Activism Change

Civil Liability For Net Abuse

Question:

Still, there are a lot of creative grounds for suing people, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress for outrageous acts such as repeatedly harrassing and mailbombing people on the net. Recently, Kyle Casey assumed the identity of Kate Workman and made very offensive posts in her name.

Says who?  Where is your proof that I have assumed the identity of Kate Workman and made "very offensive posts in her name?"  You should take your own advice.  This statement is untrue and is clearly libelous. I think Kate has a very good case for either defamation or, more likely, false light invasion of privacy under California law.

Do you really?  Well, I’m going to flush that claim right down the toilet. Foreman v. Lesher: Assault victims brought defamation, false light, and emotional distress claims  against newspaper for referring to them as drug dealers.  The Superior Court,  San Francisco County, No. 907697, Roy L. Wonder, J., entered summary judgment for newspaper, and plaintiffs appealed.   The Court of Appeal, Stein, J., held  that claims were barred by failure to timely seek retraction. Kate Workman has no cause of action since the event occurrred several months ago and she has not sought retraction.  And if retraction is sought and provided, then she again has no cause of action. As such, I think some of Casey’s providers, such as sfo.com and interramp should be put on notice that Kate is seriously considering legal action and may join them as defendants.

First, I don’t have an interramp account.  You need to get your facts straight before providing legal adivice.  And second, the ISP at sfo.com has confirmed that there is no evidence of abuse eminating from my account with them. Btw- I am an attorney if that adds any credibility to this post.

Bullshit.  You are not an attorney.  If you are, then you are a very incompetant one.  By the way, I am telling you now to retract your statement that I have "assumed the identity of Kate Workman and made very offensive posts in her name."  

Response:

<snipperoo Thanks for the input!  I would say that in normal spamming cases, it would be difficult to pursue legal action.  However, given the wide scope of Kyle’s malicious activities against me, including his attempting to mailbomb me at work and sending forged postings out with my work address, along with the rest of the sick stuff, he has made the mistake of going too far.  The London School of Economics is not at all happy to have their name splattered all over the internet in these revolting postings, and they know all about Kyle. Yes, he has definitely gone over the top this time. Kate Workman

Speaking of going over the top, Kate, when are you going to apologize publicly and privately to me for your malicious claims? – Don

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipperoo Thanks for the input!  I would say that in normal spamming cases, it would be difficult to pursue legal action.  However, given the wide scope of Kyle’s malicious activities against me, including his attempting to mailbomb me at work and sending forged postings out with my work address, along with the rest of the sick stuff, he has made the mistake of going too far.  The London School of Economics is not at all happy to have their name splattered all over the internet in these revolting postings, and they know all about Kyle. Yes, he has definitely gone over the top this time. Kate Workman Speaking of going over the top, Kate, when are you going to apologize publicly and privately to me for your malicious claims? – Don

Just as soon as I see you behave like a human being…. which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. Kate Workman

Response:

 One anon poster suggested that Kyle could be sued for IIED, but Kyle cited cases which he  claimed held otherwise. As an attorney, I would have to side more with Kyle on this one,

Thanks for the info Einstein.  As far as the remainder of your post is concerned, you need to get your facts straight. I can see why you use a fake email address to post this crap.  Forging someone’s email address is a "very high profile case" that any attorney would take on contingency?  That’s a good one.  I could churn through your post and cut it to pieces, but I’m no longer going to waste my time discussing the law with wannabe law students posing as attorneys.   "interramp.com" also seems to be putting up with his antics.

Guess what Einstein, I don’t even have an account with Interramp.

Response:

Don: Kate, Now, let me get this straight…You accused me, completely falsely,

of spamming and forging. Kate: Oh, poor baby….  how you must be suffering.  And of course, I know so well that you are famous all over the net, and are widely known by all and sundry as the one and only ‘Doon’.  As if!  The REAL Doon might not be very happy about this situation, you know.  If there’s a trademark on the name, you don’t own it…. someone else does.

I love this, Kate. This is your way of saying that I’m not Doon. Okay, you’ve retracted it. Too bad you can’t do it (or anything, probably) in an honest and upfront way. Don: I sent you a post asking for you to retract that accusation.

Kate: No, you sent me 6 or 7 posts.

Actually, it was more. We were sending posts back and forth. It’s called an exchange. Don: You refused. Other people made it clear to you that your accusation of me was false and that you should retract that accusation.

Kate: Let me get this straight…. I’m supposed to apologize to you, despite your harassment of me, because ‘other people’ think I should?  

Not exactly, though taking good advice isn’t a bad idea. I think you should’ve apologized because people who were in a position to know the facts told you that your accusation was completely unfounded and you had ZERO evidence to the contrary. Kate: Here’s a clue for you:  I don’t do anything because ‘other people’ think I should.  That’s a lesson I learned a long time ago – the hard way.

And you’ve let it cloud your thinking. Kate: And since when do you give a rat’s ass about what ‘other people’ think,

anyway? I care, if they’re people I respect,  and I integrate it into my decision making. If someone told me that I was accusing someone of something that they hadn’t done, I’d carefully consider what they had to say. Sadly, you don’t. Don: You refused. Finally, I started getting aggresive about it, because you refused to do  the right thing.

Kate: Wait a minute here…. ‘Finally’, you started getting aggressive about it?  I guess that you don’t consider your initial 6-7 harassing and threatening emails in the space of 36 hours to be aggressive.  I disagree.  And don’t bother trying to deny it, as you know that I sent copies to another alt.a poster.

I don’t deny it. Make sure you don’t deny that those posts were responses knows that. She must be thinking you’re a real idiot about now…just as everyone else undoubtedly does. If you’d like to post ALL of the posts from both parties, I’m sure everyone would love to see them (zzzzzzzzzzzzz). I’m certainly not the least bit ashamed of their content…but make sure you post your end of the exchange along with them! Kate: As far as I’m concerned, your posting of my private correspondence, despite my formally stating that you did NOT have my permission to do so, nullifies any moral obligation I may have had to apologize to you.  You are a worthless scumbag, full stop.  I don’t notice you apologizing… why is that, I wonder?

It’s because I asked you to inform me which post you were talking about. You never did. If I inadvertently posted your private correspondence AFTER you asked me not to, I offered to apologize publicly and privately for it. You never gave me an example. Why? There wasn’t one. I quoted ONE SENTENCE  (and it was a pretty innocuous quote, so it’s obvious you’re just desperate for an "out") from a post of yours you made BEFORE you made the request. No, you can’t back date them. As far as moral obligations go, Kate, I don’t think you have any grasp of the concept. Don: Now you’re saying that you won’t apologize and retract your accusation until *I* start acting like a human being?

Kate: That’s right.

Don: Kate, you are truly amazing.

Kate: Thank you.  I wish I could say the same about you, but you’re simply very predictable in a sad sort of way.  

Really? I think there are a lot of people on a.a that have taken the time to get to know me wouldn’t agree with you on that! I know it’s just some idle insult you probably received at some time, so it’s really hard to take it personally. Kate: I’ll tell you why I’m probably never going to apologize to you: because you’re a schmuck, you’ve always been a schmuck, and you always will be a schmuck – barring divine intervention of some kind.  Also, you piss me off.

Is this supposed to make me feel badly about myself. If you think so, your predictive powers are pretty weak…along with everything else you post. Kate: Now, to be fair, I WILL apologize when the following conditions are

satisfied: <Kate’s "humor" snipped Kate: Just as soon as these conditions are met, you’ll have your apology…. and not a minute sooner.  My question to you is this:  when are YOU going to apologize to the people you’ve offended and insulted over the months on this group?  Never mind — I’m sure I already know the answer to that one! (see above)

So, Kate, you think the two of us think alike? Interesting! Love ya, Don Williams

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now you’re saying that you won’t apologize and retract your accusation until *I* start acting like a human being? Kate, you are truly amazing. He/she won’t apologise, as he/she *is* The Pig. His trolls are always the same, he goes into a group and then plays good cop/bad cop with himself, with neither side shutting up. You can cut and paste the messages from alt.sex.movies, alt.recovery.aa, and net-abuse.misc with what is happening here, the handles have just changed. In alt.sex.movies it was Mr. Nobody VS Brandi Alexander, here it is Laughingman VS Kate. The players "change", but the song remains the same. Kate is the Pig….adjust your killfiles accordingly. Sheyva Rift

Uh…. to say that you’re confused would be the understatement of the year.  And it was Mr. Obvious (aka Cold Fusion, aka Endless Mike, aka Adoptee Bob) VS Brandi Alexander, wasn’t it?  By the way, last time I looked, I was female. By all means, killfile me.  But don’t confuse me with the Pig. Kate Workman

Response:

Speaking of going over the top, Kate, when are you going to apologize publicly and privately to me for your malicious claims? – Don

Just as soon as I see you behave like a human being…. which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. Kate Workman

Kate, Now, let me get this straight… You accused me, completely falsely, of spamming and forging. I sent you a post asking for you to retract that accusation. You refused. Other people made it clear to you that your accusation of me was false and that you should retract that accusation. You refused. Finally, I started getting aggresive about it, because you refused to do the right thing. Now you’re saying that you won’t apologize and retract your accusation until *I* start acting like a human being? Kate, you are truly amazing. – Don

Response:

Speaking of going over the top, Kate, when are you going to apologize publicly and privately to me for your malicious claims? – Don Just as soon as I see you behave like a human being…. which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. Kate Workman Kate, Now, let me get this straight… You accused me, completely falsely, of spamming and forging.

Oh, poor baby….  how you must be suffering.  And of course, I know so well that you are famous all over the net, and are widely known by all and sundry as the one and only ‘Doon’.  As if!  The REAL Doon might not be very happy about this situation, you know.  If there’s a trademark on the name, you don’t own it…. someone else does. I sent you a post asking for you to retract that accusation.

No, you sent me 6 or 7 posts. You refused. Other people made it clear to you that your accusation of me was false and that you should retract that accusation.

Let me get this straight…. I’m supposed to apologize to you, despite your harassment of me, because ‘other people’ think I should?   Here’s a clue for you:  I don’t do anything because ‘other people’ think I should.  That’s a lesson I learned a long time ago – the hard way. And since when do you give a rat’s ass about what ‘other people’ think, anyway? You refused. Finally, I started getting aggresive about it, because you refused to do the right thing.

Wait a minute here…. ‘Finally’, you started getting aggressive about it?  I guess that you don’t consider your initial 6-7 harassing and threatening emails in the space of 36 hours to be aggressive.  I disagree.  And don’t bother trying to deny it, as you know that I sent copies to another alt.a poster. As far as I’m concerned, your posting of my private correspondence, despite my formally stating that you did NOT have my permission to do so, nullifies any moral obligation I may have had to apologize to you.  You are a worthless scumbag, full stop.  I don’t notice you apologizing… why is that, I wonder? Now you’re saying that you won’t apologize and retract your accusation until *I* start acting like a human being?

That’s right. Kate, you are truly amazing.

Thank you.  I wish I could say the same about you, but you’re simply very predictable in a sad sort of way.   I’ll tell you why I’m probably never going to apologize to you:  because you’re a schmuck, you’ve always been a schmuck, and you always will be a schmuck – barring divine intervention of some kind.  Also, you piss me off. Now, to be fair, I WILL apologize when the following conditions are satisfied: 1.  Pigs (in pink tutus) fly over Manhattan 2.  The cow jumps over the moon 3.  Hell freezes over 4.  Kim starts a new cult which worships birthmothers 5.  The Duck adopts 6 Ethiopian orphans 6.  Celeste begs to be allowed to join Bastard Nation 7.  Dana and Kim become ‘blood sisters’ 8.  Laura Lewis starts vilifying birthmothers 9.  Adoptee Bob becomes a feminist (and humanoid) 10.  Arnie decides that he LOVES being adopted 11.  You post anything that is remotely rational (by my definition, of course) Just as soon as these conditions are met, you’ll have your apology…. and not a minute sooner.  My question to you is this:  when are YOU going to apologize to the people you’ve offended and insulted over the months on this group?  Never mind — I’m sure I already know the answer to that one! (see above) Kate Workman

Response:

 Sorry about the formatting- cross-posting to groups with past posts on this topic.  I have folllowed with interest the postings such as "Forged Headers" and "Cause of Action Against  Kyle Casey", in which it was debated to what extent one could incur civil liability for net abuse. Many  were of the opinion that there was no civil liability which could be incurred for such abuse, but  no cases were cited in support of said proposition.

(…some really interesting legal stuff snipped for brevity….)  Having said this, Kate faces a tough barrier in that she presumably lives far from Kyle. Kyle  would almost certainly have to be sued in Calif. A widely criticized case held otherwise, but  the better view is that Kyle’s alleged defamation did not make him subject to the jurisdiction  of every locale where his posts were sent. It will be very difficult to go to California and incur  the expense of suing there. Thus, unless Kate has the resources to do so, any theoretical  legal right she has would be of no use.

Not really, as my father lives in LA and my sister lives in San Francisco….. distance is not a problem.  They are both online, as are many of my family members, and they are – frankly – appalled at what he is doing.  They will be happy to help me pursue it legally, and they have the resources to do so.  Kyle asserted that no lawyer would take the case, but I strongly disagree with that notion. This  case has the potential to be a very high profile case, and many lawyers would rather have a  high profile case which will make them famous than one in which they recover a great deal of  money. Also, this case is fascinating legally, and it has a real chance of going to the US Sup.  Ct. if the parties pursue it that far. I think Kate should try to find a lawyer to take the case on  a contingency basis if she decides to sue- there is a one year statute of limitations for this in  Calif., though, so she can’t wait too long. Not knowing how much non-exempt assets Kyle  has, I don’t know how lucrative it could be, but I see this case as a Jake Baker-type case which  would make a lawyer very well known.

I’ve been advised by others that what you say is true…. this is ground-breaking stuff which may be very tempting to a lawyer who’s interested in pursuing it.  The law is really just beginning to be defined when it comes to the internet, and I do have official letters from Kyle’s sysadmin at connex.com naming him as the account holder.  I also have his own admission that it’s him, which must of course be traceable to him.  His early postings are definitely traceable (the connex.com ones), so he can’t try to say that he has nothing to do with it.  This is just my .02 after doing some research. I’ve got to get back to my real work, but this post  will hopefully provide some insight into the civil actions which may be maintained against some,  but by no means all, forms of net-abuse. I’m sure some others can give some additional insights  or point out any errors I may have made.  

Thanks for the input!  I would say that in normal spamming cases, it would be difficult to pursue legal action.  However, given the wide scope of Kyle’s malicious activities against me, including his attempting to mailbomb me at work and sending forged postings out with my work address, along with the rest of the sick stuff, he has made the mistake of going too far.  The London School of Economics is not at all happy to have their name splattered all over the internet in these revolting postings, and they know all about Kyle.  Yes, he has definitely gone over the top this time. Kate Workman

Response:

  Sorry about the formatting- cross-posting to groups with past posts on this topic. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I have folllowed with interest the postings such as "Forged Headers" and "Cause of Action Against  Kyle Casey", in which it was debated to what extent one could incur civil liability for net abuse. Many  were of the opinion that there was no civil liability which could be incurred for such abuse, but  no cases were cited in support of said proposition.  One anon poster suggested that Kyle could be sued for IIED, but Kyle cited cases which he  claimed held otherwise. As an attorney, I would have to side more with Kyle on this one, given  that IIED is really a disfavored remedy under the law. The law is very careful to avoid creating  a cause of action for "not being nice", and truly outrageous conduct is usually required (such  as phoning a mom and tellling her her son has been killed." Moreover, in Flynn v. Higham, 197  Cal. Rptr. 145, it was held that a claim for IIED based on allegeldly defamatory conduct had to  meet the common law and statutory defamation requirements in order to be actionable. Thus,  Kate Workman would presumably have to win on a libel or false light action before being  able to assert IIED. It’s *possible* IMO that she could win on IIED, (Intentional Infliction of  Emotional Distress, btw), but a defamation action would be much better.  That brings us to the possibility of a defamation action. Some posters suggested that there  was no possible liability in this regard based on internet conduct, but that is clearly wrong.  The internet has not been around long enough to have developed a case law in this area,  but the few cases out there, and the fairly numerous law review articles, clearly indicate that  internet activities can give rise to civil liability for defamation. See: 18 Hastings Comm./Ent.  Law Journal 627, 5 Albany L.J. of Sci./Tech. 229. In 46 Case Western Law Rev. 235, it was  suggested that the plaintiff should be required to show "actual malice" on the part of the  defendant in making the statements, given that the internet e.g. USENET gives the plaintiff  the right to set the record straight by making her own postings- a right one does not have with  a newspaper, for example. This is of no relevance for Kyle’s case, however, given that, if he  did make the posts using Kate’s forged identity, then there was clearly malice. One of  the few cases dealing with this issue is It’s in the Cards, Inc v. Faschetto, 535 N.W.2d 11,  in which an appeals court upheld the right to bring a defamation action based on internet  conduct. Incidentally, it is generally agreed that defamation in irc or other chat rooms would  constitute slander, while defamation in Usenet woulld constitute libel.  California Civil Code 45 defines libel as "a false and unpriviliged publication by writing, printing,  picutre, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred,  contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a  tendency to injure him in his occupation." This is a very broad definition of libel, and Kyle’s  alleged posts would seem to fall squarely with this definition. There are statutory limitations on  libel in Calif. in eg. 45a and 48a, but these would not apply to the present case. There is some  question as to whether making a forged posting would constitute a defamatory statement. There  is no such requirement of in sect. 45, but it may nevertheless be preferable to bring a false light  invasion of privacy cause of action. The Cal. SCT stated in Felllows v. Nat. Enq., 228 Cal.Rpt.  215 that "the false light in which the plaintiff is placed must be highly offensive to a reasonable  person. Although it is not necessary that the plaintiff be defamed, publicity placing one in a  highly offensive light will in most cases be defamatory as well."  IMHO, Kate would have a very good chance of recovering in a false light action. There is no  case directly on point, but false light would clearly appear to cover the present conduct. 62A  AmJur2d "Privacy" Sect. 132 notes that "mere physical actions, without words at all" may  give rise to the cause of action, so assuming a false identity and using it to expose a person  to hatred or ridicule should definitely be sufficient. False light was "invented" partially to cover  conduct which for technical reasons might not fall within the definition of libel, but which  nevertheless should be actionable.  Having said this, Kate faces a tough barrier in that she presumably lives far from Kyle. Kyle  would almost certainly have to be sued in Calif. A widely criticized case held otherwise, but  the better view is that Kyle’s alleged defamation did not make him subject to the jurisdiction  of every locale where his posts were sent. It will be very difficult to go to California and incur  the expense of suing there. Thus, unless Kate has the resources to do so, any theoretical  legal right she has would be of no use.  Kyle asserted that no lawyer would take the case, but I strongly disagree with that notion. This  case has the potential to be a very high profile case, and many lawyers would rather have a  high profile case which will make them famous than one in which they recover a great deal of  money. Also, this case is fascinating legally, and it has a real chance of going to the US Sup.  Ct. if the parties pursue it that far. I think Kate should try to find a lawyer to take the case on  a contingency basis if she decides to sue- there is a one year statute of limitations for this in  Calif., though, so she can’t wait too long. Not knowing how much non-exempt assets Kyle  has, I don’t know how lucrative it could be, but I see this case as a Jake Baker-type case which  would make a lawyer very well known.  There are some interesting side issues legally here. One is whether Kyle’s posts would be  admitted into evidence. They would clearly not be hearsay, given that they would not be used  to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Authentication issues would be the main barrier, and it  may be necessary to go to an archive such as dejanews to get authenticated copies of the  posts. Another issue is how it could be proven that Kyle made the posts. It would likely be  necessary to subpeona a person, such as one of his former sysadmins who had heard him admit  that he made posts such as the ones in question. The headers leading to a san francisco  provider would also be helpful. If Kyle denies making the posts, an attorney skilled at cross-  examination would be essential. If the jury feels like he’s lying, that alone could cost him the case.  If Kyle chooses to deny it, that would open the door to bring in his past alleged acts of usenet  abuse. Ordinarily, prior bad acts are inadmissible character evidence, but exceptions exist for  proving such things as identity. If Kyle admits he made the posts, his prior acts would likely not  be relevant since Kyle would be identifying himself as the poster.  Another point is whether one of Kyle’s providers could be sued. Many of the law review articles  I looked at on WESTLAW dealt with two cases in which providers were sued for defamations  made by their customers. The cases are Cubby v. Compuserve and Stratton v. Prodigy (sorry-  forgot to get the cites). In Cubby, the provider was held not liable, but Prodigy was held liable  based on the fact that they apparently had some level of knowledge of the defamation but did  not pull the account and let it continue. In Kyle’s very own N.Dist. of California, a federal court  held in RTC v. Netcom, 907 F.Supp. 1361 that Netcom would be liable for a customers  copyright violations if they knew of said violations but failed to pulll the account. Thus, summary  jdugment was denied, and Netcom is having to pay lawyers to defend the suit based on their  customers actions, regardless of whether they win the suit. A provider will never be liable civally  for allowing mere spam, but if the provider knows that a customer is defaming, defrauding, or  violating copyright laws, then there is strong precedent for suing them if they fail to pull the account.  Thus, if any of Kyle’s providers in SF knew of his past defamations, but allowed them to continue,  then I would recommend that Kate join them as a co-defendant. At any rate, merely citing them  the Netcom case along with a threat to sue would be very persuasive as far as making them  pull Kyle’s account. "Sfo.com" doesn’t seem to be getting the message, so maybe they would be  in line for a cease and desist letter from an attorney- "interramp.com" also seems to be putting  up with his antics. Like I said, they lose if they have to pay lawyers to defend against the suit,  regardless if they lost the case. They should not be sued unless they knew of his prior *unlawful*  (such as defamatory) acts.  This is just my .02 after doing some research. I’ve got to get back to my real work, but this post  will hopefully provide some insight into the civil actions which may be maintained against some,  but by no means all, forms of net-abuse. I’m sure some others can give some additional insights  or point out any errors I may have made.  

Response:

Filed under: Feminist

Related Posts

• [PNEWS] AB: It's over! First Lady tells friends,
• Payne Stewart's racist nature reveals itself
• Contempt of Court -- Help
• Do You Wear A Chastity Belt?
• Spew Alert: Adoptions Made in Heaven
• Request for data concerning VAWA
• Refuge Fanzine is full of mongoloids
• Stars Help MS
• CHAT: I am DOG! Hear me BARK!
• Proprclr: Delusional, Paranoid Nutter (was Re: What if you are assaulted by feminist harpies (simalter to what a group of feminists did in New York City))