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?

[FreedomHasACost]

I think it would not be too hard to nail this guy with a crime once his identity is discovered. It would be of a help if he is from a state like Illinois where laws on this type of stuff is tight. The U.S. Supreme Court laid out a very strict interpretation of what the term "obscene" means. They had a long definition that makes it fairly difficult to identify, and prove, that something is obscene. So, it might be better to go on a state law.
What needs to be done is to procure a good lawyer who is well versed in computer crimes. Also I think that a good start would be to contact this creeps ISP. I bet this is against the rules of his sign-on agreement. The stuff he is posting is filthy to say the least and any respectable ISP would ban someone for good over it. ISP's are more likely to ban someone if they know there is an ongoing criminal investigation .
Another thought is, a private suit for damages could work if you have a quirky judge. This damages FR image, imho.
We need to rid ourselves of this perverted jerk.
Sorry, I probably went on too long.

[King Prout]

no, you went on as long as was required.

I have little understanding of civil law.

I favor at least trying to nail this assfat to the wall on a criminal charge - traspass and vandalism.

[Killborn]

I understand, but if wer have this stuff lying around, can we really justify in a court of law that we are a family friendly site?

[Killborn]

Thank God.

[trussell]

Curse words and jokes are not illegal as porn is. I have to say I view these as totally different things...one is illegal to share with a child...the others are not.

[Voir Dire]

Quote: I know of no actual laws in the United States against "hate speech" (thank God), and as others have pointed out, it's unlikely that this meets Supreme Court definitions of obscenity, no matter how obscene it appears to any of us."

I viewed the abhorrent posts this morning, and then was too busy at work to return until now. My description of the posts as being "hate speech" was just that: my description of what I saw. It wasnt intended as a legal definition.

I was not declaring that a crime was committed, but if an affidavit is needed as to my reaction (i.e. having my personal sensibilities offended) I will be glad to provide one.

And yes, the pictures and message was obscene IMO, but not necessarily in violation of the First Amendment.

[Pajamajan]

BUMP

[Chong]

Amy, thanks for the ping.

BUMP BUMP BUMPITY BUMP!!!

[Horatio Gates]

There is something in the USC, Title 18 somewhere, about transferring obscene material to kids under 16 but proving knowledge on the part of the dirtbag could be impossible. I'm sure with all of the sleuthing going on here somebody will get "it" identified.

[SJackson]

Thanks for the comment. I don't think your comparision to a private club holds up, it's not, but as I noted I've no doubt FR has some legitimate civil issues here.

[SJackson]

I think it would not be too hard to nail this guy with a crime once his identity is discovered. It would be of a help if he is from a state like Illinois where laws on this type of stuff is tight. The U.S. Supreme Court laid out a very strict interpretation of what the term "obscene" means. They had a long definition that makes it fairly difficult to identify, and prove, that something is obscene. So, it might be better to go on a state law.

Two or three years ago I remember a rather stringent law being proposed regarding threats over the internet in Illinois. I don't know what happened to it, but feel free to post info if you have it. My recollection, the residency of the "victim" was the defining issue, not the perp.

[SJackson]

This wouldn't be hard at all with tabbed browsing like with Firefox. Think about it.

I routinely post 4-8 pings at a time to my list using multiple windows in IE. What he's doing isn't a technological feat.

[Horatio Gates]

Hey you two, have you worked computer crimes before? I've been running a few ideas through my head and I'm not seeing anything prosecutable here. Without radically changing the guidelines for membership or sign-up, there doesn't seem to be an avenue to "trespass" or unauthorize access to FR servers to certain people. Not that I've spent extensive time working kiddie porn investigations but I've done fraud, there always seems to be a credit card number to backtrack and banks are seemingly easier to work with than ISPs. Thoughts?

[Alouette]

I routinely post 4-8 pings at a time

I'm having a problem with double postings everytime I ping a thread. I don't know what could be causing it (I only click "post" once!)

Any ideas?

[devolve]

[SJackson]

I've noticed. :>)

Frequently when I ping I get an error message from FR, the message of which I can't recall though I'll FRmail you the next time it happens. When it does I wait a minute and check "My Comments" in another window before re-pinging, and most of the time I find the first ping took. If you're only clicking post once, I don't know.

[FreedomHasACost]

I am not from Illinois so what I referred to before was hearsay. I just did a quick search though and this link has a touch of info regarding Illi, it does go off topic though. http://www.multistalkervictims.org/laws/illinois.htm

[Gosh I love this neighborhood]

Bump

[SJackson]

Thanks, I think that's the change I was thinking of. My recollection it applies to a threat to an alias (screename), though must be more specific than our friend.

720 ILCS 5/12-7.5. Cyberstalking. 2001.

(a) A person commits cyberstalking when he or she, knowingly and without lawful justification, on at least 2 separate occasions, harasses another person through the use of electronic communication and:

(1) at any time transmits a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint and the threat is directed towards that person or a family member of that person, or

(2) places that person or a family member of that person in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint.

(b) As used in this Section:

"Harass" means to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person.

"Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electronmagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.

(c) Sentence. Cyberstalking is a Class 4 felony. A second or subsequent conviction for cyberstalking is a Class 3 felony.

[Jeff Gordon]

I doubt there is anything they can do.

There is probably no way to bring the legal system down on this person; however, there are alternatives. Once the person's ID is known there are many legal and non-violent ways of making the person have a few bad days, weeks or years.