Hundreds who posted views on sex assault trial targeted in Tarrant suit

[R/SGT]

Hundreds who posted views on sex assault trial targeted in Tarrant suit

04:39 PM CST on Saturday, February 7, 2009
By CHRIS HAWES / WFAA--TV

FORT WORTH — Hundreds of people who posted their opinions of a sexual assault trial in an online forum are now the targets of a lawsuit.

The authors of those comments on a Web site thought they were anonymous, but this week, a judge ruled their names should be revealed.

Mark and Rhonda Lesher lived quietly in northeast Texas; Mark practiced law, Rhonda ran a beauty salon.

Then, last year, a woman accused the couple — along with another man — of sexually assaulting her. That's when the anonymous comments started appearing on Topix.com.

An estimated 1,700 statements were too graphic to be included in this story, going far beyond the criminal charges.

"They were perverted, sick, vile, inhumane accusations," said Mark Lesher in a telephone interview from Clarksville, Texas.

The Leshers' attorney, William Pieratt Demond, labeled the comments "a form of persecution."

Last month, the couple got their day in court. A jury found the Leshers, along with their alleged accomplice, not guilty. But in the online forum, it seemed, the trial had no end.

"It just ... basically made us both feel like common criminals," Lesher said. "It's like someone had basically raped us of our reputation and our standing in the community over and over and over again."

And so this month, the Leshers sued 178 anonymous posters on the Web site. A Tarrant County judge ordered Topix to turn over potentially identifying information about the users listed in the lawsuit.. The site has until March 6 to comply with the ruling.

"We do not just give up people's privacy," said the Web site's CEO Chris Tolles. "We're very, very careful about that."

But Tolles said the discussions are not necessarily a license to run people through the mud. "If there is a line that's been crossed from a libel standpoint — and it seems reasonable — we do, in fact, cooperate with the courts."

This lawsuit was brought in Tarrant County because it appears at least one anonymous poster lives here.

Internet libel suits have had success in the past. A few years ago a North Dakota professor was awarded $3 million over claims a student Web site defamed him.

E-mail chawes@wfaa.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/020809dnmetlawsuit.2bd48105.html

I wonder how this will impact forum discussion and facebook groups?

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

I'm torn between saying this is a bad precedent or a good precedent ....... bad because the internet, for the most part, should remain anonymous but good for the reason that someone whose lives were dragged through the mud, are getting 'even'. So ja, dunno how to call it

 

[sox63]

I'm torn between saying this is a bad precedent or a good precedent ....... bad because the internet, for the most part, should remain anonymous but good for the reason that someone whose lives were dragged through the mud, are getting 'even'. So ja, dunno how to call it

I think it is good. We can't let society turn into a place where people cant be held accountable for what they say, online or not.

 

[Albereth]

Not sure how it can be bad for the internet. Yes, we sometimes do say things because we are 'hidden' behind our nicks - but I don't think that I have ever written anything that I wouldn't say in person.

Where it could be a bad thing is that we sometimes 'chat' in the forums and chatting is usually less formal, or had some prior context, etc. We may leave all of the caveats out and end up saying something that, if took in isolation, could be misintepreted. Or we could leave words out that change the whole meaning of what we were trying to say.

E.g. I could mean to say 'I don't think they did it' but forget the n't in my enthusiasm to post.

 

[brixton tower]

Basically, if you can't back up what you're saying don't say it. This should serve as a lesson for the thousands of hatemongers who in an attempt to stir up debate (knowingly) enter into the area of crimen injuria thinking that they are protected by the "anonimity" of a an online discussion board. The internet should definitely not be immune to legal action being taken. Yes to responsible freedom of speech.

 

[sox63]

Not sure how it can be bad for the internet. Yes, we sometimes do say things because we are 'hidden' behind our nicks - but I don't think that I have ever written anything that I wouldn't say in person.

Where it could be a bad thing is that we sometimes 'chat' in the forums and chatting is usually less formal, or had some prior context, etc. We may leave all of the caveats out and end up saying something that, if took in isolation, could be misintepreted. Or we could leave words out that change the whole meaning of what we were trying to say.

E.g. I could mean to say 'I don't think they did it' but forget the n't in my enthusiasm to post.

They would offer you an opportunity to explain the context of your statement and not just find you guilty.

As brixton says, "Yes to responsible free speech"

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Free speech should be free speech, no conditions attached ........ there is no such thing as responsible free speech. Who makes it responsible? If you're of the opinion that it isn't responsible free speech but others think it is, who is right? That's where it gets dangerous ... that a judge/goverment can start forcing anonymous people to be unveiled.

 

[Albereth]

Free speech should be free speech, no conditions attached ........ there is no such thing as responsible free speech. Who makes it responsible? If you're of the opinion that it isn't responsible free speech but others think it is, who is right? That's where it gets dangerous ... that a judge/goverment can start forcing anonymous people to be unveiled.

SLAP!

Stop talking nonsense. If you you can't be responsible about what you say, you really ought not to be saying it. This isn't the same as having to be quiet because you're too scared to say anything. The 'freedom' is in the right to be able to say it, not the right to say whatever you want.

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

.!.. you're obviously not getting what I'm saying ..........

 

[Albereth]

.!.. you're obviously not getting what I'm saying ..........

I think that I am... You are saying that freedom of speech means that you can say what you want. And whoever wants to can say it, and that the saying of it is more important than the who says it. So as long as it gets said, why can't it be anonymous? Or something like that.

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Maybe read my post again ..... especially the bolded

I'm torn between saying this is a bad precedent or a good precedent ....... bad because the internet, for the most part, should remain anonymous but good for the reason that someone whose lives were dragged through the mud, are getting 'even'. So ja, dunno how to call it

 

[LazyLion]

It's a warning to people using the Internet to remember that "anonymity" is not a blanket license to just shoot your mouth of. Common sense still applies! Now I wish I had the money to go after certain people on the internet! I've been attacked by trolls badly before on other message boards... but never like what these people went through.

 

[Albereth]

It's a warning to people using the Internet to remember that "anonymity" is not a blanket license to just shoot your mouth of. Common sense still applies! Now I wish I had the money to go after certain people on the internet! I've been attacked by trolls badly before on other message boards... but never like what these people went through.

My view is that if you want to dish it, then you have to be able to take it. I know that there are also some topics that are more likely to have someone make a personal attack and if I post in there I sort of grow a thicker skin. But I agree, if someone follows you around as is generally being a prat, that just isn't on. And if they want to come to where you live, as has happened, I guess you could go and lay a charge of harassment at the police station and turn it into a criminal case, rather than a civil one - get your tax rands to work for you.

But I suppose that it works both ways and that's the whole point about the need for the responsibility. I tend to find that a responsible post attracts less trolls. I will admit, however, that I sometimes enjoy dishing out biscuits.

 

[Albereth]

Maybe read my post again ..... especially the bolded

Oi - don't you bold and the beautiful me..

I read the part that I quoted.

I don't know what the world is coming to, mutter, mutter.

 

[Abe]

Free speech should be free speech, no conditions attached ........ there is no such thing as responsible free speech. Who makes it responsible? If you're of the opinion that it isn't responsible free speech but others think it is, who is right? That's where it gets dangerous ... that a judge/goverment can start forcing anonymous people to be unveiled.

The problem is that people will push boundries. One could bankrupt a company by spewing bull on a forum. Start some rumours, etc. There needs to be accountability when things go wrong with "free speech".

 

[-toady-]

My view is that if you want to dish it, then you have to be able to take it. I know that there are also some topics that are more likely to have someone make a personal attack and if I post in there I sort of grow a thicker skin. But I agree, if someone follows you around as is generally being a prat, that just isn't on. And if they want to come to where you live, as has happened, I guess you could go and lay a charge of harassment at the police station and turn it into a criminal case, rather than a civil one - get your tax rands to work for you.

But I suppose that it works both ways and that's the whole point about the need for the responsibility. I tend to find that a responsible post attracts less trolls. I will admit, however, that I sometimes enjoy dishing out biscuits.

My view is that if you want to dish it, then you have to be able to take it.

Exactly! I'm still waiting for our 'Network Administrator' Colin Balliram, to knock on my door with a libel suit.... I figure he's shot his mouth off to way too many people in the past..... The words on my blog have always been the Truth go figure....

 

[icyrus]

This is a slippery slope that they should not go down.

 

[hexagon]

Whenever someone proposes restrictions on free speech, think of the damage that the restrictions/punishments could cause in the hands of a corrupt government or wealthy oligarchy/company.

The solution is not to place restrictions on the speech itself, but is best dealt with by existing libel and damages laws. i.e. the focus of the legal system should be on the damage done, not on arbitrarily outlawing anonymity or restricting speech.

 

[stix]

bad because the internet, for the most part, should remain anonymous

// Why should it be any different? When people are anonymous they are of the belief they can speak freely and without responsibility. I always ask myself if i would say what i post to someones face. And if i would then i can post it.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Just my 2 cents
Free speach is one thing, but when it becomes hate speach, inflammatory to the point of inciting violence, or hinting at violence as retributable action, or threatening personal violence against the reciever, then it should be considered and treated in the same way as incitement to do violence or physical harm is treated under law.