Internet Trolling and Slander

[Stevenell]

My question involves defamation in the state of: Ca. or Wa. (I'm not sure if it's the state it occurred in (Ca.) or the state the other user is in (Wa.)

I've been trolled by a few people, most of whom are in the state of Washington. I've had false accusations and even my posts changed to state I do strange sexual acts. Now, I don't really care about being trolled; everything's using screennames, so it's no big deal to me personally. However, I would like to remind them that my screenname does hold some value of a reputation and I may sue them for slander.

• Can a screenname hold a reputation on the internet?
• If I were to sue them, how difficult would it be for me to get their personal info such as their real names, addresses and such?
• How much time and effort would that take?
• How often do people sue over online trolling and the like?

[TheJanitor]

• Can a screenname hold a reputation on the internet?
• If I were to sue them, how difficult would it be for me to get their personal info such as their real names, addresses and such?
• How much time and effort would that take?
• How often do people sue over online trolling and the like?

Not replying with knowledge of the law, but I can tell you that as far as getting their personal information, you would have to have to begin with the IP address of the computer used to post whatever was posted, then with that information, you do a WHOIS find out who is the ISP that owns the IP and contact them asking them for the name of the account holder that had the IP at certain time and certain date (they may not even log it).

Let's say that you have that information, because I doubt that they will just give you that without getting the courts involved, having the name of the account holder does not mean that that person was the one slandering you, I guess you can go after the account holder but I assume you'd want to sue the person responsible for the comments.

See if I have a wireless router that is unencrypted, I am basically offering free internet to whoever passes by with a receiver (laptop, cell phone), so that means that anyone who would've had access to it may have slandered you, so it isn't always black and white when it comes to traceability on the internets.

[LawResearcherMissy]

Trolling isn't illegal.

* Can a screenname hold a reputation on the internet?

Depends. Most screen names don't even approach unique, and serve to keep the person's real identity - the thing with ACTUAL reputation - hidden. There are a few exceptions, and even those are exceptions only in certain circles. If I talk to you about Afterburner, you're unlikely to know who I'm talking about. People in net.abuse newsgroups know his real name, where he works, and know that he is legendary in his spam and abuse busting skills.

Even then, if you were to go talking smack about Afterburner, he'd have to show ACTUAL DAMAGES in order to prevail in a suit.

What are your actual damages from these anonymous statements? A case of butthurt doesn't count.

* If I were to sue them, how difficult would it be for me to get their personal info such as their real names, addresses and such?

Your attorney would have to subpoena the information from multiple sources - the IP from the forum owner, if they even log it, then the contact information from the ISP, if they've even retained it.

It's time consuming and costly.

* How much time and effort would that take?

Getting info? Months. Suit? Upwards of three years and $30,000.

* How often do people sue over online trolling and the like?

Thin skinned people threaten all the time. Then they find out that lawyers don't care that their feelings are hurt over an internet argument, and won't bother with them without a serious retainer fee.

[Stevenell]

Well, they did accuse me of being a pedo and a sex offender.

I don't think I'll really sue them. As most don't understand what that means legally (college kids).

However, I did threaten, and they said it was only "Satire" and it was "Their own personal opinion".

Is there any way to get around Slander if they say it was only their "Opinion" or "Satire"?

[Scooterdog]

Well, they did accuse me of being a pedo and a sex offender.

I don't think I'll really sue them. As most don't understand what that means legally (college kids).

However, I did threaten, and they said it was only "Satire" and it was "Their own personal opinion".

Is there any way to get around Slander if they say it was only their "Opinion" or "Satire"?

Using electronic communications (internet) to harrass is a FELONY.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Using electronic communications (internet) to harrass is a FELONY.

Under what exact statute? Once you get into the specifics, "harassment" will involve a great deal more than being rude, bothersome or obnoxious.

[Scooterdog]

Under what exact statute? Once you get into the specifics, "harassment" will involve a great deal more than being rude, bothersome or obnoxious.

Do you live in a cave? It's called cyberstalking or cyberbulling.

Here are just a few laws governing people harrassing you (Not all will apply, the later will):

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) (transmission of program, information, code, or command, resulting in damage)

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii) (accessing a computer without authorization, resulting in damage)

18 U.S.C. § 875(b), (d) (transmitting, with intent to extort, threat to kidnap or harm a person, or threat to injure a person's property or harm a reputation) (Hobbs Act)

18 U.S.C. § 875 (transmitting communications containing threats of kidnap or bodily injury) (Hobbs Act)

47 U.S.C. § 223 (a)(1)(C) (anonymously using telecommunications device to harass person who receives communication)

47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(E) (repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunication device solely to harass person who receives communication)

18 U.S.C. § 2261A (using any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to person, person's spouse or immediate family) See also Electronic Harassment

[Mr. Knowitall]

Do you live in a cave? It's called cyberstalking or cyberbulling.

Here are just a few laws governing people harrassing you (Not all will apply, the later will):

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) (transmission of program, information, code, or command, resulting in damage)

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii) (accessing a computer without authorization, resulting in damage)

18 U.S.C. § 875(b), (d) (transmitting, with intent to extort, threat to kidnap or harm a person, or threat to injure a person's property or harm a reputation) (Hobbs Act)

18 U.S.C. § 875 (transmitting communications containing threats of kidnap or bodily injury) (Hobbs Act)

47 U.S.C. § 223 (a)(1)(C) (anonymously using telecommunications device to harass person who receives communication)

47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(E) (repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunication device solely to harass person who receives communication)

18 U.S.C. § 2261A (using any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to person, person's spouse or immediate family) See also Electronic Harassment

None of which are relevant to the present situation, nor back up your sweeping generalization that "Using electronic communications (internet) to harrass is a FELONY". When you make statements of law, please try to make sure that they're accurate. When you make a nonsensical statement, then post irrelevant statutes to try to blow a smokescreen over your obvious mistake, you not only perpetuate your original misinformation, you waste everybody's time.

18 USC 1030 is irrelevant to your claim. The statute is about unauthorized access to computers, not harassment.

18 USC 875 explicitly confines itself to threats to injure made with intent to extort demands for ransom, or threats to kidnap or injure the person of another, and thus is again irrelevant. It's an extortion statute, not a defamation statute.

47 USC 223(a) is irrelevant to your claim. The concept of "telecommunications device" does not include the use of an interactive computer service, as they are covered by section 223(d)(1):

(h) Definitions For purposes of this section—

(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section —

(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;

(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and

(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) of this section, includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).

18 USC 2261A is irrelevant to your claim. It's about stalking behavior that puts a person in "reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury" to that person or a family member, which is a level of conduct several orders of magnitude beyond what we're discussing here.

[BOR]

47 USC 223(a) is irrelevant to your claim. The concept of "telecommunications device" does not include the use of an interactive computer service, as they are covered by section 223(d)(1):

I have to disagree my friend.

ICS and telecommunications device are different: ICS has a different definition.

47 U.S.C. § 223 (a)(1)(C) (anonymously using telecommunications device to harass person who receives communication)


(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) of this section, includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).

Sec. 113 was slipped into the Violence Against Women Act (2005)? to ammend 223 here from a telephone alone, to include a computer.

Simple anonyance however will not trigger the statute. The case law from the telephone harrasment, former 223, controls. Annoy and harass are ingrained by basic defintion in the case law.

[Nathan04]

personal cases that occur over the internet are incredibly hard to put together from what I can tell. The degrees of separation from each party at any given time make it a complete mess most of the time. Also, just judging from the OP, it doesn't seem like you can do much. Unless they are specifically threatening you with serious, serious allegations, it won't be worth your time or money.

I'd suggest just going to a different forum/internet community if it is so bothersome.

(this might be different if they are PMing/E-Mailing/IM-ing you consistently instead of just on an open public forum. Then you might be able to do something with harassment, maybe.)