Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'
CourtTV ^ | 01/12/2006 | J.K. Dineen

Posted on 01/12/2006 8:51:09 AM PST by BJClinton

Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.

But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."

"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."

A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it's the Internet age — and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit against two erstwhile cyber chums he met in the sprawling 900-room, mostly anonymous society that makes up AOL's chat universe.

Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."

The complaint, expected in court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference, also names AOL as a defendant for allowing the alleged harassment to take place.

Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.

The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.

"Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not."

But Marlowe said he works 60 hours a week at an autobody shop and laughed at the notion that he would drive from Alabama to Ohio to take pictures of Gillespie's house.

"I have never been to Ohio and I have absolutely no desire to go to Ohio," Marlowe said. "There is nothing there — the Cincinnati Bengals are there, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame maybe, and that's about it."

Even if Marlowe did take a trip to Ohio, posting a picture of someone's house on the Internet does not violate privacy laws, according to Chris Hoofnagle, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"Those norms require the aggressor to engage in behavior that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," he said. "Taking a picture of somebody's house and putting it up on the Web is not that."

Hoofnagle said Gillespie's emotional distress claim will also be tough to prove.

"We live in a rough society, as compared to Europe, where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action," he said.

Power Struggle in 'Romance — Older Men'

Charpentier said he first encountered Gillespie more than five years ago and at first, the two chatters were friendly. But Charpentier says he quickly became disenchanted by what he saw as Gillespie's mean streak.

Things really turned ugly four years ago when Charpentier traveled to Kentucky to meet another chatroom regular, a woman who was also a friend of Gillespie's. The blind date did not go particularly well, and when Charpentier returned to he discovered that Gillespie had gone on the attack.

"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."

Accused harasser Bob Charpentier

Charpentier, who has filed a response seeking to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie, said Gillespie threatened to kill him and "made sick and disgusting remarks about the passing of my grandmother."

"He is an AOL computer thug, that is all he is," Charpentier said.

Marlowe characterized the dispute as a petty power struggle. He said Gillespie was the de facto leader of the "Romance — Older Men" chatroom, and didn't like it when he and Charpentier challenged his authority.

But Marlowe said he never took the chatroom antics personally — until he was served with a lawsuit.

"I don't know how four years of bantering back and forth led to this insane nonsense," he said. "It's just the Internet, for God's sake. It's nothing important."

Michael Gordon, an attorney for AOL, declined to comment, saying, "This is just the beginning stages of this thing."

Megan Gray, a Washington D.C.-based intellectual property attorney who specializes in cyber issues, called it "a loser of a case." She said the Communications Decency Act gives AOL immunity from chatroom misconduct.

"AOL cannot be held liable for the actions of people on the site," she said.

She also suggested the case against Marlowe and Charpentier was doomed.

"The Internet is such a vibrant, young medium, these types of cases are not taken seriously," she said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: Alabama; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: aol; chatroom; crybaby; gaytool; imagirlyboy; lawsuitabuse; pussywillow; romanceoldermen; tormentingtrolls; tort; tortreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last
To: BJClinton

Wuss! Girly man!

Sheesh!


81 posted on 01/12/2006 10:07:07 AM PST by BlessedBeGod (Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Gee, thanks.


82 posted on 01/12/2006 10:20:30 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance (Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
bashed him over the head with a half empty liquor bottle.

How repugnant!

You wasted half a bottle of liquor.

83 posted on 01/12/2006 10:21:46 AM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton

"where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action"

Kinda like the kid that got in trouble for calling a horse "gay"--had "homophobia" charges filed... And yet the same people who defend such laws are the same who think Orwell and Bradbury are on their side...


84 posted on 01/12/2006 10:22:50 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: BJClinton

Uh, so how did these 'harrassers' end up with all this personal info (e.g. his address, his real name) on the 'victim'. 10 to 1 he gave it to them himself.


86 posted on 01/12/2006 10:28:21 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
I just read that one! What a hoot! I guess we can ALL sue each other HERE on FR from time to time~ I have certainly been flamed! LOL

As for me, I have never said anything online that I later regret having said. And if you believe that . . .

87 posted on 01/12/2006 10:29:38 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: right-wingin_It
Couldn't the President have used his line item veto on these midnight additions to congresional bills?

When did the President get the power for line item veto? I must have missed something.

88 posted on 01/12/2006 10:29:56 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
The plain fact is, it's rather hard for someone in a chat room to 'threaten' you or 'harrass' you if you aren't sharing personal info with them. If you don't like what they say, you can click 'ignore' so you don't see their posts, and you can shut them out so they can't send mail or IMs.

In other words, don't share personal info with random people in chat rooms.

89 posted on 01/12/2006 10:32:26 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton

Probably -- but it would be really hard to pass off Ann-Margret as a guy...


90 posted on 01/12/2006 10:32:51 AM PST by mikrofon (You half-males)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander
omg u cnt b seris cud u rly su us??/???

I don't know which is most worrisome: the lawsuit or the fact that I understand what you wrote(?). ;)
91 posted on 01/12/2006 10:34:54 AM PST by Fawnn (Canteen wOOhOO Consultant and CookingWithPam.com person - Faith makes things possible, not easy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I am only speaking on things I have seen done to others.

I am waiting to see what type of law suits arise from these new laws. It will be very interesting.

92 posted on 01/12/2006 10:36:49 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
10 to 1 he gave it to them himself.

He was probably trying to hook-up with them and gave them some contact info.
93 posted on 01/12/2006 10:45:51 AM PST by BJClinton (Dogs: because you can't beat your kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I recalled it passed with Clinton in office when I was in college...

But I just looked it up right now, and see the SCOTUS struck it down in '98. That explains it!

94 posted on 01/12/2006 10:48:29 AM PST by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Possibly.

If my head had been hard enough to break the bottle, the liquor would have been spilled and you would have not been able to consume it. If you hadn't been able to consume it then you almost certainly would not have been (as) intoxicated, and you probably would have been able to maintain your balance when the fire hydrant stepped in front of you. Therefore, my fault.

If I were you, I would sue both me and the owner of the errant hydrant.


95 posted on 01/12/2006 10:55:25 AM PST by WayneS (Honor the 2nd Amendment; repeal the 16th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Oh, and by the way, please return the stuffed panda.


96 posted on 01/12/2006 10:57:17 AM PST by WayneS (Honor the 2nd Amendment; repeal the 16th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton

His first mistake was becoming an AOL subscriber. It was all downhill after that.


97 posted on 01/12/2006 11:00:11 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
If that's true, there could be a cause of action.

Yeah, that shows malice aforethought, that's for sure. But the claimant publicly posted his private information, which may exclude him from the "private person" considerations.

Of course, anything discovered from the courthouse is public record anyway, and truth is a pretty good defense against libel.

Interesting case. That's why I stay out of chatrooms, too many losers and psychos hang out there.

98 posted on 01/12/2006 11:22:27 AM PST by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

"...a face that could scare a hungry wolf off a meat truck."


I don't care where you're from, that is funny. I'll be using that line at some point in the future.


99 posted on 01/12/2006 11:34:26 AM PST by mad puppy ( The Southern border needs to be a MAJOR issue in 2006 and 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

My favorite was....

"Maximum seating capacity 80 people....or you"


100 posted on 01/12/2006 11:39:57 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson