Slashdot Mirror
UK Facebook User's Name Appropriation Draws Huge Libel Suit
Slatterz links to a story which shows that nowadays, it's sometimes possible to find out whether someone is a dog on the Internet, excerpting: "A freelance photographer is facing a £22,000 bill after setting up a fake Facebook page that libelled a former classmate. Grant Raphael, a freelance photographer, set up a Facebook page in the name of former school friend Mathew Firsht and posted false information about his sexual and political preferences. He also set up another page for Firsht's television company, the latter entitled 'Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?' ... 'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences,' media lawyer, Jo Sanders, of Harbottle & Lewis, told the BBC."
Libel is libel, even on the Internet.
Fnord.
Cue the "'Firsht' Post" jokes.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I like being able to post completely anonymously. I even like being able to misinform people about my identity. I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
But not as a specific 50-year-old man who actually exists. While I think we should all have the right to conceal our identity, we certainly shouldn't have the right to assume someone else's.
This is the least controversial thing I have ever written.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
While the UK libel laws are still in need of serious fixing, it looks like they got this one right.
-- Will program for bandwidth
...tends to be taken rather more seriously than in the US. There is no automatic right to free speech (except on Speaker's Corner, where even the slander laws can't touch you) and the penalties aren't gentle - the satirical magazine Private Eye found that one out. However, the standards of proof are high and a false accuser can expect rough treatment too from both the courts and the press. That is why frivolous lawsuits and abuses of the legal system are rarer in England. In this case, however, if the alleged victim was indeed a victim of libel, the damage will be hard to undo. What is on the Internet is there forever and falsehoods will continue to circulate in all perpetuity. This is not the trivial stuff of a local gossip causing problems in a local village, where you can simply move. You cannot (yet) move off-planet.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences,'
Then this case is insignificant. It has always been this way.
media lawyer, Jo Sanders, of Harbottle & Lewis, told the BBC.
Maybe the summary should link to the BBC article.
Firsht post?
People slandering each other on the internet! What is the world coming too!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
The Internet has its share of problems, which I won't get into, but the fact that people believe anything on here is a major one. Stuff on facebook is not definitive if it was I really am Superman. That account got closed for being fake, I was the first hero to get closed, I had more friends than Jesus. But I'm off topic, I agree he should be sued, and so should facebook because I'm sure they were informed it was fake but didn't remove it in a timely manner.
Where is the story here ? Its not satire, or free speech... it was malicious and designed to humiliate and hurt the victim. Case closed. More interesting to me is what information/tools were used to track the creation of the fake Facebook pages back to the perpetrator... (or...duh..did he use his own email address to set the account up?)
based on the information presented here, I'm pretty sure this would be considered libel in the U.S. as well. The guy's not really a public figure, the material published is demonstrably false, and clearly shows intent to harm reputation. I think even under the stricter "actual malice" standard required for public figures. And on top of it, there could possibly be fraud charges and grounds for an invasion of privacy suit.
The days of the Internet as some kind of Wild West where you can do and say whatever the fuck you want without having to take the consequences for it are coming to an end. If somebody want to be an asshole, he'd better be one anonymously from an Internet café... which shows just what a cowardly little shit he is.
A good many people depend on their good name for their living. Jerks who try to damage someone's ability to feed his children deserve to be punished.
I piss off bigots.
What did you say his job was again?
That's funny, twitter.. i actually thought it was you. You know.. in real life(tm).
If it's not, tell that guy to learn some html. The page looks horrible.
It's not so much what you say, but who is doing the restricting. In other words, the first amendment says the government may not abridge the freedom to say whatever you want, not that you only have the right to speak against the government. It says the government may not restrict your speech. So a corporate entity or whatever may restrict your speech without running afoul of the Constitution but the government may not. That includes speech about things that have no political or governmental implications whatsoever. Libel is considered an exception to the first amendment, but proving libel requires certain things (that, as the original poster correctly pointed out, are different in the US than they are in Britain). But make no mistake about it -- a successful libel lawsuit is certainly a GOVERNMENT restriction of free speech.
They have maliciously misrepresented an innocent private person
Not as often as he's misrepresented everything else... I wonder who will stop first?
yes, and depending upon the outcome of the Frank Chu lawsuit against the Clintons for illegally broadcasting his image to the Twelve Galaxies, we may see a precedent set that will affect libel lawsuits in other parts of the universe as well!
hey here is an idea this twitter fuck you all inevitably bring up in any discussion and all his alts... fucking brainstorm here, who gives a fuck? if the guy writes something interesting or insightful under whatever the fuck account he chooses then more power to him eh? and if it's some brain dead spew like you just added to the discussion and just like the post I'm writing... let it get modded down appropriately and stfu? kthxbai
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Twitter has given nothing but honest opinions of public figures, companies and products. One of them or some kind of fanboy in turn have smeared the person who they think is twitter. That's wrong, even if they were right.
'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences'
If people are only just realising that now, then the world is in more trouble than I thought.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
Guess Ross and Chandler should get a fine too.
> while pointing to his homepage
Um, his homepage is set to a page in his journal.
Forgetting the ethics of what this guy did, when will people learn that there are limits to anonymity online? I'm surprised how this keeps happening. People should know by now that they can be tracked.
People who are more technically inclined should know to use proxies. Especially those based in countries that are unlikely to give the UK access to their logs - read: China/Russia. What about Tor? Honestly, posting stuff online that could get you in trouble directly from your home computer is on the same level of intelligence as robbing a bank with a big sign bearing your name, address and phone number.
They have maliciously
Who is "they"?
That was a pretty pathetic attempt to defend yourself, Twitter. Next time be less obvious.
You mean Britney Spears doesn't actually know semiconductor physics? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. I'M SUING.
A civil action must be enforced by the government to be meaningful. A decision is made in a (government) court and if you don't pay what you are required to, you in fact just might see the inside of a jail cell. But either way it has nothing to do with whether you go to jail -- the point is that if a law is on the books (civil or criminal) that restricts what you say, that law is a government abridgment of your speech.
A swing and another miss, Twitter.
People know it's you, because no one in their right mind would ever defend you that way.
That and the unique writing style you find so difficult to fake when you're pretending you're someone else.
Props for using your sockpuppets though.
That's a pretty outrageous statement, Twitter. Not only did you use one of your 12 sockpuppet accounts, but you posted a link to your infamous Enemies List. That's 23 Slashdot readers you've accused of being either paid Microsoft shills or figments of one Microsoft employee's imagination. It may not meet the legal standard of libel, but it still makes you a small, petty liar.
And for what? So you can cry "Thoughtcrime!" against anybody who disagrees with you? So you can claim some tiny sliver of power in a life of ineffectual bleating? So you can be special?
It must suck, knowing that the only way you could get people to notice you was to go insane.
You do know that twitter is Erris, and just tried to make one of the people who say "hey, he's sockpuppeting" look bad, right?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Everyone who has been a part of this thread is a complete douchefag. And yes I know that I'm a part of this thread.
"Jerks who try to damage someone's ability to feed his children deserve to be punished."
Won't somebody *please* think of the children!
"posted false information about his sexual and political preferences."
I can just see him now:
'Calling me gay? Sure I can deal with that, but calling me a liberal is a step too far.'
The days of the Internet as some kind of Wild West where you can do and say whatever the fuck you want without having to take the consequences for it are coming to an end.
Wich is why we must act now to save it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Slow down there partner, it ain't always black and white.
We might be taking this a little too far.
I do agree with you, some one that interferes with providing food on the table
should suffer some pain, the punishment should also fit the crime.
Too many times, it doesn't as someone wants to make an example out of him.
If you being a diff. color or creed poses a threat to me being able to put
food on my table, does that mean that I should not give you a job at
my company you are applying for, seeing as I might have too many racists
working for me, that would strike for hiring a diff. color man.
This is the 21st century and internet is wild and untamed as far as I see it.
Poker, p0rn and god knows what else, if there was a case of slander, bringing justice
by taking down the site and having the person make a formal public apology for his actions would be
the best outcome. Tying up courts using tax payers dollars to figure out that this is bad and
a precedent should be set is a whole other ball game.
I would really hate to have someone set up a website with my name on it and say that
I am gay or even worse a pedophile, but this is the problem with places like facebook
ANYONE can sign up and put the real info to begin with, even real photos and not make it a hate site.
Then all of a sudden you are collecting intel on the person who you set up as you accept friends and pokes from all your long lost friends from high school. Guess what you have been social engeneered without doing any real damage PUBLICLY. I think the onus is on the facebook makers ...but do you think facebook will be doing this? Nope, cuz' they just don't care....but they should!
to have a better validation in place, must charge a fee of 10$ to set up an account with the name of the person setting up the site on the card, if the card is cancelled so is the site until a new card with matching name can be referenced. This would take care of people impersonating on that site
If a wireless UNENCRYPTED router is left broadcasting, does that mean you have the right to use it for internet? Same thing here, because facebook is not personality secure do you give up your rights to use it( or in this case not to use it? )
> If somebody want to be an asshole, he'd better be one anonymously from an Internet café...
> which shows just what a cowardly little shit he is.
That's asinine. If one has to choose between libeling someone from one's own IP address or doing so anonymously, it's not "cowardly", to choose the latter, it's just sensible.
Interesting. Did you stop giving a shit, or are you trying to engage in clever reverse psychology?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
When did they start? I must have missed the memo. The procedure has changed over the years, but there's always been punishments for crimes on the internet since I started in 1990.
"your right to free speech in the US is your right to free speech AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT"
You are not allowed to threaten the life of the President in any way. If you make a verbal/written proposal suggesting assassination of the President, even if you claim you were only joking, you can be charged and your freedom of speech defense will not save you.
"Unless they were talking to or about the government, it just ain't so"
Whether or not the government is the subject does not matter. You can say whatever you want only if you are not breaking the law. The main considerations are veracity (is it true?), venue (where was the comment made? eg. Slashdot), and audience consent (was the audience forced to listen? eg. nobody forced you to come to Slashdot, did they? Thus you have implied your consent to read the crap posted here! But someone yelling opinions at you on a street corner as you walk by may be a different matter - wait a minute! I didn't consent to be this nut's audience!). There can be other considerations too. It is incumbent on all citizens to know the law. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!".
Your right to free speech in the US is not just to "free speech AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT." Consider New York Times v. Sullivan. In that case, and others succeeding it, the Supreme Court imposed a constitutional standard that protects those commenting in the public arena. Your statement is not just misleading, it is WRONG.
I can see where you made your mistake, though. The Constitution and the Amendments impose limitations upon governmental actions--that's it. In Sullivan, Gertz, etc., the Supreme Court was imposing a limitation upon the power of governments (in other words, no State law can make a person liable for defamation unless the plaintiff can overcome the constitutionally-imposed burden of proof ("actual malice").
Can I be part of this thread too!?
I'm a douchefag, and so's my... er... husband!
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Did Mathew Firsht file the lawsuit? If I were to do this to someone and they didn't care and didn't file a lawsuit, would I still get in trouble?
entire contents to be found in subject
That would truly be a shame! We must do something preserve the Wild West-like status of the Internet! Therefore we should continue to let everyone do and say whatever the fuck they want, and the next time someone says something bad about you on the internet instead of whining about it or suing them for libel, just hunt them down and shoot them just like in the real Wild West!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank