ap

Friday, June 30, 2006

By MNDwire

Man sues creator of date-warning Web site

This entry was posted on Friday, June 30th, 2006 at 2:36 pm and is filed under Sex & Metropolis. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 3 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from MNDwire

Stumble It!

How to survive the coming food shortage.

12 Responses to “ap”

1
Atrus Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
he’s not gonna win. Lots of people post aobut bad judges on web sites. They don’t get sued. Free speech, you know.
2
Azrael Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 5:43 am
While I can respect him being upset about that, I agree with Atrus.

I stand on the side of free speech and I wouldn’t find that web-site owner liable. What I would say he should have done is sue the woman or women who made the comment(s) for slander or defamation or something instead. That at least lays the fault where it should be laid, at the feet of the woman who made the comment.
3
DcFather Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:02 am
Sounds a lot like divorce court to me. Women slander men with impunity, including false allegations, and sometimes, men are allowed to defend themselves, and its there mostly to serve vindictive women. They admit that there is a “war” on (maybe cheating) men, as if women aren’t just as bad or worse. At least men never cheat then lie that “it’s your baby”.

I notice there is a http://www.dontdateherdude.com site that is allegedly “coming soon” so that “the guys can now post alleged cheaters and liars on the web”. But it seems to have been registered nearly a year ago to a “discreet” registrar yet there is nothing to show. Hmmmm.

My bet would be on the women getting away with lying, but men getting sued for telling the truth. As a lawyer, that guy should know how it works.
4
DcFather Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:19 am
Whether men have their own site or not, the site for women could also be used by men, assuming the women can’t post anonymously while naming the male, a predictable double standard. The women are identifying themselves as vindictive, but lacking a marriage and thereby left with only a website instead of a “family court” to satisfy their vindictive urges. Besides, women know women lie, so other than giving women a chance to be vindictive, the site is useless to women.
5
David R. Usher Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:35 am
I think Hollis has a decent chance of winning this case.

Attorneys are not public officials, and therefore, they can sue for any public libel or slander that might impinge on their professional reputation or ability to earn.

The attorney representing the web site owner is on very weak turf: chit-chat in a doughnut shop is a private conversation and is not a distributed public conversation. One cannot search the internet for doughnut shop drivel.

Note that even movie stars have privacy rights: you cannot make inflammatory public statements about movie stars without running a great risk of being sued. You cannot even take a picture of one when the movie start is “offline” and living their private life.

Broadcasting anonymous information about individuals is a public act. The website owner has a duty to ensure that what he publishes about private individuals is, in fact, correct. The fact that an individual harmed by such a transmission can post a “rebuttal” does not lessen the violation of privacy committed by the web site owner.

The keys are this:

1. Waiver of privacy can only be given by an individual, not by anyone else.

2. Libel or slander of a private individual is a tortiable act.

3. If a private individual has committed a heinous act, the person who was harmed has standing to seek prosecution of that act. Courts are there to handle these issues. If one does something that does not constitute an prosecutable offense, there is no infraction of law, and therefore, the “injured” person has no issue that overrides privacy concerns.

4. The unsaid principle here: the legal profession does not want to lose work to web sites that make money “trying” cases in the public forum. To allow this would undermine the courts systems.

5. The other unstated principle here: If Hollis were to lose this suit, then websites permitting men to print whatever they want about women would immediately come into play. The actions of private citizens of both sexes, including divorce court attorneys, could be publicly broadcast at-will. The legal profession wants this floodgate shut down because every person upset with what an attorney has done will be posting it on the internet.
6
Atrus Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I can understand why he’s so upset, too, but being upset isn’t grounds for a lawsuit. I think that the right to free speech will prevail. There are lots of web sites and other places where people say bad things about other people. Those sites aren’t successfully sued. From what I understand, that site had already been looked at by lawyers because they figured someone would get mad enough to sue. So, the bases are covered. I think it would be a bad ruling if the court sided with the guy complaining about the site. That would put a wet blanket on free speech.
7
Atrus Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Dave Usher, sure he can sue, but will he win? I don’t think he will. He’s an attorney. That doesn’t mean that he’ll win. If a guy should win for a woman putting up bad information aobut him, why shouldn’t a judge be able to win when guys complain about him by name on web sites? those sites are protected by free speech. don’t you think that someone who had planned to make a site complaining about dates would have looked into the legal issues? I’m sure it’s all been covered. I can understand why that lawyer is upset, but I don’t think he has a leg to stand on legally.

By the way, taking a picture of a movie star could be considered invasion of privacy in a different way than saying things about that movie star on a web site might be. When you’re physically present, taking pictures, that’s a physical invasion of privacy. It could be considered stalking. Not the same thing.
8
David R. Usher Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:34 pm
There are many cases I have seen on related issues that predict the outcome of this case:

1. States generally cannot put citizens suspected of child abuse on public web sites or lists. In many states, these lists must remain private and queryable only by those who need to know.

2. In some states, convicted sex offender registries must remain private and queryable only by those on a need-to-know basis.

Here, the public interest predicts the outcome: there is no public interest in permitting individuals to freely libel and slander others or to post information that is not or cannot be verified.

The site in question is not a publisher. The content of the site is not a newspaper. The first amendment, as relates publishers does not apply. The purpose of this site is purely feminist: a place where feminists can freely debauch men under the notion that this will somehow protect women. We have many laws to protect women. There is no need or public interest in permitting feminists to operate via an extra-legal method.

Note that even Oprah has to vet her guests carefully, and has from time to time, had to make public retractions where she was duped. This website is the digital equivalent of “Oprah”, and as such, must vet what it disseminates carefully prior to releasing it.
9
Atrus Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Dave Usher, this isn’t about accused or convicted sex offenders. They have court records. This is about a web site where women may state their opinions about men they have dated. It doesn’t have to be a publisher or a newspaper. This isn’t about first amendment rights according to newspapers. if that was all it took, sites where judges were condemned would be sued and those cases won all the time. That doesn’t happen. Newgroups are full of bad comments, and no one to my knowledge has ever won a defamation case against Newsgroups. It doens’t matter whether the site is feminist or not. I’m not so sure that it is. It’s a site where women may complain about their dates. That doens’t automatically make it feminist. Oprah is a public figure. I can understand why she might have had to make retractions, although I don’t know of any cases where she had done that. Even if she did, it doesn’t matter. Newspapers make retractions all the time. I don’t know much about Oprah. It still comes down to free speech.I doubt this web site is the equivalent of someone as widely known as Oprah. I think it’s still a matter of free speech and the Internet.
10
David R. Usher Says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 am
Gotta love that liberal disease where folks think that irresponsible blackmail, libel, and slander of anyone should run all over reason and truth. As a writer, I go to great lengths to verify everything I write, even though I could probably get away with making up fairy tales. Words have meaning. It is my responsibility to ensure that my work is truthful and does not harm others just because I’m having a bad hair day. There are a lot of folks out there who need a psychiatrist, not a website to project their anger onto others with.

The only individuals who have an extremely limited right to sue are public figures. In Missouri, a public figure has to prove you knew what you said was a lie. That is why there is only one libel suit won by a public figure in the last 25 years in Missouri.

This attorney is a private individual, who most certainly has standing to sue. Many search engines and websites have removed mistruths about people to avoid being sued. In this case, the website in question will probably just remove the defamatory comments about the attorney, quietly pay the fees to date, and keep right on doing what they are doing.
11
AlMartin Says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 am
Lets look at their policy:

“Do not post the names of alleged cheating women on this website!”

Yea, ’cause we all know that women never ever cheat.

“www.DontDateHimGirl.com is for women to post the pictures and profiles of men who have allegedly cheated on them, NOT vice versa.”

“Allegedly”. So if you post something that is “alleged” you are assuming that it may not be true. Sounds like slanderous verbiage to me!

“Do not post comments! If you have comments, please post them in our DDHG member forum or on our blog.”

Right, because wo don’t care if it’s false. You are in our database and will stay there, even if she is full of shit… Oh wait, women aren’t vindictive or liars…. I forgot.

“Keep it clean and respectful! No profanity! It will be deleted from the profile!”

Respectful? Is that a word? I am not sure that these “ladies” even know of a word like that. Respect would imply that slandering someone because he “allegedly” did you wrong, is itself wrong. Respect would imply allowing a fair and impartial rebuttal. You know, Eqallllleteeeee!

“We do not remove profiles of the men in our database! If you have been posted to the site, you are entitled to e-mail a rebuttal to your profile by sending an e-mail request to rebuttals@dontdatehimgirl.com!”

Yes, where it will immediately be placed in the shit can. Unless of course it is written in anger, and adds to the fun of the game that is. Then we will post it… of course.

“DontDateHimGirl.com Content Monitors reserve the right to remove postings that violate these rules.”

Really? These are not rules for posting. These are rules to keep men out and to ensure that no male ever has the ability to refute the alleged acts they are accused of.

DontDateHimGirl.com is monitored for content 24 hours a day. Postings deemed to have violated these rules will be removed.

Yep, if we find out that you are male, you are gone. If we find out that you are in out database and posting… thus male, you are gone.

Shitholes like these need to be shutdown. They are slanderous and defamatory. They do not verify the claims, they just put em up.

If I were to say, post on the Internet that Hitlery Clinton grabbed my sack and told me that I was gonna like it! It would be false. It is not freedom of speech. It is a bold-faced effin lie. And I would be dealt with accordingly. This site is no different.

Furthermore, they even go as far as add more posts my (women that have also been XYZ’d by the man). No doubt, some of these women don’t even know the man. It’s just fun… donchaknow!

TMOTS
12
David R. Usher Says:
July 4th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Actually, Hollis might have a problem here. He is a City Attorney. While this is probably not an elected position, it is a position of public authority with substantial authority. Therefore, he probably has a much tougher standard of proof to overcome than the average Charlies being abused on this web site.