Death to Me

Not because it's emotionally draining or time consuming or any other bullshit excuse used by writers in a creative dead zone.

It's because anyone in the United States with a few bucks to spare can wreak havoc on writers.

Laws protecting writers are strong, but this country has not initiated a loser-pays litigation system. The lobby for lawyers has more strength than NY Times v. Sullivan, and as long as someone is willing to file and pay for a frivolous lawsuit, there will be a lawyer willing to take up the cause.

This dichotomy is one that affects few professions. The judicial system has said, "Go forth, my pen-wielding children -- inform, opine and interpret! -- for we have your back. But, remember, any prick can file a lawsuit and force you to spend ungodly amounts of time and money defending yourself."

Think of the convicted rapist who sued a New Jersey newspaper for libel. The newspaper -- in deference to the standard of not naming rape victims -- provided a neutral, accurate report of the case. If one read between the lines, it became obvious that the man had raped his wife, and that was the grounds for the convict's lawsuit.

He argued that if the newspaper had reported that the victim was his wife, it would lessen the severity of the crime in the eyes of the public, and thus, would make his crime more palatable for public consumption. Why, Ms. Average Reader would think, this is just a man taking liberities with his wife -- an act ordained by God! And, I suppose, a mob would storm the prison and demand his release.

He lost, of course, but the newspaper had to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending itself -- money it undoubtedly did not recoup.

And this is the position I was recently in.

As of this writing, I am still not 100 percent sure what went down because I was not the initial contact. My persona, it seems, scares the bowl cloggers out of the potential complainants, and they preferred going through the Shutdown tech people.

Once again, reading between the lines, it becomes clear that -- for anonymity's sake, I'll refer to him as "Fat Fuck Guinea Douchebag" (FFGD) -- FFGD thought he had a better chance of intimidating and threatening the geeks. What are the chances they know their current rights? More likely than not, they'll remove the offending material without ascertaining if it is legally necessary to do so.

For a week, FFGD tried to contact "Michelle," a woman associated with Shutdown. He left messages on her home answering machine -- most of which she has saved -- and they were interpreted as being threatening. FFGD, according to Michelle, alluded to being a "legal adjunct" at "Small Business Run Out of Single-Family Rancher in a Residential Neighborhood Communications" (SBROSRRNC), and to Michelle, this made his claim -- such as it was -- sound legitimate.

When FFGD got in touch with Michelle, he refused to name his "client," what his client's beef was or what kind of resolution his client wanted. All he could say was that his client was upset that when she searched for her name, one of my pages was at the top of the index, and that in her ritzy Northeast enclave, the gossip-mongering WASPs were allegedly telling her that she was being "slandered" on the Web.

At this point, I would have said, "Madonna, your client ain't. Unless you can provide all of the pertinent information, so that I might evaluate it, fuck off, FFGD."

But Michelle, unfortunately, walked into his trap. She fed into his inflated sense of importance, and if I hadn't intervened, Michelle and others at Shutdown would still be wondering what was going on. He refused to release any information until I inserted myself into the situation.

From the scant information FFGD provided to Michelle, I deduced that the article in question was one written 15 months ago, and the article contained a story about overindulged children who vandalized a house to the tune of $130,000. The mention of his client's name was incidental to the story, and it was based on facts culled from legitimate news sources.

I knew that if FFGB was hinting at his client going for a libel angle, she would have an uphill battle because in her state and in the state the server is located, the law requires that people file a libel suit within one year of the offending material's publication.

Of course, this brings up the question, "What laws apply to the Web?" If the Web is viewed in the same light as print publications, the same libel/privacy laws apply. But is there any precedent on this issue? Can a Web writer hide behind the protection afforded to his print counterpart? And if not, does the Web writer have more or less burden when defending himself?

Well, I'm not interested in becoming a test case. I have tuition bills and car repairs to pay, and I have neither the time nor money to become a guinea pig. But I wasn't going to be bullied by FFGD.

In his messages to Michelle, he didn't spell his last name, and she had to guess as to its spelling. I did a search on her spelling and turned up nothing.

He did, however, provide his home phone number or, as he quickly amended it to, his home office phone number. I did a reverse lookup, and the number was registered to SBROSRRNC. The entry listed a Web site, and I checked it out to see if I could find FFGD's e-mail address.

The only e-mail addresses listed were general ones -- info@SBROSRRNC.com and support@SBROSRRNC.com -- but now, I knew where he worked.

I knew his first name, and given that he wasn't born within the last ten years, I was fairly confident as to its spelling. So, I did a search on his first name and the name of SBROSRRNC.

Ah, now I was getting somewhere. That turned up the site for an institution he once worked for, and he wasn't a legal anything. He was a Jr. Information Technology Consultant. And I learned how to spell his last name.

Doing a search for his full, properly spelt name brought up a site about the overweight. Apparently, FFGD is, indeed, quite the fat fuck, and he intends to get surgery to make him a chunky fuck.

And that gave me his e-mail address.

I composed a very civil e-mail to him, given that FFGD misrepresented himself, lied and used scare tactics.

In his reply, he was no longer indentifying himself as a legal-something-or-other, but now, he was the president of SBROSRRNC. And he responded in a vague fashion. "The client has signed papers which prevent us from divulging information, so at this time I am unable to speak of specifics."

Right.

By now, I had convinced my Shutdown masters that there was no legitimate case. Michelle's husband had done his own research on FFGD, and we all agreed that we should just humor the guy because, for all we knew, he was a crazy bastard who had found a clever way of trying to get information about me.

I was prepared to make the lengthy drive to the courthouse in FFGD's county and search through the public records for information about him -- truly astounding how much one can learn about a person -- but I decided to give him one more chance.

I responded to FFGD's e-mail, and finally, he was "free" to reveal information about his client. She was exactly who I thought her to be, and now, FFGD was spilling the beans as to Queen Wasp's position.

"It's harassment!"

Harassment in what way?

"Her concerns is that you give allot more attention to her and her son than you do to other juveniles who have actually been convicted. Why? Do you know her?"

Well, she was the only parent stupid enough to give an interview to the newspaper.

"Why couldn't you give her an alias? You give everyone else an alias!"

I only provide aliases to family members because I know those fuckers would sue. I do not assign aliases to names I gather from e-mail or from legitimate news sources.

"Why couldn't you at least update the page to reflect that her son was found innocent?"

Because I have no idea if he was found innocent. The chances are slim that the newspapers that originally mentioned the incident also reported the outcome of every case stemming from this incident. The time between charges and trials -- especially with legal maneuvering -- can be months, and in some cases, years. If the outcome was reported, it would have been relegated to a back page. As I don't live in the area, how would I have found about the results? Should I call the prosecutors' office of every case I write about to see if there have been any changes? If you aren't holding the newspapers to that standard, why would you hold me to it?

"Her son found the page where his name was mentioned, and he was embarrassed because of it!"

I'd be more embarrassed to be a 20-year-old boy whose mother still fights his battles for him.

"Look, she she has three solutions to this problem:

• One, change her and her son's name to John and Jane Doe and keep your opinions.

  But her son's name is part of the public record. He was charged with a crime, and he was an adult when the charges were filed. Anyone can go to the local courthouse -- unless QW has managed to have her son's criminal record sealed -- and do a search on his name that will pull up this information. QW thrust herself into the public controversy -- and, oh yes, it was a controversy -- and made herself part of the case. She put her name out there.

• Second, remove her and her son's name completely and only give the facts and your opinions.

  Her son was charged with a crime. That is a fact. If you are claiming that this is not a fact, by all means, take it up with the prosecutor's office and police department.

• Third, remove the entire piece. According to the attorneys, when you print something like this without the consent of the person you open yourself up to legal issues.

  And what consent would that be? Her son was charged with a crime. That is part of the public record. She commented on the case. That is part of the public record. I properly attributed the information to its original sources. I do not need anyone's consent to post and comment on public information. Has your client sued the newspapers that wrote about the incident?

"Oh, come on! She just wants to put this incident behind her!"

And she did. The article is 15 months old, and it's in my archives. If my comments were so awful, why did it take her over a year to find out about them?

::crickets chirping::

I asked FFGD what his interest was in this case, and he said that he had been hired by QW) to track me down, and that contrary to the About section of SBROSRRNC's Web site, his business helps people track down "those who hide behind technology."

Well, he didn't do a very good job.

But his tactics, presumably authorized by QW, were enough to give me pause. Everything I had been taught in my journalism classes about how touchy the public can be was being turned into my own case study. I am legally in the right, but does it matter? Would the victory be that sweet if my bank statement showed a zero balance? Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't be.

I doubt she would pursue a lawsuit if I told her to go fuck herself, but she has the resources to stir up trouble. She spent tens of thousands of dollars defending her precious, college-aged child against a charge that would have warranted a $100 fine, so why wouldn't she drop a few thousand to harass me? I'm not a fucking martyr.

So, I might cave. I won't give the woman or the rotten fruit of her loins aliases, but I might change their names to initials. I'd feel dirty, and I'd feel as if I've helped score one for the ignorant masses -- but what can I do?

This does not bode well for those who swarm to the Web, in hopes of exercising their First Amendment rights. Many people who use the Web are functionally illiterate and opt to post photos of their cats or kids rather than write words, but those who are interested in writing without the ever-present heavy hand of an editor should take note of this.

(And, certainly, we're not using this freedom to blatantly defame people. We simply like the freedom of using "fuck" and giving people insulting aliases, such as Fat Fuck Guinea Douchebag.)

Right now, the Web is akin to the Wild, Wild West. No one knows what "real world" laws apply to the Web. Libel? Privacy? Harassment? How do judges interpret the law with bits and bytes in mind? The courts are winging it, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus.

In Reno v. ACLU (1997) the Supreme Court characterized anyone with a computer connected to the Internet as a "publisher" and analogized personal home pages to newsletters. That would apply the same real world standards to the online world, but as it's generally accepted that the Web is a source of opinion and hyperbole, should it be held to the same standards as The NY Times?

And as the right of reply is available to anyone on the Web, anyone who feels slighted can tell their own side of the story. That makes it nearly impossible for a Web libel lawsuit to succeed.

Online writers -- those with some ability to string words together in a creative fashion -- have often retreated from well-established mediums because they have been watered down and dumbed down. Much of that has to do with what their readers and viewers claim to want -- although if the Web is any indication of people's true desires, TBS should show "Faces of Death" instead of "A Christmas Story" this year -- but another aspect of it is that broadcast and print journalists are scared.

When deciding to air or run a potentially controversial story, producers and editors have to factor in the possibility of a lawsuit. "Is exposing XYZ worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars it might cost to defend ourselves if we're sued?"

Rather than take the chance, many producers and editors are opting to just run with material that is less likely to anger the thin-skinned. And some of their viewers and readers are turning to the Web to get pure, unadulterated news and commentary.

But what happens when the overly sensitive turn their attention to the Web? Will the Web become as diluted as our local dailies? At least broadcast and print journalists have the benefit of company lawyers and funding to provide a defense. What of the lone online writer, who has to bear the brunt of the frivolous lawsuit?

This is why I unabashedly supported Dr. Laura's television show -- which we all knew would tank on its own -- and found the behavior of Stop Dr. Laura so repugnant. Censorship is censorship, even if it sneaks in through the backdoor.

The supporters of Stop Dr. Laura or the helmet-haired WASPs of Snooty Town can sheepishly grin and then say, "I support free speech. I don't support censorship. I'm not censoring her. I'm not TAKING AWAY her forum. I'm just, like, you know, telling her that we'll boycott and harass her sponsors or telling her that I'm looking into legal action."

But what is more insidious than that? They are forcing people to engage in self-censorship. The fear of losing money -- be it through the loss of sponsors or the depletion of a savings account -- often takes precedence over justice and constitutional rights.

Just look at how homogenized the Web has become without the influences of the Queen Wasps and Fat Fuck Guinea Douchebags.

The Process: A personal site becomes popular. In private, the writer basks in the glory, and in public, he berates his adoring fans for being sheep. He says that he'll continue to provide content of his own liking. He's part of the new media revolution, he says. He's providing alternatives to the "garbage" of mainstream media.

The hits continue to increase. He puts banners on his site. He starts to earn money. Hey, this writing thing is paying off, and on his own terms! But people start to e-mail him, to complain about the content. It's just not the same. It was better before. To keep the money rolling in, he starts altering the content, so that his readers keep coming back.

He's become a slave to his readers. No different than the newspapers and magazines he claims to be railing against.

What happens when, not only does he have to focus on his readers' needs, he has to keep an eye out for threats of lawsuits? The Web becomes the online version of the sugar-coated happy talk we're trying to avoid. Maybe there are a few photos of midgets fucking dogs thrown in, but it remains that the motivation behind the Web site is no different than the motivation behind the mediums we've abandoned.

Now, I feel as if I'll have to limit the scope of my writings because of a paranoid, conceited bitch with deep pockets. Why bother if, even if I stay within the boundaries of the law, I still have to worry about becoming a defendant?

And people wonder why I want to go into technical writing.

Providing jack-off material for white misogynists since 1997.

The Misanthropic Bitch does not encourage feedback. All submissions, though, become property of the Misanthropic Bitch. Submissions may be published or reused in any other medium.