Posted on 01/06/2006 4:54:22 AM PST by beaversmom
Do the courts have jurisdiction over what people say in Internet chat rooms?
That question is being played out in what some lawyers claim is a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in Ohio, where a man claims he was humiliated online in an Internet chat room, and has filed a lawsuit over the incident.
The plaintiff, George Gillespie of Medina County, Ohio, is suing America Online for allegedly failing to do anything about the abuse he endured in the chat room, and the two chat room participants who allegedly caused him emotional distress by teasing him. Gillespie v. America Online, No. 05CIV1255 (Medina Co., Ohio, Ct. C.P.).
According to court documents, the chat room participants "acted in an outrageous manner, which they knew or should have known would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff ... The Defendants' conduct was so extreme and contemptible as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency."
AOL's lawyer, Michael S. Gordon of Columbus, Ohio, firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease's Cleveland office, declined comment.
UNCHARTED TERRITORY
Attorney Mark Tarallo, a lawyer with the Boston office of Holland & Knight who counsels companies on Internet matters, said "I haven't heard of anything like that." Tarallo believes that the lawyers in the Ohio case are venturing into uncharted territory and will face a tough battle, particularly in the fight with AOL. He noted that while there have been lawsuits where companies have sued individuals for posting derogatory comments about companies online, a third-party being sued over Internet chatter is unheard of.
"I think the plaintiff's lawyer is going to have an uphill battle. I don't know how you could say that AOL had some kind of obligation or duty to confirm [a statement] before allowing [a participant] to post it. It seems awful far-reaching to me," Tarallo said.
Gillespie's lawyer, A. Michelle Jackson of Oberholtzer, Filous & Lesiak in Medina, Ohio, did not return calls seeking comment. His other lawyer, Theodore Lesiak of the same firm, was unavailable for comment.
The individual defendants in the case, Mike Marlowe of Fayette, Ala., and Bob Charpentier of Salem, Ore., deny any wrongdoing. "I'm so flabbergasted with this because this has been blown out of proportion ... There were never any threats. We just made fun of the guy," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder who admits to teasing Gillespie over the Internet.
According to Marlowe, Gillespie alleged in his suit that Marlowe's harassment went beyond the Internet, and that Marlowe traveled all the way to Ohio from Alabama to file a change-of-address form for Gillespie just to disrupt his mail service.
Marlowe denied the allegation.
Charpentier, meanwhile, acting as his own attorney, filed a response and is considering a countersuit against Gillespie. A hearing is set for Jan. 10.
But whether people really believe message boards is a question posed by attorney Michael Lynn, a commercial trial lawyer at Lynn Tillotson & Pinker in Dallas who knows first-hand how tough it is to prove actual harm from comments posted on the Internet.
Two years ago, in a $700 million Internet defamation suit, Lynn successfully defended a Visa executive who was accused of posting derogatory comments about another company on Internet message boards, which allegedly lowered the company's stock price. ZixIt v. Visa, No. 99-10187-K (Dallas Co. Texas, Dist. Ct.).
In a four-week trial, Lynn convinced the jury that the statements were not enough to hurt the actual stock value given the vastness of the Internet.
"Our answer was that in the context of the entire stock market, connecting a statement in a chat room to a specific stock is largely impossible," Lynn said.
He expects similar arguments will be made in Gillespie's case.
"It would be difficult to prove that messages on a message board would really hurt someone's reputation in a community," Lynn said. "And how does anybody prove that they've actually been damaged as a result of a statement made in a chat room?"
about like the whoever it was that sued McD's for getting fat
The plaintiff, George Gillespie of Medina County, Ohio, is suing America Online for allegedly failing to do anything about the abuse he endured in the chat room, and the two chat room participants who allegedly caused him emotional distress by teasing him. Gillespie v. America Online, No. 05CIV1255 (Medina Co., Ohio, Ct. C.P.).
Internet For Dummies alert!
Heh-heh! FLAME THE NOOB!!!!
You're finding all sorts of good stuff this morning, BM. Walgreens, Spanish-speaking, this. I miss any?
If he thought that the teasing from two people was humiliating, he has opened a whole new can of worms for himself now.
From what I see of this, he deserves any additional humiliation he receives.
Also, wannabe freepers be warned: Freeping is a full contact sport here....no blood, no foul.
Marteen's practice has just expanded. He is now representing all of those flamed on FR such that they become emotionally distressed....
...and just yesterday, another lawsuit has emerged challenging bloggers this time from a former Clinton staffer: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1552346/posts
It seems that legal pressures are being brought to bear on internet freedoms...
TORT REFORM NOW! ! !
My tag line says it all..........
I try--what can I say?!? :)
Up until about 18 months ago, I was an AOL political chatroom moderator.
(insert various appalled comments here)
Some of the behavior in the chatrooms was, to put it mildly, appalling. Shortly before all moderators were put out to pasture, AOL "dumbed down" the standards in the chat to an "everything goes" policy. Short of sexually explicit words and obvious personal threats you could say anything you wanted. AOL's philosophy was "individuals are responsible for their own chat" and were expected to use the Ignore tool, etc. Nobody did, of course.
I'm surprised this lawsuit didn't happen sooner. Things got uglier than you would believe and make both FR AND DU (not that I'm putting them in the same class) look like a ladies' Bible retreat.
There are better cases out there than the one posted, of that I'm sure. I should know, I was the victim of one myself.
Oh, I have since done the Donald to AOL. "You're FIRED!"
Ahhhh, poor baby.
Marteen is representing 95% of all his online friends from himself?? WOW!!
Go Marteen!!!!!! :-)
It's the American Way. Let no deed go unlitigated.
Yeah, but the plaintiff has to prove damage before AOL alleged liabilities matter, nicht wahr?
Coupled with the factor of anonymity -- he's just a name on a website -- it will be hard to prove that he was in any way damaged. So the chilling effect this would have on free speech is far too costly for the minimal "benefit" it would demonstrate.
This guy is a bigtime loser. And I'd assume this is a simple extortion suit, except that it's so insane, he'll just end up wasting his time. What a panzy loser.
It happened on another internet forum I frequent - a forum for the discussion of Gibson Les Paul guitars. Someone sued both the site and some posters over comments made in the "Off Topic" area. The site responded by charging posters for the "privilege" of posting in the off-topic area. What a pain in the ass for everyone involved.
What a sissy. He needs to get a girlfriend and get out of the house.
>Up until about 18 months ago, I was an AOL political chatroom moderator.<
Ye gods! You poor dear!
Why those chatrooms are divided by "conservative" and "liberal" is beyond me. The looney leftists are allowed, if not encouraged, to disrupt the right-leaning discussions ad nauseum.
Liberals are the obvious champions of diversity, and of tolerance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.