Slashdot Mirror


$74k Judgment Against Craigslist Prankster

jamie points out an update in the case of Jason Fortuny, the Craigslist prankster who was sued last year for publicly posting responses to a fake personal ad. The Citizen Media Law Project's summary of his case now includes a recently entered default judgment (PDF), fining Fortuny "... in the amount of $35,001.00 in statutory damages for Count I, violation of the Copyright Act; $5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion." He has also been ordered to pay more than $34,000 in attorney and court fees.

8 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Re:WHat?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "$5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion."

    These are actually real laws?!?!?

    Yes. In fact you are not allowed to disclose publicly that your girlfriend has clamps even if half of the town knows this anyways.

    There was a highest court decision in 1912 in Felderman vs. Proppenheimer, the so called "smelly labia" case (today it's called the "fishoil" case for PC reasons).

  2. Re:WHat?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Public Disclosure of Private Facts

    Publication of non-newsworthy, private facts about an individual that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (true defamation)(so intimate that outrage the public's sense of decency).

    Intrusion Upon Seclusion

    One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

    I buy it. The guy posts a personal ad, then publicly posts the responses he gets. The responders had a reasonable expectation of privacy and it was violated in a most offensive manner. Seems like a lot of money, but maybe it will teach this douchebag a lesson.

  3. Thank goodness by upto0013 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can send my naked pictures with no fear...

  4. Pay attention, kids by localroger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is exactly what I thought would happen, a large civil judgement, as I predicted in the original linked /. thread. Repeat after me: I do not own the content of letters I receive.. Letters you are sent are exactly like books you buy; you can keep them forever and read them all you want and even loan them to your friends, but you cannot publish them. This is an entirely non-controversial no-brainer in legal circles, no matter how silly you think it is, and it's why the guy got slammed. The extra helping of privacy violation is just icing on the copyright cake, and of course he gets the bill for feeding the lawyers too.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:Pay attention, kids by toetagger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good point, but where is the boundary between "sharing with your friends" and "publishing" these days? If I post those comments on Facebook, and allow everyone to see my profile, its publishing, but when I only share them with my friends, its OK? What if I let everyone in my network see it? Frankly, I'm almost a bit scared to "publish" something I don't own inadvertently...

  5. No show == guilty? by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a Default Judgement, which means the plaintiff did not show. That is why he lost, not because there was a thorough review of the matter at hand.

    Somehow I doubt this will be valid as a precedent in future lawsuits.

  6. Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy by whiledo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Again, though, a classified ads site is not the same thing as a web forum. If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly? No. That's what expectations are all about. It doesn't matter that he CAN post them publicly. If you follow your logic then there is no such thing as privacy. I could be having a "private" conversation with you, but be secretly recording it and then post it on the internet.

    That's what we're talking about here, whether you can reasonably expect certain communications to be private or not. Personally, I would rather have the law say that there is such a thing as privacy than in your alternate universe where nothing is private.

    --
    Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
  7. Re:WHat?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR SILICITOR

    Good day sirs. I hope that I find you well. I am Mr. GAMBO ADAMS. I am the one that contacted you from NIGERIA in the business of wishing to transfer you your country a fund of $30,000,000 ( THIRTY MILLION US DOLLARS), for which I was willing to alow you with a 20% transfer fee $1,500, 000 (ONE POINT 5 MILLION US DOLLARS). You reasponded with a promise to complete this transaction. But you only promised and promised for months and months! I did everything you asked, including of the pictures of me holding a sign with sayings on it. I have since realized you are a SPAM BATER! Also you have put all of our PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL communication on your webs site.

    I am conacting you now on behalf of my silicitor that I will be courting you on VIOLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS and INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION in the US courts, and searching for damages in the amount of $35,001.00 (THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND AND ONE US DOLLARS) and courst fees. Against the adversity of my silictor I am willing to settle in the amount of only $10,001.00 (TEN THOUSAND AND ONE USE DOLLARS) if you contact me IMIEDIATELY to deposit the amount in my account #3200-20032-20002 in the BANK OF NIGERIA. If you aggree to my generous proposal, please reply promptly.

    Yours in friendship,

    Mr. GAMBO ADAMS