Time to prosecute the Free Republic vandal outright. (Vanity)

today | By Lazamataz

[Lazamataz]

There is an internet vandal who defaces Free Republic with very gross pictures (homosexual sex and stuff from rotton.com) as well as posting "ALL YOU F***** N*****S & JEWS SHOULD BE LYNCHED".

He pings a variety of people to his post, ensuring that the trash is still in their My Posts lists.

To me, this isn't the milder form of harassment that Eschoir engaged in so many years ago. The very worst he would do is ask if you ever committed sodomy, and he once used the screen name "Paula Jones Tw*t". This is mild.

What this sick piece of work is doing is much more egregious. I believe it crosses the line into criminal defacement and restraint of trade. Are there any Free Republic lawyers (especially prosecutors) who can address this issue, and are there any private detectives with internet savvy that will help track the identity of this person down?

[Cvengr]

The issue at hand appears to touch on topics such as obscenity, indeceny, pornography, an action intended to touch upon the emotions so as to evoke an emotional reaction, without any intention to elicit rational response.

The actions also go beyond the bounds of state laws since they are communicated nationally and internationally.

Mike Godwin apparantly has an article out there of some merit, but I can;t seem to find a site with it still posted.

From http://www.eff.org/Censorship/?f=lappin_obscen_indecen.article

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NEW MEDIA, AND THE SUPREME COURT

---

Here's the basic deal:

The First Amendment is NOT an absolute.

For example, "obscene" speech does not enjoy First Amendment protection.

Period.

But what constitutes "obscenity?"

According to a three-part legal test laid out in the Supreme Court's 1973
decision in Miller v. California, "obscene" material a) depicts sexual or
excretory acts listed in a state obscenity statute, b) depicts those acts
in a "patently offensive" manner, appealing to the "prurient interest," as
judged by a reasonable person applying the standards of the community, and
c) lacks "serious" literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific
value.

Laying aside obscenity, the free speech provisions contained within the
First Amendment otherwise hold sway EXCEPT in cases where the state has a
"compelling government interest" in limiting citizens' rights of free
expression. Protecting children from exposure to content which is
"indecent" is recognized as one of those compelling interests. As it so
happens, that's also the alleged "justification" for passage of the
Communications Decency Act.

The Communications Decency Act which President Clinton signed into law on
February 8, 1996 defines "indecent" material as:

"any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication
that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as
measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory
activities or organs."

Notice how broad this definition is, and how it makes no exceptions for
sexually-explicit material with redeeming social value.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has also decreed (repeatedly) that the
State's compelling interest in protecting children from "indecent" material
MUST be exercised through the "least restrictive means possible."

Here's an example of how that comes into play:

In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
(1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC was NOT violating the First
Amendment when it complained about a radio station's decision to broadcast
a recording of George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue at 2 PM in the
daytime.

Why did the court uphold the "indecency" standard as it applies to
*exclusively* broadcasting? Here's what the court said:

"Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First
Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating indecent
broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression
occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of
the home and it is impossible completely to avoid those that are patently
offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely accessible to children."

NOTE: The full text of FCC v. Pacifica is available at:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision

It's worth checking out. (Ironically, because the document contains the
full text of Carlin's monologue as an appendix, online publication of this
Supreme Court decision could be punishable under the terms of the
Communications Decency Act.)

While fighting the censorship legislation in court, the ACLU will need to
prove that there are other, "less restrictive means" available to protect
minors from indecent content, short of broad government censorship.

Filtering software such as SurfWatch or Net Nanny, for example, seems to
fit the bill. These tools accomplish the "compelling interest" of
protecting minors by allowing adults to choose for themselves what is and
is not appropriate for their children to see WITHOUT requiring
government-imposed censorship.

In addition, given the criteria established above, the ACLU will want to
demonstrate why online media is NOT the same as broadcast, and thus should
not be subject to the same restrictions. With the First Amendment, context
is king.

Such arguments have proven effective in the past. In 1989, for example,
the Supreme Court ruled (in Sable Communications v. FCC) that a flat-out
ban on dial-a-porn services was unconstitutional.

Here's a great passage from "Sable," in which the "least restrictive means"
test is clearly laid out:

"Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the
First Amendment; and the federal parties do not submit that the sale of
such materials to adults could be criminalized solely because they are
indecent. The Government may, however, regulate the content of
constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest
if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated
interest. We have recognized that there is a compelling interest in
protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This
interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that
is not obscene by adult standards. The Government may serve this legitimate
interest, but to withstand constitutional scrutiny, 'it must do so by
narrowly drawn regulations designed to serve those interests without
unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms. It is not
enough to show that the Government's ends are compelling; the means must
be carefully tailored to achieve those ends'"

Nicely said. And with all this in mind, the Court concluded:

"Because the statute's denial of adult access to telephone messages which
are indecent but not obscene far exceeds that which is necessary to limit
the access of minors to such messages, we hold that the ban does not
survive constitutional scrutiny."

Given the state's "compelling interest" in protecting minors from
inappropriate media content in the absence of other, "less restrictive
means," these issues will be central to the question of whether or not the
Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional.

One thing we all can do right now is help make sure that people on and
offline understand that TOOLS NOW EXIST which will allow parents to take
responsibility for what their kids see on the Net. In other words, we
don't need Uncle Sam to protect the kids. We can do it ourselves, using
less restrictive means

One final note. The Supreme Court has also upheld the ideal that you
CANNOT dumb a medium down to the level of children if less restrictive
means exist to achieve the goal of sheltering minors from inappropriate
material.

In Butler v. Michigan (1957), a unanimous Court reversed a conviction under
a statute which made it an offense to make available to the general public
(printed) materials found to have a potentially harmful influence on
minors. The Court found the law to be insufficiently tailored since it
denied adults their free speech rights by allowing them to read only what
was acceptable for children. As Justice Frankfurter said in that
case,"Surely this is to burn the house to roast the pig."

Sadly, Congress and the President have decided to hold a pig roast, and
they're burning down the house in the process.

--Todd Lappin-->
WIRED Magazine

[rollo tomasi]

The troll can't help himself, the guy is only posting the only things he can accomplish in life.

[Lazamataz]

It's prolly just an ordinary proxy server and we are discussing ways to limit access by those.

[theophilusscribe]

Hola hispanarepublicana. Como estas, amiga?

Scroll that junk off your ping page! :o)

[Valin]

OH NO! I didn't intend for anyone to think TMP02 was the person(?) in question. TMP02 posted a thread shortly before this one and I thoght I'd share.
The photo is REALLY discusting.
I've not really run into this sort of thing before, what can be done about it (other than contacting the the MODS) I don't know.

Stupid question (my specialty) can the photos messages be traced back to their point of origin?

[sageb1]

"I am a detective by trade. Let me know if I can help. I can determine anything about anyone.."

The images are gone from Free Republic, but everyone here has a set of them in his or her cache.

[Admin Moderator]

Who's to say that this person has been banned before? He could be a FReeper in good standing, having been here for quite a while, and is now laughing.

If so, the laughter won't last very long.

[babyface00]

Here's an idea:

There are plenty of regular, respected FReepers on the board in various timezones who have been posting for years. How about if the mods were able to give those members limited policing powers - such as being able to move posts to a temporarily banned area for mod review, or temporarily terminate posting privileges for a user, also subject to mod review.

It doesn't fix the problem, but it would help limit the damage that could be done by a troll. Perhaps these powers would only be actionable on posters who have been around (and active) for less than six months - every new member would then be considered conditional and subject to rapid editing by the "deputy mods".

The "real" mods could then check out the "deputy" pulls at their leisure, and reverse the decision if necessary.

[Lazamataz]

I am a detective by trade. Let me know if I can help. I can determine anything about anyone..

OUT FRICKIN STANDING! Please send your contact number by freepmail. Let's at least identify this person by name. That's a start.

[jude24]

Now there's an interesting angle. The people to whom he posted that "all n----rs and Jews should be lynched" were all African-American or Jewish. He posted repeatedly to you, rdb3, latzmataz, and cyborg - showing that he was a little more serious than just some ignorant racist.

I wonder if we could get him for terroristic threats.

Hmmm.....

[RadioAstronomer]

Sigh. There are kids who look at this site. This is awful.

Since I saw him redirected, I figured it would be a good idea to check. (Just to make sure)

[MineralMan]

BTW, the weightlifter site is also in Australia. Hacker, teen weightlifter? Interesting. I have no idea, of course, but a hacking link is interesting.

[proud American in Canada]

I've never seen anything of this person. Guess I'm not in the FR elite!

Don't feel bad, I'm not an elite but just "got lucky" one day and almost lost my breakfast (I was eating at the time). :(

[babyface00]

I guess we think alike...(see my 268)

[SoVaDPJ]

Laz, I'm a brand new newbie here, and I would support having a "posting images privilege" restricted to members who have been here a certain amount of time. If someone new wanted to post, they could always run it by the Mods for screening.

[RadioAstronomer]

Panda should do it. I was worried when you browser was redirected.

[Lazamataz]

There are plenty of regular, respected FReepers on the board in various timezones who have been posting for years. How about if the mods were able to give those members limited policing powers - such as being able to move posts to a temporarily banned area for mod review, or temporarily terminate posting privileges for a user, also subject to mod review.

I'd volunteer. I'm not Mod material, I often post (mildly) offensive stuff that they have to clean up, but I might be okay in a troll-stopping role.

Maybe call it Trollstopping Moderator?

[unbalanced but fair]

Hope this helps.

[Strategerist]

If he can be tracked, I'm sure we can get his internet access revoked if nothing else.

That's about all that can be done. I'm not a lawyer but I'm 99.99999% sure that anything attempted legally would be laughed out of court.

So people need to stop fantasizing about legal action (unless they're going to lobby for new laws which is a whole 'nother can of worms) and talk about changes to FR (perhaps LONG probationary periods before posting pics is allowed, etc) which is the sort of thing I'm sure a judge would ask about before he giggled and threw out any lawsuit.

The last thing the legal system wants to get involved in is policing bulletin boards; they're going to ask what steps FR was doing themselves to restrict registration, etc.

[RadioAstronomer]

have kids who often look over my shoulder as I freep

What about the poor folks at work? Could cause real problems too. Sigh.