Is It Legal?
Published December 02, 2005
In an article on FindLaw, writer Anita Ramasastry brought up some current cases involving exposure sites, digital information and their interesting findings. One case stated that the First Amendment does not protect all personally identifiable information in every context, even those published online. In a 6-5 decision (close), in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc., et al., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al. an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a web site that did publish personal information of abortion doctors.
This particular case involved a website called the "Nuremberg Files." It published the addresses, photographs, addresses and other personal information of physicians and others who either provided or supported abortion services. The website also had strike throughs on the names of those who had been murdered and grayed out the names of those who had been wounded. The majority in this close decision held that the "pattern" in which the posters appeared — coupled with the fact that other abortion providers had been killed — transformed the posters into something of a symbolic threat. As such, the information was not protected by the First Amendment.
One owner of a website about cheating, abusive men says this about her site:
The Terms of Agreement and Privacy Policy are currently being re-revised and there are some terms that a woman needs to agree to before she can add a man to the database. All this basically comes down to two issues - Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and the issue of a private person's right to privacy. However, in a sense, aren't search engines such as Google merely large databases of information which also include personally identifying information of millions of humans?! If Google can do it, why shouldn't smaller websites such as mine be able to do it without legal reprecussions?
So, okay, we have people who are exposing the misdeeds of others in a cyberspace court of public opinion. Of course this pisses off the cheaters because they want a higher threshold standard of guilt/proof or because they disagree with the concept of outting anyone publicly for what they feel should be a private matter. However, here's my personal look at another beneficial perspective of the people making these claims.
If someone posted my picture/profile in a database and I learned of it but it wasn't true, then I probably wouldn't waste my time even rebutting it. Why? Because if I'm innocent, then the burden is not on me to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And I don't use and abuse people online or off - so I am not afraid of scrutiny. In short - its a catharsis the victims won't get anywhere else. What are the victims of these men and women to do with their anger, pain and hurt? Suck it up and allow the abuser to move on to another victim? Tell or not tell his spouse, partner or family? Stew in their feelings?
- Is It Legal?
- Published: December 02, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Fighter
- Fighter's BC Writer page
- Fighter's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I don't believe the Web site allows the publication of addresses and phone numbers. This isn't the only site and this site doesn't post photos. I know of another Web site where photos can be posted.
The laws about defamation of character, slander and libel require that the information be untrue, the person targeted have his/her reputation seriously damaged and that person must not be a public figure.
The Web site in question doesn't seem to allow for outside search (in other words, allowing the names of the cheaters to be subject to key word searches). So the exposure to peers that would constitute damage isn't there.
I think something that might be more open to litigation would be the sale of photos of ex-girlfriends on eBay. The sale of images for profit usually requires a signed release form.
the following websites are "exposure sites." some, I noted DO allow for a person's information (not the ones mentioned in the article)
datingpsychos.com
ripoffreport.com
also if you surf someone's nickname, sometimes their real name can be found and a quick perusal thru zabasearch or bigyellow can pretty much tell you anything you want to know.
Wow!! Great article - a lot of things I never really thought about or paid much attention to!
Fantastic article and it will be quite interesting to see how this all plays out. When exposing the psychopath/sociopath, abuser, cheater, bigamist, the con artist---keep in mind the definitions of defamation, slander, and libel. If you expose, be prepared to back up your statements with court documentation and other concrete evidence of the abuser's behavior. And let us not forget the rights given to us under the First Amendment of the US Constitution....VERY IMPORTANT!
I love the article! It is so true when she asks "What are we to do with our pain?" Many people don't understand the agony that a victim goes through without closure. On our site, we talk about closure in our free turtorial--there is conceptual closure (the ideal kind) and retrobutive closure (the kind that makes you feel great and requires nothing from the abuser). These exposure sites are the second kind. Go check it out.
Thanks Fighhter for a great article.
You are completely off base, my current wife is pissed off about a post about myself by a vindictive ex, that I had arrested because she's a psycho. If you support these kind of people, and the lies they spread, then you are one too. I'm seriously considering filing suit, because everything taht was said about me was a lie, nothing can be proved, however I can prove the obosite, court records and arrest records don't lie.
Great article! The owners of websites like womansavers.com and bashmyex.com are not liable because they are not the authors. If untruths are posted, it is up to the accused party to prove what the author wrote is false. These types of websites are protected under 1996 Communications Decency Act and also the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech.
This site allows pictures to be posted, however they post pictures of the women their ex's lied to as well. Most of the posts are vicious, lies and the mods back up the ones that have been cheated on. Names and names of towns/cities are posted with the pictures, as well as places these people can be found. This opens a can of worms. If the posted person (usually a woman)not the man that cheated, where to be hurt or killed, who is liable. Where is thier protection under law. Because the spouse cheated, does that make it ok for the other person to be victimized either by the spouse that feels justified by their actions because they are angry and hurt? Last time I checked you cant batter someone or hit someone because you are angry. So, it is lawful to put them and possible family members in jeopardy? I would hope in this country it is not the case.
cheaternews.com is allowing women to become endangered.
I found this site reading a profile posted for Phil Kassel on Don't Date Him Girl. This site does a great service and empowers women to stay safe and protect themselves from men who abuse women even through the church.
It's the new companion to online dating. Its a shame that someone's history can be plastered all over the web but women need to know about men who abuse women. I'm a guy and I am friends with all women I have dated. Things ended on good terms and with men of character the woman doesn't end up despising the ex. I have a friend that was posted and although he will never admit it he deserves to be posted for what he did.
Thanks for great information. Phil Kassel and other abusers need to be exposed so that women can see the warning signs and avoid being mistreated.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/40307)
Gee, that opens up another way that we could be victimized again, however, I do believe that victims of these type of predators should be allowed a voice. It is ok to print the all ready public stuff such as the criminal backgrounds as that is all public anyway. However, it takes common sense not to publish the addresses or phone numbers of the predators, think in my opinion of the law, they are protected. We as victims need to change the laws, so that if predators find their victims on the internet, they should be banned from ever using a computer again, or any form of communication that will allow them to find a victim. Remember I became a victim through the United States Postal System. The good old snail mail approach. Sometimes the laws will never cover what they need to cover, and predators being predators will always find a loophole. We need to continue to educate the public so that there will be less victims, and more justice.