Martin Wagner has been harassed for some time by a particularly looney theist, a fellow who wrote an astonishingly stupid anti-atheist essay, got ripped on a blog for it, and has ever since whined pathetically at the injustice of being criticized and insulted, and has basically made it his task to be a petty pest.
Possummomma has written about this state of affairs, and now Wagner is planning to take legal action. I don’t know that I entirely approve — I think the kook has done a fine job of discrediting himself — but he has a lawyer and is taking legal advice, and it’s not a bad idea in principle for an atheist to make a stand. Wagner has posted his rationale, and is asking for financial help. Check it out, and donate if you sympathize with his position.
I wish him well, but I don’t think that defamation suits involving the internet are very likely to succeed to anyone’s satisfaction.
Anyway, what would the damages be? And can the guy actually pay whatever the damages might be?
So yes, I sympathize, but it seems that we need to know more.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
It’s just a regurgitation of the same old canards that creationists copy and paste from each others websites, and they want those canards insulated from criticism and scrutiny.
done and done.
I really don’t care if Martin is right or wrong here.
I just want to make sure he has enough cash to play this out and see what happens.
If it works, that will provide months worth of material for debate.
@glen:
Anyway, what would the damages be?
emotional distress?
frankly, if it were me, I’d settle for some sort of injunctive measure.
I’ve been following this dispute quite a bit, and it isn’t pretty. Yomin edited martin’s wikipedia page, calling him a pedophile and a whole bunch of other slanderous things. Yomin then said that Martin edited the page…using Yomin’s IP to make Yomin look bad. Martin wrote about what Yomin did, Yomin sent a cease and desist letter, so Martin is going ahead with the case.
The best part, Yomin’s only defense is claiming that Martin spoofed his IP.
…actually, reading some of the whacky things that creationist did to martin, I’d say he might have a decent libel case, if he can prove it cost him financially (shouldn’t be too hard if martin has ever received income from anything associated with his “web presence”).
@#5
Actually, there are certain things you don’t even need to show damages for in defamation cases. Pedophilia is one of them. Its too bad he didn’t just call Martin a drunken hippy, poor poor Yomin.
Pedophilia is one of them
do you have a link to the relevant statutes?
I’d like to add that to my collection.
thanks.
Anyway, what would the damages be? And can the guy actually pay whatever the damages might be?
Unless his lawyer is a total idiot I’m hoping she’ll just tell him, “Settle and shut up,” and that will be the end of it.
I didn’t want to file, or to have this hassle at all, but after three months, the guy just can’t let it go and get on with life. Self-destructing the way he did wasn’t enough for him, apparently. It’s one thing to be some schmoe with a fragile ego who reacts badly to getting criticized on the internet. But to turn it into some weird ongoing fixation is decidedly creepy and unpleasant, especially when you’re the chap on the receiving end. Possummomma herself has had some very scary attention from out of control fundagelical loons threatening her children, and it just gets to where you say, Enough already.
Thanks to PZ for the mention, and thanks to all who have kicked (and are kicking) in to the whip-round. Once I can post updates I will (to the extent I’m allowed to), and once I have enough donations that I’m fully covered the buttons will be taken down.
*fist up*
I sent you some cash, martin.
good luck, and drop by with the details as they come available, please.
I’ve got an idea.
How about a class action lawsuit!
It would be a suit on behalf of non-believers against the Souther Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, and any church that has libeled the non-believers.
Why not?
@#10
Because the non-believers isn’t a sue-able entity. He can call secular humanists evil whores all day long, but he can’t call the AHA(American humanist association) that because it would be considered slanderous. If it isn’t an official group its hard to sue on behalf of it.
Hmmmm, I bet with their desire to speak off the cuff, they could be found to slander many formal organizations. Just a matter of trolling about in their propaganda for the proof.
A YouTube creationist recently filed a false DMCA take-down notice against another YouTube user who makes science videos which debunk creationist claims.
False DMCA Consequences
#8
“…and once I have enough donations that I’m fully covered the buttons will be taken down.”
Suuuuure you will. A slightly retarded but very trustworthy-looking guy told me that you plan to leave those paypal buttons up and file a new suit three times a week!
When he said “suit,” though, he pointed at his clothes and drooled a little, then asked if I knew any free lawyers who weren’t secretly cronies.
He seemed nice.
Martin’s right, the loon libelled him. The question though, is whether litigation is worth the trouble.
I’ve been slandered by a former friend of mine on one occasion, and my attorney advised me that even though I could certainly kneecap him in court, it would cost me considerably more to do so than I could possibly recover. Also, since none of the people who heard the slander believed it, I didn’t have any actual damages.
-jcr
Martin,
It sounds to me like what you want is a restraining order. The great thing about restraining orders is that if he violates it, it’s a criminal matter.
-jcr
#14: Darn those retarded and trustworthy-looking guys in their spiffy suits! They’ve cottoned onto my militant atheist world takeover plans!
#16: Well, he’s from Florida and I’m from Texas, so it’s not as if I’m worried about his turning up on my doorstep with a chainsaw. At this point, to me the whole thing isn’t about banking huge damages, it’s more a moral issue. The guy knows what he did, and yet he still thinks he can pull this kind of bullying and intimidation just because my article bruised his ego. As I said, unless his lawyer is as stupid as he is I expect a quiet settlement that will finally get across the “knock it off already” message he isn’t getting. I really think he’s so far gone that he genuinely sees himself as the victim and not the aggressor here. It may be a forlorn hope, but I hope he gets the message and accepts some responsibility for once.
If he’s truly psycho, well then, a restraining order won’t do much good either.
I can’t say I approve of Martin’s original intention to sue the crazy creationist (the damage done by the lies seems to be too minimal to warrant legal action, and even lies should be protected by free speech unless they do actual harm, IMO). However, I do think Martin is justified in retaliating against the bullying attempt/cease & desist letter.
So yeah, you have my moral and (small, unfortunately) financial support. Good luck.
Well, as I mentioned in the blog post, I had a suit drafted but I hadn’t done anything with it, and I’d pretty much considered the whole matter over and done with, figuring YP had self-destructed just fine and at last gone away. It was only getting that dumb C&D letter that made me go “fer cripes sake, enough already.”
Martin, I’m in full agreement with John C Randolph. That is the quickest, cheapest route to satisfaction. While he could get another online moniker and continue his wild baseless rantings even if you won libel suit against him. It’s difficult to stop stuff on the Internet, just as Ms Streisand. Getting legal position of safety from a restraining order is probably far more useful.
Then, there is also the point of complaint letters to his hosting service etc. I’m sure they don’t want to be in the middle of the theist/looney blabfest. And on it goes… slight pressure here and there. There are plenty of folk here who would perhaps like to email him, perhaps several times per day. I have some scripts :) Good luck
money sent.
The guy is clearly off the rocker, and since he obviously can’t let go of the issue, he should be MADE to let go; preferably before he does some irreparable damage to Martin or himself. He’s worked himself into a frenzy, and who knows where that might end. Hopefully having to go to court and being told OFFICIALLY that he’s wrong will serve as a cold shower and he’ll come to his senses.
Well, Martin, I have just contributed to your cause, and I wish you the best of luck.
As for the claims themselves, I think once someone is accused of paedophilia then that certainly crosses the line of acceptable free speech. Some lies are so nebulous as to not be worth bothering, however, paedophilia is such a serious crime (that’s why there are sex offenders registers for this type of thing) that even a claim of it can ruin a persons life.
Perhaps Martin’s victory will set a precedent which will prevent this kind of behaviour from the creationist camp in the future, although I suspect that is largely a vain hope.
@#20
Don’t be malicious now, using a spamming script is a completely prickish thing to do, even to a man who lies about pedophilia. Besides, a script would be unnecessary, they have spamming websites out that do it for you.
#20: I will certainly discuss that with my attorney as an option. But no, I do not advocate any email bombardments, which will just fuel his sense of victimhood. :-)
Ugh! I didn’t even know that there was a Canadian version of Freep. I apologize to any and all Northerners for the US exporting it’s right wing crazies to you.
10 bucks US for Martin on the way (converted from Canadian bucks – sorry this started from canadafreepress which is our own version of townhall.com up here in the great autumnal north). Word’s been spread across Canada via readers of PZ, RD and so on so expect some more converted Canadian colourful cash to flow to you.
Martin,
I sincerely hope you make an example out of him. Best wishes.
I sent in my $10 Martin. Good luck to you. This guy is the king of the asshats.
Ongoing thanks (stopping just short of Halle Berry Oscar hysterics, so don’t worry) to all who have seen fit to kick in to the online whip-round. Times are hard for us all, so it is deeply appreciated.
BTW, for those interested, there actually is a precedent where defamation involving Wikipedia vandalism is concerned. Golf pro Fuzzy Zoellar sued someone a year or so ago for vandalizing his entry, to the effect that he was a raving drunk who beat his wife and kids. My attorney’s told me he has put in a call to the firm repping Zoellar to see how it all went down, but I don’t know if he’s heard back from them yet. I suspect a settlement of some kind.
That is actually legally actionable. There have been cases of exactly that before. If they go to court, they will lose. You can do almost anything on the internet. But almost anything is not the same as anything.
Death threats are also felonies. There are many people in prison for years on end for that. The FBI has a division that deals with cybercrime and they will investigate if you complain.
Martin,
As someone who has access to the legal resources of one of the nations largest law firms I would be happy to help out.
Have PZ give you my E-mail. I’m none to tech savy, savy?
Re: #25
Don’t worry, it’s not just America who exports loonies. I often find whackjobs citing AGW denial pieces published by Freep but written by New Zealand lobbyists, for instance, and I know Canada’s got at least one that routinely shows up in the American version.
Martin, I’m in no financial state to donate, but if that changes before you get enough expect some to come. In the meantime, best of luck — I’ll spread the link around.
He did it now. He made a creationist pop. That critique was the straw that…you know the rest. Made him snap. I sort of feel that most creationist, IDers and the lot are all just shy of that snapping point. Some closer than others. Get a restraining order.
Martin,
You assume that his interests and his lawyers’ are aligned; they are not. The best outcome for the lawyer is if this goes to trial and runs up a massive legal bill (assuming of course, that he can pay the lawyer).
-jcr
$20 just sent.
Thanks for the link to this story, PZ… wouldn’t have heard about it otherwise.
Good luck Martin. Given that you look to be 100% in the right in this matter — on all fronts — I would imagine that any legal response from you is sure to get this loon off of your back. But even if he wants to take it further, you have my support, now and in the future (if needed).
If he’s truly psycho, well then, a restraining order won’t do much good either.
I recommended this book to PZ on another thread. You might want to read it, too:
https://www.gavindebecker.com/books-gof.cfm
It’s not just for celebrities.
-jcr
Hey PZ! Thanks for shedding some light on this. Maybe it’s just my current anger at the situation we have going on, but I’m tired of fundamentalist bullying.
I hadn’t made a blog post about this, but the latest saga (which marks my third fundy stalking) pushed me to a point where I am completely terrified of blogging anymore. To sum it up: a local fundamentalist used my blog to find out my address and my parents’ address. I had naively posted pictures with our addresses in the background. This guy WATCHED my parents house and when they, my parents, took my kids camping for a week, took a picture of the kids and taped it to our front porch with a note that said, “I know where they are. Will you pray to God now?” Because of the remote nature of the camp site, we didn’t know if they were okay for three agonizing hours. It’s been handled legally, but that’s just something I am having a hard tim putting past me. I’m sick of people bullying atheists.
I second John C’s recommendation on Gavin De Becker’s book Gift of Fear.
Possummomma,
I’m glad to hear that the situation you describe was handled legally, and I hope that the perp is doing time. Stalking is something that must be taken very seriously.
I take this somewhat personally, because one friend of mine was targeted and harassed for years by a criminal nut-cult. The cult was the so-called “Church of Scientology”. Google “Keith Henson” for the details.
-jcr
Holy shit! All that over writing a blog?
Au contraire. Adam Yoshida is the entirely homegrown Canadian nutcase who was too extreme for Free Republic.
And that takes some doing.
If it hasn’t been mentioned yet, you might try taking a gander at some of the internet stalking laws, and see how well they apply to your current situation, Martin:
http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/us_states/us_stalkinglaws_list.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
If you don’t fear any physical confrontations this idiot might initiate, just shut down his internet access via his host provider.
…oh, and that’s for possumama too.
Help an atheist out?
What could be easier.
Give him the atheist equivalent of hell.
Um… Am I missing something here?
This seems to be a PZ post about something that is very common on the internet… It’s called a “Flame War.”
Am I to understand that there is a threat of legal action over this Flame War?
Subject matter aside… This is hilariously stupid. Maybe I’m drunk. Maybe I just don’t have the patience to read through what seems to be a really stupid Flame War. All I know is… someone is asking me to send them money for something very stupid.
From what I see… This isn’t a case for the ACLU. This is a case for “anonymous” over at the /b/ board at 4chan.
This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read here.
Now I’m going to read a OneNewsNow article, just to give me a sense of equallibrium.
The term “flame war” implies reciprocation, and does not extend to legally actionable libelous statements.
As opposed to, say, spurious, petulant, victim-blaming assertions like yours.
Maybe I’m drunk.
If you have to consider it…
“Victim-blaming”? Srsly, WTF?
What exactly is libelous legal action here? It looks like a fucking Flame War to me.
If I were to make some photo-shop pictures of these two losers jacking-off Raptor Jesus… Could they take that as libel, and take the nice Funkstronaut to court?
Internets is Serious Business. Just wander around your local bar, and ask everyone you see, if they play World of Warcraft.
suggest you drink less, and post less.
better for everyone.
Seconded. Seriously.
Ichthyic, I’ve been a visitor to PZ’s blog for at least two years, and I’ve respected your posts.
Could you please tell me what I am doing wrong, and give me some kind of rationale, instead of dropping some lame-ass’d comment about my inebriation.
Could you please tell me what I am doing wrong
one:
you assume to understand what the legal term “libel” means, without bothering to even review it, apparently you can just “see” that something is or is not libel.
two:
not even bothering to read the details involved with this particular case.
three:
not bothering to even try to understand why this IS a clear case of stalking.
four:
whining about the fact that we are criticizing you for not doing your homework.
five:
saying things like:
Internets is Serious Business. Just wander around your local bar, and ask everyone you see, if they play World of Warcraft.
and then apparently thinking that means we should take your opinion on this matter seriously.
sometimes, it’s better not to jump in without looking first.
I think this would be a better subject for Ed over at Dispatches, but I’ll just tell you what I think.
You see that letter from Glantz & Glantz Law Offices? Yeah… That doesn’t scare me at all. I don’t know… maybe it were the lack of punctuation in that letter, or maybe it’s because I see a letter like that every football season. I throw them straight into the trash.
You have failed to tell me what exactly is the legal action here.
Now I’m going to say something. It may come as a shock to the rational Pharyngula community, but… Ichthyic is a fag.
Are you going to sue me now? Do you want my real name, e-mail, and adddress? You can get Glantz & Glantz, and their Rocky Dennis lookalike Nancy Berger to represent you in the court of my trash bin.
Is this Internet Fight actually going to court? Is it? I’ve read something about $300 for “filing fees,” and another $1000 for “discovery, etc.”
I don’t know about the rest of you… but $1300 is a lot more expensive than throwing that fugazi shit into the trash, and laughing about it.
Seriously… How would “Internet guy hurt my feelings” stand in a court of law?
You do realise that calling someone a paedophile is serious business, especially when saying it in public (as it is editing a wikipedia article on someone)
You do realise that calling someone a paedophile is serious business, especially when saying it in public (as it is editing a wikipedia article on someone)
You DO realize that descrating a communion wafer is serious business, especially in Catholic circles.
I want to know what real legal action has, or could be taken for such things.
Considering that people have been fired from their jobs, assaulted or even killed by vigilantes based on false accusations of child molestation or pedophilia, your insistence on describing this as “internet guy hurt my feelings” demonstrates that you’re either incredibly ignorant or an unapologetic troll.
(And that’s without even factoring the cyberstalking into it).
A fellow human is sick. He needs help. Why sue if his silly rhetoric really does brush off as is claimed?
There’s no way he’ll start going to Assholes Anonymous until he’s hit rock bottom. Serious legal consequences for one’s reckless actions might do the trick.
Considering that people have been fired from their jobs, assaulted or even killed by vigilantes based on false accusations of child molestation or pedophilia, your insistence on describing this as “internet guy hurt my feelings” demonstrates that you’re either incredibly ignorant or an unapologetic troll.
I’m not Trolling shit! I love this blog! I just hate watching this community of supposed “rational” thinkers going the emotional route, without even considering what is at stake here.
I believe that nothing is “at stake,” and furthermore… a possible scam.
So far, none of you have addressed the actual situation here, but instead, given me hypotheticals (paedophilia [sic]), and examples of mere Trolling (hurt internet feelings).
My initial post asked you to help me understand the situation. Now I’m just adamant that some of you have had a knee-jerk reaction to a common enemy, or worse… scammed.
Have to say I am also a little skeptical at this being taken to a legal level. Its like a tantrum on both sides getting out of control. However I find the story interesting and think that this side of it is the correct side from what I have been reading.
So since the exchange rate with the euro is so good at present you have my $30. On its way now.
Martin,
It probably is a debateable whether it is worth it, but it probably does just cross that line where is, so I wish you well in your action.
Since I never miss an episode of The Atheist Experience I must make a small contribution. However, before I click on the “donate” button can you inform me where you plan to deposit any $ damages received, in the unlikely event that you do receive any?
Come on, people! Funkstronaut was kind enough to let us know in his very first comment that he (or she) is a troll, uninterested in understanding what going on: don’t feed him!
Or her.
Wow, you are really bad at this whole “making an argument” thing.
Funkostraut,
Check your calendar. You’re only two and a half months behind – though, by the sound of things, you’d prefer the world to be a thousand years behind, living in a time when people who were obsequious to religion were respected rather than reviled for their intellectual dishonesty and poor character.
Assclown.
“One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven”
“you use that word a lot. I don’t think i means what you think it means”
You’re sinking faster than the Titanic. The desecration of a holy wafer is Constitutionally protected free speech. Libel, OTOH, is not.
Your false equivalency is absurd. Stop it. Go to bed. Sober up. Get up. Go to work.
Shit, 1nt3rw3bz w4Rz with some creationist nutjob!?
And you’re bothering why?
Seriously dude, this kind of nonsense is common. Ball the lawyer’s letter up and take a potshot at the cylindrical filing cabinet.
Being a fag is not a crime. Accusing someone of a criminal act of which they have not been convicted makes a defamation suit a slam-dunk (not sure about the US, but certainly in Ireland or the UK). A lot of “reasonable persons” consider pædophilia (which is not itself a crime) to be synonymous with child abuse or child rape, which are criminal offences. There’s a world of difference between hurling an epithet like “fag” or “asshole” and calling some a murderer, a rapist, or a thief.
I’m with comment 59.
While I agree with every word on The Atheist Experience, I would rather the argument stood on it’s own without the personal attacks on Postelnik.
As far as I can see the correct response to the cease and desist would be a reference to the case of Arkell v Pressdram.
There’s $20 in your PP Martin — if he thought he was being harassed and persecuted before, wait till your lawyer gets a hold of him. :D
#72 — I had to look that up, nice. For those of you too lazy to type the URL, you can touch me there. ;)
Funkstronaut,
If you do your homework about who Martin Wagner is, and the history of this weirdness, I think you’ll see why we’re not worried about that.
Among other things, Martin has been the host, the cohost, or one of the rotating cohosts of The Atheist Experience cable access TV show for years and years. (In Austin, but now also on the web; PZ has linked to videos from the show.) He’s not just some guy we’ve never heard of asking for money.
(If my word as a longtime Pharyngula regular counts for anything, I’ve known Martin personally for many years and he’s for real.)
I donated. It’s not much, but it’s as much as I can afford to give the ACLU every month. :)
Is there a “Wackaloon Attack Strategy” pamphlet somewhere that suggests making the kind of accusations the infamous “YP” has made? His whole approach seems vaguely familiar (accusations of pedophilia, wiki re-edits, sockpuppetry, egregious morphing).
I have answered Simon Scott’s (#68) question with a new post this morning.
I expect to have a more detailed update there later today.
#76: I’e been told he seems to be following the Scientologists’ playbook pretty closely.
Aquaria posted:
nutcase who was too extreme for Free Republic.
Not normally an oath I invoke, but Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ . . . .
No kings,
Robert
This just goes to show that Jewish fundamentalist zealots are as crazy as Christian fundamentalist zealots and Muslim fundamentalist zealots.
Martin, don’t hesitate to contact my attorney – Mr. Charles H. Hungadunga, In care of Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormack.
Donated. Make sure this failure of a rational human being learns a lesson about projecting his flaws on to others.
Another $20 donated. That is all.
Here is more about demented dickwad Yahoo Postalnut…
In his blog on July 4th, he wrote about the “victimization of John Freshwater of Mt Vernon Ohio.
“What really happened is that Freshwater demonstrated to a number of students how a high frequency generator worked. What he did was normal for a science class.”
Yes, of course it is normal for a science teacher to burn crosses onto his students arms!
$10 sent.
It’s possible that YP has begun to believe his own stories. while the following relates to political conservatives, I think the same process happens with religious fundamentalists, who also are mentally rigid.
“A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence,
schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html
Martin,
Thank you for making it painful for this bully. If these freaks don’t get the difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, they must learn the hard way.
I very much appreciate what you are doing and sent some $s.
Holy hell, Postelnik AGAIN? There was a loooong thread on Richard Dawkins’ forum a good while ago that he started after his Canada Free Press article was posted in the news section and received a good shredding. The guy’s got a freakin’ martyr complex, I swear. I’ll see if I can dig up the thread…
Go go Martin! Kick butt!
Just as unscrupulous as fundies getting other fundies to support their cause just because they go to the same church, this is a bit slimy. Hey look, Dude, YOU want to take him to court? You need to be a responsible human being and be able to afford that plan. Don’t go playing on the Atheist heart strings.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=47998&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
There it is. I would advise people not posting a response in that thread. ypostelnik has not been seen on the forums since then, and it’s a long since dead thread. I doubt most people would appreciate thread necromancy.
“Wow, you are really bad at this whole ‘making an argument’ thing.”
This is crucial. I suspect the reason people such as the troll in question are so bad at things like logic, step-by-step argumentation and so on is that they are so used to swallowing everything whole, and under no circumstances questioning what authority has given them. Doubt, questions, criticism, examination: all are bad things you are not “supposed” to do.
So they have no idea how to proceed logically in part because deep down they believe logic is bad anyway. And yet we are supposed to be able to follow their version of “logic,” which is actually a synonym, in their funhouse reality, for “gut feeling.” And it is like trying to follow a river of freely-flowing vomit, because it is all gut and emotion based.
Are you going to sue me now?
here’s a clue, in case you’ve sobered up this morning:
only if the following conditions maintained:
-you hacked public profiles about me that potential clients of mine use or might use in order to decide whether or not to hire me, and the information you put there had a direct impact on my finances.
-you contacted any client of mine directly to inform them without my consent of my particular sexual orientation.
-you made harassing contact with either myself, or my business clients, or any relative.
all that aside, there is the issue of the nature of the attack itself, calling someone a “fag” is one thing, but depending on the state, there are many things that defacto can garner a libel action (e.g. you might have noted the pedophilia discussion earlier).
again, that you fail to do your homework on this, and continue to work from your base intuition about the matter does not serve you well.
I suspect the reason people such as the troll in question are so bad at things like logic, step-by-step argumentation and so on is that they are so used to swallowing everything whole
…or they simply had too much to drink.
Personally, I have $25 tops to get me through however long it takes until my boss is able to get some money out of the firm’s customers and actually make payroll, and a fair number of backed up bills to pay after that, so unless you still need money in 2 weeks, I’m gonna have to sit this one out. You have my moral support, though.
I have $25 tops to get me through however long it takes until my boss is able to get some money out of the firm’s customers and actually make payroll
Livin’ on vapor. been there, done that. I have some excellent Top Ramen recipes if you want them. :P
then there’s the rice and beans recipes…
Martin: you have my full moral support too, as another one living in vapor here…
Ichthyic: I’m intrested in your rice and bea recipes…
Look… I’m not unsympathetic to Wagner’s situation. I simply see this as a big, over-blown internet Flame War. It’s common on so many levels, as witnessed in this very thread (I thought the particularly clueless commenter who called me an Assclown was especially funny.)
I want to know how this is an actionable libelous account. It’s not too much to be skeptical, within a community of Skeptics, is it?
Wagner himself has written a rebuttal, of sorts, to my questions. It is my belief that YP is more than a douche canoe… he is a supertanker full of it. Yet this “rebuttal” simply reaffirms my case, that this is a Flame War.
I’ve said before that this may be a better thread for Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, rather here on Pharyngula, as I have a high opinion on Ed’s grasp of legal issues.
And let’s get this straight.. Editing a Wiki page is hardly “hacking.” Posting on public forums isn’t “hacking.” As I understand it, YP was already punished for the Wiki misinformation with a ban. I do not believe that this is punishable by any current laws. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
#96 (Funkstronaut) – “Look… I’m not unsympathetic to Wagner’s situation. I simply see this as a big, over-blown internet Flame War.”
Name calling back and forth is a flame war. Granted, when you know that calm logic won’t do anything to a creationist, then you just start cursing to let off steam, and to amuse your readers, which is exactly what Martin seems to have done. Name-calling like ‘asshole’ or ‘fucktard’ is opinion at best.
Yomin on the other hand tried to edit a page of FACTUAL information (Wikipedia) with misinformation, trying to claim that Martin was harassing him, that he was a serious narcotics abuser, had to go bankrupt, and worst of all, was a pedophile. Not to mention, this is before Yomin has the fucking apeshit gall to send a cease and desist letter afterwards.
If you can’t see the difference between this situation and some forgettable internet flame war, you need fucking glasses, Funkstronaut. Trying to spread lies about someone being a pedophile as fact on what is supposed to be a biographical page is beyond crossing the line.
Yes, RideThePig… It was a Dick-move of Biblical proportions.
I’d hate to accuse you of thickheadedness, but one more time… IS IT ILLEGAL?
Is it proper to take someone to court for an edited Wiki page?
Please read Wagner’s latest post about this situation, and tell me that this not a case of hurt internet feelings (yes, complete with very slimey and highly uncalled tactics.)
You can use my fucking glasses if you didn’t read it.
#96: I simply see this as a big, over-blown internet Flame War.
That is exactly what it is, Funkstronaut, except that YP is the guy who overblew it, by taking it past the level of simple flaming into actionable libel. And hell, I wasn’t even going to pursue that until I got this asinine C&D letter, indicating that after 3 months the guy still couldn’t wrap his head around the idea of growing up and letting it go.
Personally I think I’ve been exceedingly patient with the guy, all things considered. It’s just to the point where he needs a more forceful “enough already” message than he’s getting.
Is it proper to take someone to court for an edited Wiki page?
There is legal precedent for it, yes. Libel is libel.
I do hope you’re never on the receiving end of some lunatic’s ugly fixations, Funk, I really do.
#88: You need to be a responsible human being and be able to afford that plan. Don’t go playing on the Atheist heart strings.
I have already bled a great deal of my own money into this, thanks. I think everyone here is intelligent enough to know that my passing the hat is not meant as an emotional appeal or attempt at manipulation. If people wished to kick in (and thanks again to them), they could make that choice, or not. Everyone understands that.
Possummomma and Martin. I’m a University of Texas student and have been looking for a secular humanist/ atheist community. do you guys have meetings with ACA? I’m not 21 yet so bars are kind of out, pubs I can generally get into =)
#100: Yes, feel free to come to ACA meetings! As a student you should also look up Atheist Longhorns.
Thank you, Martin for addressing my posts. I have healthy respect for the fact that you at least understood the points I’m driving at, unlike many of the Pharyngula commenters here.
I’m just baffled that an edited Wiki page could be considered libel, and actionable by court. Hell… here in Detroit, it’s fun to sabotage the Wiki entries of those who attempt to degrade our sports teams. The ensuing banage of Wiki users was epic.
I do apologize if I were a little harsh. Inebriation is no excuse. Though Pharyngula commenters are quick to call a dissenter a “Troll,” I was simply offering counter-point to something I have some understanding about. As it is… I still find it a bit of a stretch to call an edited Wiki as libel.
I’d hate to accuse you of thickheadedness, but one more time… IS IT ILLEGAL?
wow.
just, wow.
Wow, Ichthyic. Anything useful to add?
I believe that I am full within my right to question the legality of this situation. I know that this particular service provider (Wikipedia) is safe from libel (CDA, 1996), yet it is commonly abused by it’s users.
It’s apparent that the abuser in question is not anonymous, so I’m trying to figure out how this changes things.
What the hell is wrong with you, Itchy? Instead of issues now, I believe that you are simply Trolling me. Be useful, or shut up.
Funk, if anyone is trolling it’s you because you keep repeating your point despite that it was refuted from the get-go.
“Is it illegal”? How many times do you plan on asking this? It is libel, which is illegal – that’s the point. If anyone’s having trouble dealing with your question it is because you’ve chosen to ignore this fact in order to preface it. Truly baffling, because frankly I wouldn’t expect someone who puffs himself up to be such a Pharyngula regular to do this. Purposefully ignoring information does not make for good critical thinking skills.
Now you’re stunned because you didn’t understand the law (that you ignored in the first place) and you want to bray at the people that were calling bullshit on you the whole time? Meanwhile, we should believe that you’re such an internet tough guy that someone editing your own Wikipedia entry with libelous information wouldn’t really bother you?
Your many replies and their tone do not support that claim.
Guys guys guys. Come on…let’s not war with one another.
Or maybe this is like that bit from The Young Ones…
“Look at us! Fighting! Arguing! We never used to be like this!”
“Yes we did!”
I’m not a lawyer, but with a little bit of digging, it’s easy to uncover a wealth of information about libelous cases due to different internet mediums (and specifically Wikipedia).
My focus has turned to Section 230 of a federal statute known as the Communications Decency Act, then Barrett v Rosenthal in particular.
Check it out. http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/
…
A passage that struck me from that article;
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Rosenthal is liable because posting the comments makes her a “developer” of the information in question, and she therefore becomes the legal equivalent of its creator for the purposes of the lawsuit. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the implications for free speech online are far-reaching. Bloggers could be held liable when they quote other people’s writing, and website owners could be held liable for what people say in message boards on their sites. The end result is that many people would simply cease to publish or host websites. In its brief, EFF argues that “the specter of civil liability chills the speech” of Internet service providers and users, and will inevitably lead to “protective self-censorship.”
…
So, am I right to think that there is no case, as to some form of immunity under Sec 230 CDA, or is there something I’m missing here?
Help me out here. I’m no rocket surgeon, so please don’t assume that I know something that seems perfectly obvious to you.
This just plays to my common sense, that if anyone and everyone who were to abuse a public internet medium and be held accountable for possible libel/defamation, then the internet would break, and all the blogs, message boards, and online encyclopedias would shut down.
Is it wrong of me to think this?
Here, I think, is the salient distinction, which I’ve highlighted.
Section 230 protects Internet publishers from being held liable for allegedly harmful comments written by others.
In other words, in this situation, while the vandal is responsible, Wikipedia, being the site on which the vandalism was published, is not.
Which is not a problem here, as I’m not naming Wikipedia in the petition anyway. There’s one person at fault here, and he’s the only one I’m seeking to hold accountable. Hope that clears it up.
I don’t have any money to donate to Martin, but I would if I could. It’s two points, really. First off, it’s an oversensitive religious nut getting his ass handed to him. I can dig that. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly: an immature, irrational, trolling, flaming, Grade A internet moron is, FOR ONCE, being held accountable for his actions. The semi-anonymity of the internet can be good, but it also acts as a shield for the worst behavior imaginable. It’s high time one of these dorks got their butt kicked.
Funkstronaut,
I think the problem here is that you don’t know the first thing about defamation law, and most people posting here do.
The first thing to know is that there’s a huge difference between plain old name-calling and fact claims.
If I say you’re a motherfucker and I’ll bet she doesn’t enjoy it, that’s not libel. I’m clearly expressing an opinion of you without claiming that you actually have sex with your mother.
But if I say (non-jokingly) that “Funkstronaut had sex with his mother on at least three occasions in 2007” that’s very, very different. I’m attempting to damage your reputation with a false claim of fact, and that’s illegal.
YP didn’t just call Martin stupid or evil or misinformed or an asshole; he wasn’t just stating his subjective impression of Martin. Among other things, he falsely accused him of specific crimes in a way that could easily damage his reputation with potential customers. That is clearly libel.
There’s no exemption from defamation law for flame wars on the internet. Saying “it’s just a flame war” is irrelevant once somebody crosses the line into libel.
There are exemptions from liability for carriers, e.g., that you generally can’t sue Yahoo Groups or Wikipedia for what individuals write in those forums. That’s not because you can’t libel somebody on the internet, but because there’s a difference between the provider of a forum and somebody providing information in that forum.
If I stand on a city sidewalk and slander you, you can’t sue the city, but you can sue me. Likewise Martin can’t sue Wikipedia for what YP says there, but he can sue YP.
OK. I sent $10. Let me know if you absolutely, positively need to have more.
“hypotheticals (paedophilia [sic])”
this was my favourite part.
Re Becca
Thanks for the hufPo tip.
That is one of the great ‘law f nature’ discoveries that the LHC was meant to give us. How many gigadollars did it take? ;-)
“Canadian Free Press”
Urgh–the puddle of right-wing stupid where right-wing stupid goes to die.
You shouldn’t link there–you’ll only spread the contamination.