s article, which can (in edited form) be found here, was written by a former police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, and had originally been titled “I posed as a girl of 14 on Facebook. What followed will sicken you.” It contained the account of the author posing as a minor on Facebook, which, according to him, attracted sexual predators right away.

The problem? He wasn’t really using Facebook to conduct the experiment, he used a “different social networking site,” as explained in today’s update to the article, added at the bottom by Daily Mail staff. The full text of the update is as follows:

“In an earlier version of this article, we wrongly stated that the criminologist had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages. In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight.”

Needless to say, this caused a strong response from Facebook, which is still referenced throughout the article. According to the Guardian, a UK spokeswoman for Facebook said that the company was considering legal action due to the “brand damage that has been done.” “If you were a Middle England reader and your child was on Facebook, this sort of thing would have a very serious effect on what you thought of us,” she said.

Facebook has a point here; besides the obvious erroneous reporting, the article details how someone posing as a 14-year-old girl would get messages from older men (more accurately, users whose Facebook profile indicates they’re over 18 years old), which cannot be done on Facebook. Therefore, Facebook can argue it has measures in place to prevent exactly the kind of behavior the article describes, unlike the unnamed social network the experiment was conducted on.

We’ve contacted Facebook’s UK PR representative on this matter but have yet to hear back.


"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln