Slashdot Mirror
Smearing Toddler Reputations Via Internet: Free Speech Or Extortion?
retroworks writes "Crystal Cox, a Montana woman who calls herself an 'investigative journalist,' was slapped with a $2.5-million judgment last year for defaming an investment firm and one of its lead partners. Cox had taken control of the Google footprint of Obsidian Finance and its principal Kevin Padrick by writing hundreds of posts about them on dozens of websites she owned, inter-linking them in ways that made them rise up in Google search results; it ruined Obsidian's business due to prospective clients being put off by the firm's seemingly terrible online reputation. After Obsidian sued Cox, she contacted them offering her 'reputation services;' for $2,500 a month, she could 'fix' the firm's reputation and help promote its business. The Forbes Article goes on to describe how she tried to similarly leverage attorneys and journalists reputations. Finding some of her targets were too well established in google rank to pester or intimidate, Cox moved to family members, reserving domain names for one of her target's 3-year-old daughter. Forbes columnist Kashmir Hill makes the case that this clearly isn't journalism, and establishes a boundary for free speech online."
How is this not libel/slander, which is not protected speech?
I think the key is that she offered to change it all for money. I think that's the part that should be illegal, not posting all that stuff in the first place. And threatening to post it unless you get money should be treated very similarly.
Lastly, this, in a small way, Google's fault. Their algorithm is fooled by stuff the human curating process would've had a much harder time being fooled by.
But I don't think we need any restraints on speech to handle this issue.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I've never seen a case of where extortion was successfully defended by claiming freedom of speech. Anyone have any examples?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
She should have gone into law "enforcement," where behavior such as extortion and slander are just tools of the trade.
Politics would have been an equally viable career choice.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I don't recall seeing those actions previously becoming considering synonymous. Creepy, perhaps. Extortion, quite possible. But smearing? Unless there is derogatory content hosted on there with the intent of associating said content with said toddler, I'm not sold.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Marc Randazza. When it comes to free speech, he's a champ. Couldn't agree with anyone more. When it comes to RIAA, he's one of the assholes who writes blogposts about how it's just fine to have huge judgments against bittorrent pirates. Ultimately he's a smarmy lawyer, but sometimes he's right. Like this time. He's dead right to defend his daughter over this. Crystal Cox should probably be sucking some cox.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Awesome addendum there, samzenpus.
This isn't "rising up and protesting", this is one individual attempting to game the system to extort a company for lots of money.
This is the exact opposite of Internet protests such as those against SOPA, which involved hundreds of thousands of people fighting against corporate greed and government corruption. This case is just about an asshole who wants money.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Well duh. That boundary has existed for over 200 years. It's called libel (ruining a person's reputation through the written word).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Crystal Cocks, what a name!
It sounds like a pornstar name or something. Makes you wonder what got her started with journalism.....
You have the right to express any opinion you want, but you do not have a right to make others' lives worse with your speech. In essence, it's that simple.
Sure, you can write "FUCK" in 10-foot-tall letters on the side of your house, if you can explain the opinion being expressed.
Go ahead and rant about the federal government being too powerful, but expect that others will argue it's not powerful enough.
Proclaim loudly your support for extremist suicide bombers, but don't harass their victims.
This doesn't seem too difficult to me. Of course, you're welcome to express any differing opinion.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"Free speech" doesn't mean "speech privileged from legal consequences."
I can't keep you from having a website because you're a scuzzy little libeler, but when you *do* libel me I sure as hell can go after you for that.
Free speech doesn't give you the right to slander someone. It doesn't give you the right to disclose trade secrets, or publish intimate details of private persons' lives. It doesn't give you the right to disclose sensitive national defense information, or incite immediate violence against somebody (Spike Lee needs to learn this).
What free speech amounts to is the right to say what you have to say then dare the government to do something about it. Surprised? Well, that's freedom for you. It doesn't come without *risk*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If it was my kid my wife would go over and kick the crap out of her. Then when we were taken to trial we would present all of the information and count on a jury of our peers to let us go.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
As a form of revenge, I'm been spamming the internet claiming she's a steroid-using track and field athlete from a decade ago.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
knows no gender.
Journalisic. Because according to TFS she's a journalis, not a journalist.
Shitandpiss truly does the work of three men - if they're Curly, Larry & Moe.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But why is it Crystal?! That's disturbing...
I am Jacks complete lack of Windows
"Crystal Cox, a Montana woman who calls herself "the best cock sucker ever" was slapped with a $2.5-million judgment last year for not actually knowing how to suck cock. Cox had taken control of the penis of Obsidian Finance and its principal Kevin Padrick and never brought any man to orgasm."
Its a sad story indeed.
To go under RICO you need an *organization* (hence the "O").
Have you met a "journalist" lately? They are not what you think they are. They make up things all the time, or inflame something to blow it out of proportion to only get page hits.
I have more respect for Hookers on the street than a Journalist. at leas the hooker is being up front with you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Of course doing either thing individually, asking for a dollar, or being a nuisance, is not illegal. The two, together, however, would be.
Of this is covered under the RICO act in which multiple acts committed over a certain time period is classified as special criminal activity. In this case it seems plausible that extortion and blackmail may have been committed, and so there may be an RICO violation. It seems that RICO may apply because the internet, like the telephone, is considered a interstate device.
I think anyone, not just journalist and bloggers, deserve the benefit of the doubt when reporting what can be broadly classified as defensible facts, or even opinions. Freedom of speech say that we can go out onto the public pulpit in the public space and say pretty much what we want. There should be few if any restrictions on this.
What triggers a regulatory environment is when we are directly paid for reporting these facts and opinions. In such cases some responsibility should be imposed. If you are paid a million dollars a week to state your opinion though a commercial enterprise, funded by ads on radio, tv, or even google, then those statement should undergo some scrutiny, even be liable to prosecution, because it plausible, even likely, you are being paid to mold commercial allegiances, which is not illegal in itself, but is regulated. I mean if it is illegal for me to make a commercial stating that you will get rich investing in gold(as opposed to saying that gold is rising, so buying gold could be a safe investment), then why is it okay for someone to spend three hours a day convincing the public that the most secure currency in the world is going to fall(inflation has not bee an issue and is not rising) and therefore the only safe thing to do is to call this company that will sell you overpriced gold, that may not even exist.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
... how is it different from
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/beck_tries_to_kill_parody_webs.php
???
...it's gonna pay off once this shit goes mainstream.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Have you met a "journalist" lately? They are not what you think they are. They make up things all the time, or inflame something to blow it out of proportion to only get page hits.
I have more respect for Hookers on the street than a Journalist. at leas the hooker is being up front with you.
Ha! If only that was true. The last hooker I went to was nowhere near up front with me about her skills or even her services provided.
Wait? Did I just say that out loud?
Right on.
WTF is up with the inflammatory headline: "Free Speech or Journalism"? Defamation, extortion, and libel is not now, and never has been, any kind of protected speech. It doesn't matter if you do it in your local newspaper, leaflets you hand out throughout the neighborhood, the corner soapbox, or a network of libelous websites.
...establishes a boundary for free speech online.
It does no such thing. What a load of crap. Anything to justify censorship. Fuck off! The speakers' words aren't the problem, the listeners' reactions are.
and you pay for it it's service. But if you do it yourself on your own dime it's a crime. Nice to know.
Obligatory, shut your piehole. There's nothing more irritating than some person getting in the middle of a thread and derailing the subject by correcting grammar. Please go back to selling oranges by the freeway or prostituting yourself or whatever it is that English majors do to make money.
Didn't you get the memo? People and corporations are legally equivalent.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I went to school with a girl called Rosella Dick. Rosie for short.
She had an older sister named Violet.
A. So who wants to email Crystal Cox with an expensive offer to have this slashdot article removed in order to protect her reputation?
B. Crystal Cox is a good name for a very high end line of dildos
C. Have you seen this person's website? It only manages to make you hate her more (enough so that you stop caring about the fact that she is also completely mentally ill).
ôó
Would it be so bad if three year olds weren't so damn delicate? I mean... wouldn't we all be a little better off if three year olds were tougher, smarter, and perhaps took a little responsibility for their online reputations? I like three year olds as much as the next post-neo tech poster/troll, but as often as not they do tend to toddle around like they have no idea what's going on or like they own the place. Maybe a little sand and rock tumbling might smooth their edginess, so the next time they drop their ice cream cone they might not completely self-destruct.
The Admin and the Engineer
Fucking hilarious.
Nope. This is "Nice place you have here... It would be a shame if something happened to it".
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
Slander is obviously defined under law, and as noted in TFA she was arrested for it. The free speech issue, I think, is whether reserving someone else's child's domain name is protected speech. I suspect it is protected, but as a parent the idea of having to protect my children's online rep seems quite creepy.
Gently reply
I had the dubious honor of having to deal with this piece of shit about two years ago.
Many years ago, I worked on a project called Movielink which was one of the first "download now, watch later" movie services, originally under the auspices of Sony Pictures. We launched a beta site in 2001, and I left to work on other projects.
Ten years later, I was contacted by one of the (ex) Sony Pictures folks, asking for help with a net stalker. All he had was a bunch of threatening emails, one of which had been sent from a standard mail client not Hush or a remailer. The IP was pretty easy, since it pointed to a group of properties (on one big plot) all owned by this Cox woman. (150 Grave Creek Rd, Eureka, MT 59917, 710 Grave Creek Rd, Eureka, MT 59917, 830 Grave Creek Rd Eureka, MT 59917) Once uncovered, she pulled out the stops and registered every possible permutation of my friend's name with "fuck" preceding or appended to each name. She must have registered fifty domains, and was making ridiculous claims about patent theft, and directly asking my friend for money to "shut down her investigative efforts."
We got lucky, I guess. In the cleartext email, she directly threatened my friend that she would "ruin him just for fun." Since she was in court with Obsidian, I wrote an amicus (jailhouse lawyer, remember? B) and promised I would send it to the Court and Obsidian's counsel the next day if she didn't transfer every domain with my friends name to him immediately. No threats. We never heard from her again, but every domain was transferred to my friend.
Her site still tops her own Google results. Why is this still a civil issue?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
There was an incident where a police had shot a black man in the back, and then went and plant a gun next to him and said the guy had drawed a gun on him. What we found out after the investigation is: guy didn't have no gun. Police just shot a man in cold blood...
This story is clearly not about censorship, which the gagged man would seem to indicate it is. As an earlier poster pointed out the second part of the headline is misleading. But in truth, there can be no controversy here. No free speech is being muzzled.
The story appears to me to be about trolling... with a for-profit twist. Is there a little troll logo? If not one might come in handy. These days a lot of trolling takes place... on the news, in politics. Pundits, politicians, authors, 'experts', preachers, bloggers, celebrities etc. etc. have all seemed to learn that if one says something outrageous one gets a precious minute or two of fame or shame (really it's all the same). All of these people profit from their trolls. Truth is often actually a liability in this case. Is this really nasty trend influenced by our increasingly internet-dominated culture? Bored? Start a flame war. Bored with being poor? Don a dog collar, buy an internet divinity degree, then claim that Jesus was not Jewish, but was instead a Gaul, adopted by a Jewish family. Blah blah blah. Wave some Armenian texts around you maintain were found in Yerevan. You'll make money defending the indefensible. And sell books read by people who want to prove it is rubbish.Or by those who would be really happy to learn that Jesus was not a Jew.
"Phew! We just knew it. "
"Hello America. Today we'll meet a preacher who says Jesus was not a Jew." By the time you are debunked you'll be in Costa Rica drinking a mohito..or two.
Crystal Cox rode this hyperbolic trend into criminal territory (or certainly into tort territory) when she said in effect, "I'll stop trolling you if you start paying me." But really, the shock jocks and pundits (both left and right) troll every day to grab eyeballs and eardrums to sell advertising and amp their seven-figure salaries.
Yup. If there isn't one already, I think we need a little troll.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
There's a few countries where it's legal, so you could report her for false advertising.
If she was only posting negative comments, that would just make her a troll.
Which is bad enough, but I guess there's little to be done about that.
However, saying that 'she can fix it' , when she was the cause of it, is plain extortion.
Attacking someone through their children ? Even mob gangsters have some standards , after all, many of them have children of their own.
Sounds more like Tortuous interference in business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
What she did was nothing new, and its been tried and made illegal many centuries ago and has a long tradition of being enforced against companies.
"An early, perhaps the earliest, instance of recognition of this tort occurred in Garret v. Taylor, 79 Eng. Rep. 485 (K.B. 1620). In that case, the defendant drove customers away from the plaintiff’s quarry by threatening them with mayhem and also threatening to “vex [them] with suits.” The King's Bench court said that “the defendant threatened violence to the extent of committing an assault upon ... customers of the plaintiff ... whereupon ‘they all desisted from buying.’’ The court therefore upheld a judgment for the plaintiff."
I believe the Opera lawsuit against Microsoft was based on this. Recall when Microsoft made their websites deliberately return corrupt data to Opera browsers. Whereas the normal website it returns to Internet Explorer would work fine on Opera, these corrupt pages wouldn't work on either IE or Opera. It created the false impression that Opera couldn't render websites properly, and Microsoft paid out $10 million to settle the lawsuit.
Sorry to pimp my own blog:
http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-evolution-of-crystal-cox-anatomy-of-a-scammer/
That's the full story of what happened. It's pretty crazy.
As far as the United States are concerned, they rank on the #47 spot of the Freedom of the Press index, whereas the Netherlands rank #3 behind Finland, Norway and, funnily enough, Estonia. The Land of the Free doesn't seem to be as free as it wants to let everyone believe.
One example of why this comment and rank are deserved is highlighted in the documentary "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land" in which the narrative surrounding the Israëli occupation of the West bank and Gaza strip are examined.
In it it becomes clear that US journalists don't deviate from the narrative that AIPAC and the Israëli government present, and memo's are circulated inside networks such as CNN to call Gilo, a Jewish colonial settlement in the West Bank, a "nice Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem".
Stories like that are indicative of why the press in the US is indeed not free and arguably run by lobby groups, government and big business. I'm not saying other journalists in the world are without fault, but one can see that international coverage is much more balanced at BBC World and, indeed, Al Jazeera International.
So while Crystal Cox is indeed what looks like a parasite and morally void, your comment about Journalists seems quite fair.
Even mob gangsters have some standards , after all, many of them have children of their own.
I suspect that much of this belief comes from Hollywood. I really doubt there is really much honor among thieves.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
My country being one of them. In the Netherlands, prostitution is indeed legal, but pimping is not. So the ladies are only really allowed to work if they're not the victim of slave trade or extortion. This measure is only partially effective, unfortunately, because some of the ladies are arguably extorted into the business. However, I think the system is vastly superior to zero-tolerance policies such as in Sweden or the US, where prostitutes don't get health care, can't unionize and are usually run out of seedy apartments or neighborhoods.
Having said that, mainland Europe also does not have the litigation culture the US and UK have. One cannot sue people willy nilly. Firstly because one actually doesn't have a service level agreement on paper with a prostitute, so it's pretty much your word against hers, so there's usually very little reason for a court case.
Secondly because frivolous litigation is frowned upon, and this type of stuff would immediately thrown out by a judge. If one actually gets robbed, one could alert the police, and they could technically take action, resulting in prosecution with a minimal amount of damages, more like restitution than actual damages.
IANAL, but I do work as a pre-sales consultant for e-Discovery software for an American company, and I guarantee you that the American's view on the legal system is a hugely different one from what's practiced in mainland Europe.
And her Brother Blue-Balls
Sounds like a pornstar...
this is why we need more women rights in IT
This is Marc Randazza's daughter, the guy who took down Righthaven, he's a well-known and respected first amendment lawyer. Interestingly on the flipside he's also a determined copyright lawyer when it comes to the Adult industry that he works for. Randazza is one of the good guys, I personally know people who have been helped by him. As for Crystal Cox.. well, she's a fucking nutjob.
What have morals got to do with it?
I hear the toddler in question soiled his pants. Is this not true?
Hey Slashdot, this is the worst, overly-sensationalise headline ever! It is a very pathetic attempt to gain readership.
Think about why you believe what you say, question the basis of the libel laws.
Is anyone persuaded when Alex Jones et al claim that there are mind control chemicals in the con-trails of airplanes? (I'm hoping for a no here)
Does anyone really have a natural right to their reputation (which is short-hand for the "average" perception of *others* ) ?
How can anyone own what others perceive of them?
Regarding the claim that this is so vastly different from the SOPA protests- if the government is able to determine what is untruthful defamation as opposed to legitimate complaints about poor companies- is the required mechanism not the same for political repression.
Additionally- there are non-governmental solutions to this issue. Who is going to trust Crystal Cox in the future? Also businesses such as Angie's List or Consumer Reports exist for those who care about getting fair analysis about a company. Google-praise be to them- may not be the best tool for determining the quality of a business. Libel laws do everyone a disservice because people become far to trusting, question more!
Actually, IIRC, truth is not a defense to defamation charges in England. There have been instances of people stating the exact, undeniable truth about people and still being found guilty of slander there. That is the reason those with the ability to do so like to bring slander charges there over things posted on the internet.
Truth is a defense in AMERICAN law, not English.
I think the inherent problem is figuring out whether posts made on several websites are made by the same person or more than one person with the same name (or different names + same person, etc.). by CriminalNerd (882826) on Tuesday April 03, @06:11PM (#39566071)
See subject. It goes on at /. too, and that's an example that's easily verified.
It is slander and thus the 2.5mil judgement. They should go further and ban her from owning a computer. She obviously has no morals and uses these tools for purposes for which they were NOT indended. Give her a shovel or mop and let her earn an honest living.
I've told this joke to some friends I know who live in China and they thinks it's hilarious. This is a joke from the Soviet Union, but of course it's translated into English.
An American man went on a tour of Moscow and he was talking to his Intourist guide.
American: I want you to know that in America, we have freedom of speech. Why, any time I feel like it, I can stand outside the White House and say that the American president is a very bad man and nobody will arrest me.
Guide: It is exactly the same here. Any time I want, I also can stand outside the Kremlin and say that the American president is a very bad man and nobody will arrest me.
English isn't my first language, so I kinda appreciate someone taking some time out of their day to point out such things. I'd rather see more of that, not less.
It sounds like a good name for a sex-toy. Just market the "Crystal Cox" on as many on-line sex-toy websites as possible until that's the number one result when you Google her name.
the Netherlands rank #3 behind Finland, Norway and, funnily enough, Estonia.
Who got 0th place?
Come on editors, that's not even a word.
a negative article you have posted about that person is extortion.
This should trump any 'free speech' claim on the original article.
I agree with The Salty Droid. I'm thinkin' extortionist.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
"yelling fire in a crowded theater."
Maybe we should build our theaters out of brick and other materials that don't burn?
My point in general being that the more precarious a society lets itself become in various ways, perhaps the more worried it becomes about free speech?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The Ladies? Surprisingly sexist for someone coming from a supposedly enlightened European country. Men and Transgendered people are banned from prostitution in your country?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil