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
Unless there is derogatory content hosted on there with the intent of associating said content with said toddler, I'm not sold.
From TFA: "Perhaps due to the negative attention, Cox took down the content she had started publishing on the nataliarandazza.com site."
But smearing? Unless there is derogatory content hosted on there with the intent of associating said content with said toddler, I'm not sold.
Normally I would agree with you; however, considering Ms. Cox's prior attempts at blackmailing the child's father (among others, according to TFA), I think it's fair to say that the likelihood that harassment was her intent is pretty obvious.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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"
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.
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
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.
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...
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.