From ABCnews

"A Texas couple who filed a defamation lawsuit over three years ago against anonymous posters on the Internet forum Topix.com won a $13.8 million judgment from a jury."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury-awards-13-million-texas-defamation-suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071#.T79q3Gjyd8x

The jury ordered Jerry Coyel to pay Mark Lesher $5.1 million for mental anguish and loss of reputation. Shannon Coyel and Doesher must pay $1.7 million each, according to the jury's verdict.Jerry Coyel must pay Rhonda Lesher $3.168 million for mental anguish, loss of reputation and loss of her business, a hair salon and day spa she owned in Clarksville. Shannon Coyel and Doesher were ordered to pay Rhonda Lesher $1.056 million each.


I've always wondered how do you go about collecting such a large award against an average person? Or is it mainly a symbolic number?

I've always wondered how do you go about collecting such a large award against an average person? Or is it mainly a symbolic number?

They don't. It's symbolic. But they can try and collect at every turn.

BBates, don't take this as a personal attack or derogatory in any way, but, when and why did you decide to take up the cause of ridding OKC of prostitution? We all know it is the oldest profession and will be with the human race forever. What was your motivation to take on this cause?

BBates, don't take this as a personal attack or derogatory in any way, but, when and why did you decide to take up the cause of ridding OKC of prostitution? We all know it is the oldest profession and will be with the human race forever. What was your motivation to take on this cause?

I'm a bit fearful this will further derail the thread or attract more trolls, but..... Basically I started in 1996 when I moved into a downtown OKC neighborhood (to be close to my marketing/PR job at Children's Hospital) that was overrun by prostitutes, Johns, pimps and all the criminal ilk that comes with it. After not only being beat in court, but totally humiliated by a John's defense attorney (Scott Adams, who is now not only my attorney, but my best friend) I decided to never again fight back unless it was on tape. The media immediately dubbed me the Video Vigilante. As I actually came to fully understand prostitution and human trafficking and meeting those effected by it, I decided I just couldn't not continue with my activism. Once the Internet enabled me to monetize my efforts it became a more full time effort. Most people are so far removed from the reality of prostitution that their perspective is really the furthest thing from the truth.

Also, I've NEVER stated I've ever felt my efforts would in anyway 'rid OKC of prostitution.' My efforts are about awareness and exposing the offenders.

I posted the original link because I do think more and more people will find that the Internet is not some lawless area where one can do and post whatever they want without repercussions.

I've fought off several lawsuits over the years and have learned to run most things past an attorney to try and limit liability. I've got a guy right now trying to sue me for simply reposting information in an article that was originally posted in another state. Its baseless and its basically now gone away, but it still is distracting.

There is a case right now I was hired to work on where someone posted on a forum and apparently tried to use the "I've got a reliable source that told me XYZ....." Well, the plaintiff called their bluff, filed a lawsuit and learned the poster's identity. They are not protected under the Shield Law and either have to cough up their source (my investigation shows there is no source) or they have to admit they lied. It looks like its really going to cost this supposedly anonymous poster.

These types of cases are actually becoming pretty common. Though most end in arbitration once the poster is fully informed of the law. Some places are making such offenses criminal and backing them up with prosecutions.

The people that were sued own a company, so they probably have some decent assets. At the very least, the plaintiffs will put a big squeeze on them financially, and that must be some vindication.

It should be noted that while sites where information is posted (like Topix or even OKCTalk) can be made to turn over IP addresses and other information when forced by a court of law, the sites themselves cannot be held responsible for what is posted there. This was decided long ago when the Internet just started to get popular.


Still, I believe the site should take some responsibility, but it's a fine line when it comes to censorship.

Recently, someone registered here and posted about a local building supplier supposedly going out of business. A couple of people countered and said they spoke to the owner and that this long-standing local operation was not going out of business at all. Then a second new poster commented that he was sure they were closing down because he had ordered product and was told his order would not be filled. Looking at the registry information (something only the Admin on this site can do) I came to conclusion both these posters were the same person. Further, I determined it was likely a specific employee of a competing company.

I banned both users and deleted the thread.


Many more examples but the Internet is like a new Wild West and while some like to believe their anonymity not only gives them the safety but also the right to spew any type of hateful lies they wish, cases like this prove that is not the case.

Libel is still defined as defamation by the written word that is communicated to others. That completely applies to the Internet and anyone that thinks they are completely safe behind an anonymous username doesn't understand the law or technology.


BTW, we have never received a subpoena to release information like an IP address, but all of that is tracked in our database and if need be, we could go back years.

We have also never released any information on posters even though we get the occasional request to do so.

There have been cases where the hosting site was not totally immune from criminal or civil liability if they took an active roll in the posts that were on the site/forum/etc.

TheDirty has been sued many times and lost twice. Several suits are ongoing and appear to be costing the site owner lots of money to lawyers (regardless of the outcome).

A pro-prostitution site owner was criminally charged and found to be civilly liable in around 2007 because they were too involved in their forums content that they became responsible for it.

That being said, simply saying something that isn't true does not mean you can be successfully sued. In general the information needs to be false AND the person had to have or should have known it to be false. Malicious intent and more likely true than untrue also come into play.

TV news is routinely sued for airing or posting something false. However, if they can show it was not done with malice intent or even if untrue was reasonably thought to be true then they usually win (or the case is thrown out).

I'm a bit fearful this will further derail the thread or attract more trolls, but..... Basically I started in 1996 when I moved into a downtown OKC neighborhood (to be close to my marketing/PR job at Children's Hospital) that was overrun by prostitutes, Johns, pimps and all the criminal ilk that comes with it. After not only being beat in court, but totally humiliated by a John's defense attorney (Scott Adams, who is now not only my attorney, but my best friend) I decided to never again fight back unless it was on tape. The media immediately dubbed me the Video Vigilante. As I actually came to fully understand prostitution and human trafficking and meeting those effected by it, I decided I just couldn't not continue with my activism. Once the Internet enabled me to monetize my efforts it became a more full time effort. Most people are so far removed from the reality of prostitution that their perspective is really the furthest thing from the truth.

Also, I've NEVER stated I've ever felt my efforts would in anyway 'rid OKC of prostitution.' My efforts are about awareness and exposing the offenders.

I posted the original link because I do think more and more people will find that the Internet is not some lawless area where one can do and post whatever they want without repercussions.

I've fought off several lawsuits over the years and have learned to run most things past an attorney to try and limit liability. I've got a guy right now trying to sue me for simply reposting information in an article that was originally posted in another state. Its baseless and its basically now gone away, but it still is distracting.

There is a case right now I was hired to work on where someone posted on a forum and apparently tried to use the "I've got a reliable source that told me XYZ....." Well, the plaintiff called their bluff, filed a lawsuit and learned the poster's identity. They are not protected under the Shield Law and either have to cough up their source (my investigation shows there is no source) or they have to admit they lied. It looks like its really going to cost this supposedly anonymous poster.

These types of cases are actually becoming pretty common. Though most end in arbitration once the poster is fully informed of the law. Some places are making such offenses criminal and backing them up with prosecutions.
Thank you.

...Still, I believe the site should take some responsibility, but it's a fine line when it comes to censorship.

Recently, someone registered here and posted about a local building supplier supposedly going out of business. A couple of people countered and said they spoke to the owner and that this long-standing local operation was not going out of business at all. Then a second new poster commented that he was sure they were closing down because he had ordered product and was told his order would not be filled. Looking at the registry information (something only the Admin on this site can do) I came to conclusion both these posters were the same person. Further, I determined it was likely a specific employee of a competing company.

I banned both users and deleted the thread.

Many more examples but the Internet is like a new Wild West and while some like to believe their anonymity not only gives them the safety but also the right to spew any type of hateful lies they wish, cases like this prove that is not the case.

Libel is still defined as defamation by the written word that is communicated to others. That completely applies to the Internet and anyone that thinks they are completely safe behind an anonymous username doesn't understand the law or technology.



I've been down this road before too with a couple other sites I've managed for the last 10+ years. Some people just don't get the fact that nearly every forum software tracks IPs. Of course when it comes to banning people I figure they've done enough to warrant it in the first place, I just do an IP-level ban and be done with it. Don't have to worry about them returning until they figure out how to reset their IP. Of course in those extreme cases that is when MAC Address or other hardware identifier number is used to ban and they usually give up after that.

A lot of people need to realize what they post here can still be used against them. Not to mention those that are very heavy into Copy/Paste posting of copyrighted material from other sites. I've seen major news organizations just go crazy with C&D orders against site operators because their users just pull full copyrighted works. Whereas it would be more acceptable to only post a short snip or summary and then a link to the original work.

This reminds me of this article I saw. I don't think it has much chance of becoming a law but the ramifications are scary.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/york-senate-bill-seeks-end-anonymous-internet-posting-162549128.html


Introduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address.


How many posters here want to list their home addresses?


Critics are quick to point out how dangerous and ineffective the anti-privacy bill would be in the off chance that it somehow passes. After all, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person's identity, and including your home address on a controversial internet post could open you up to real-life threats.

In effect, the bill is an online stalker's dream. Of course, the most likely result of the bill's passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the "web site administrators" who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.

How many posters here want to list their home addresses?

I like the idea (although i dont see it happening). Alot of news sites have been going to using facebook photos and contact info to help tame down the comments and it seems to do a pretty good job. Without that people are way to quick to post outlandish postings since they can do it anonymously and there is no retribution. Because of this it fuels misinformation and hate.

But requiring a Facebook account is meaningless since they can be as anonymous (or even completely fake).

While true they are easy to clean out. After one or two reports, facebook will require a cell phone to be placed on file to verify identity. So this helps keep things under control some. If the person keeps making accounts they have ways to quickly track them down and lock accounts down.

It's one thing to keep information on file but it's a totally different thing to have to put things like phone numbers and addresses out there for anyone to look at.

I like the idea (although i dont see it happening). Alot of news sites have been going to using facebook photos and contact info to help tame down the comments and it seems to do a pretty good job. Without that people are way to quick to post outlandish postings since they can do it anonymously and there is no retribution. Because of this it fuels misinformation and hate.

Tbe problem is that what might be a very reasoned and legitimate post could strike some kook wrong. That person could have your address and come looking for you. Is that the kind of retribution you're in favor of?

Tbe problem is that what might be a very reasoned and legitimate post could strike some kook wrong. That person could have your address and come looking for you. Is that the kind of retribution you're in favor of?

The same could happen in public discussions on facebook.

Tbe problem is that what might be a very reasoned and legitimate post could strike some kook wrong. That person could have your address and come looking for you. Is that the kind of retribution you're in favor of?

Aye, but something you say in a coffee shop could be overheard and taken wrong by a kook, who then follows you to work/home.

I've been in a variety of places online as just plain ol' me for a long time. I've had a kook or two surprise me over the years, but thus far each was a relative or old friend.
:)

While true they are easy to clean out. After one or two reports, facebook will require a cell phone to be placed on file to verify identity. So this helps keep things under control some. If the person keeps making accounts they have ways to quickly track them down and lock accounts down.

Not gonna happen.

Plus, requiring a phone number is pointless and doesn't verify anything. I have 11 Google Voice numbers, numerous iPhone app numbers for texting and VOIP, not to mention five phones with individual numbers on my Sprint account, plus a Spoof Card.

Regardless that's not the mentality behind Facebook.

Aye, but something you say in a coffee shop could be overheard and taken wrong by a kook, who then follows you to work/home.

I've been in a variety of places online as just plain ol' me for a long time. I've had a kook or two surprise me over the years, but thus far each was a relative or old friend.
:)

Yeah, I pretty much piss people off all the time - some are pretty dangerous individuals and criminal organizations. I've never hid my name/identity and my address appears on hundreds of public documents and my phone number is listed on my website. In 15 years I've maybe had a dozen crank phone calls and never had anyone come to my home or even confront me in a hostile or negative manner in public, outside of while I'm actually taping. Any threats or such BS is pretty much just limited to cowards posting mostly anonymously on forums, etc.

I don't get the law though. Any post (anonymous or otherwise) is always subject to being removed by whomever moderates the forum/site/blog/media page, etc.

...
I don't get the law though. Any post (anonymous or otherwise) is always subject to being removed by whomever moderates the forum/site/blog/media page, etc.

Just another golly gee lookie at me and what I just did piece of meaningless fluffery puffery from a legislizard de jour.

Not gonna happen.

Plus, requiring a phone number is pointless and doesn't verify anything. I have 11 Google Voice numbers, numerous iPhone app numbers for texting and VOIP, not to mention five phones with individual numbers on my Sprint account, plus a Spoof Card.

Regardless that's not the mentality behind Facebook.

Not everyone is going to go out of there way to create that many different "identities" to ensure they don't get silenced by Facebook. Apparently you have a need for all those whereas the typical forum troll wouldn't be that resourceful - in most cases.

Just another golly gee lookie at me and what I just did piece of meaningless fluffery puffery from a legislizard de jour.
Isn't that what about 90% of the bills introduced at every level of gov't actually are? More for someone to say they did something more than actually doing something. That seems to be all that is needed come reelection time.

Aye, but something you say in a coffee shop could be overheard and taken wrong by a kook, who then follows you to work/home.

I've been in a variety of places online as just plain ol' me for a long time. I've had a kook or two surprise me over the years, but thus far each was a relative or old friend.
:)

I'm sure that most people would never have a problem but you have to agree that internet stalking does happen and potential child molesters would love to visit some websites to gleen home addresses and phone numbers. There is just no need to be required to make that kind of information public in order to post comments somewhere. I have no problem with the information being provided to the website confidentially.