US website sued over cheat 'slur'

[Darat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5135384.stm



...snip...

The creator of a US website that lets women complain about men they say have wronged them is facing legal action from a featured man

...snip...

The website owner compares herself with a coffee shop proprietor who is not liable for her customers' gossip.

...snip...

Mr Hollis says he is the one who has been wronged and the website has a duty to check the veracity of information it carries.

...snip...



Any predictions or rather educated ideas ;) on how (if it does go to court) this will pan out?

[CFLarsen]

Women say they are looking for Mr. Perfect.

But they don't really want to find him. If they find Mr. Perfect, there's nothing for them to change about him. And that's not good...

Women love the idea of changing their men, more than they love the idea of Mr. Perfect.

;)

[Zep]

Suspect the complainant will be tossed out of court, and out-of-pocket big time. A website is like a newspaper, surely - all comments attributable to their authors, not the medium??

[SteveGrenard]

Does the website have a disclaimer?

[Lisa Simpson]

The website dontdatehimgirl.com has this as the first part of its TOS:

You are solely responsible for the content or information you publish, display or otherwise communicate in any manner (hereinafter, "post") on the Service, or transmit to other Registered Users.

I bet that's going to be their legal argument.

[Zep]

There you go. ;)

[WildCat]

The website dontdatehimgirl.com has this as the first part of its TOS:



I bet that's going to be their legal argument.
Yeah, that's gonna work. Just like the sign in the coat check room saying "we are not responsible for lost or stolen items" gives them legal license to steal.

[Zep]

Yeah, that's gonna work. Just like the sign in the coat check room saying "we are not responsible for lost or stolen items" gives them legal license to steal.
Because...it's not the same thing??? :confused:

The website was not asked to write the comments on behalf of these women, they wrote them themselves...

[casebro]

It's the public 'soap box' argument. I believe that if the host does NO EDITING, it is a free and open site, then they are not responsible for content. Newspapers are different, they are in it for the money. But cities are not responsible for what is said by somebody standing on a soap box on the corner.

[SteveGrenard]

The reason a cloak room operated by a restaurant or other service is not responsible for damage or theft is usually because if that happens ........
damage to or theft of an expensive coat, the establishment's insurer's
are responsible.

If someone hands in a coat that has a rip in the lining for example and then claims the cloak room damaged the garment then the matter is referred to the establishment's insurers who decide whether or not to
fight or pay the claim.

Also as Zep says this is not the same thing.

[Earthborn]

I think the comparison with a coffee shop isn't appropriate either. A coffee shop doesn't broadcast the gossip spoken inside it over the entire globe. It doesn't collect a whole database of accusations made by gossipers.

I don't think an internet forum has the responsibility of checking every fact that is posted on it, but I do think it also problematic if people are allowed to post other's personal information and photos together with unverifiable accusations. It gets even more problematic if it keeps a large searchable database blacklist, and that's what 'Don't Date Him Girl' does. (http://dontdatehimgirl.com//about_us/index.html)

If I was the judge I would also sentence the site owner to life-in-prison for the Annoying-and-Unnecessary-Use-of-Macromedia/Flash.

[AmateurScientist]

I think the comparison with a coffee shop isn't appropriate either. A coffee shop doesn't broadcast the gossip spoken inside it over the entire globe. It doesn't collect a whole database of accusations made by gossipers.

I don't think an internet forum has the responsibility of checking every fact that is posted on it, but I do think it also problematic if people are allowed to post other's personal information and photos together with unverifiable accusations. It gets even more problematic if it keeps a large searchable database blacklist, and that's what 'Don't Date Him Girl' does. (http://dontdatehimgirl.com//about_us/index.html)

If I was the judge I would also sentence the site owner to life-in-prison for the Annoying-and-Unnecessary-Use-of-Macromedia/Flash.

I agree with you. The worldwide public nature of it, the entire purpose of the site, which is solely to smear real people very publicly, and the very forseeability of the slanderous nature of the comments made and to be made there might make some new law here. I don't find analogies to more traditional forms of public media to be particularly apt.

I made a post about this elsewhere yesterday, and discussed it briefly with some folks by chat last night. I find this whole concept deeply disturbing. It's far worse than a scarlet "A" in my opinion. The meanness and vileness behind the posts and the founding of the sites is deplorable. Although legally "truth" is a defense to libel or slander, I hope it doesn't shield the sites from liability. I find them disgusting.

Whatever happened to "don't kiss and tell" as an acceptable guideline for what happens between lovers?

AS

ETA: For a more balanced site, one that offers men the opportunity to trash women publicly too, go here. Any feminists thinking "Yay! The bastards can get their just desserts" might want to reconsider after seeing this one. http://www.playersandpsychos.com/index.php

[SteveGrenard]

So wait a sec, it's okay to post cheating men but not to post cheating women on this site?

from their site:


Do not post the names of alleged cheating women on this website!

The names will automatically be deleted!

www.DontDateHimGirl.com (http://www.dontdatehimgirl.com/)is for women to post the pictures and profiles of men who have allegedly cheated on them, NOT vice versa.
and

We do not remove profiles of the men in our database! If you have been deemed to have violated these rules [?] will be removed.


What about gay and lesbian cheaters? Or
trans-sexual cheaters? How do they reconcile these?

[Earthborn]

Here (http://dontdatehimgirl.com/search/cheater.asp?ddh_id=14097&return_url=index%2Easp%3Foffset%3D2%26search%3Dtod d%2520hollis%26search%5Foptions%3D%2520OR%2520%26p rev%5Foffset%3D1%26li%3D1313%26ti%3D12306%26Submit %3D) is the database entry for Todd Hollis, the guy who sues the site. (Hopefully the url gets parsed correctly. No guarantees from me). Apperently someone accuses him of spreading herpes.

As a policy, Don't Date Him Girl doesn't delete any entries, but invites men to "tell their side of the story". Since they can't do much but deny the accusations and won't be able to back anything up, this is a bit of a "have you stopped beating your wife" issue.

There is another entry (http://dontdatehimgirl.com/search/cheater.asp?ddh_id=12923&return_url=index%2Easp%3Foffset%3D2%26search%3Dtod d%2520hollis%26search%5Foptions%3D%2520OR%2520%26p rev%5Foffset%3D1%26li%3D1313%26ti%3D12306%26Submit %3D) in the database where apperently the original poster apologises for causing mr. Hollis any harm and claims it was all a joke. Presumably it is the same "Todd Hollis", but peculiarly he has turned from white to black.

[RandFan]

I think the comparison with a coffee shop isn't appropriate either. A coffee shop doesn't broadcast the gossip spoken inside it over the entire globe. It doesn't collect a whole database of accusations made by gossipers.

I don't think an internet forum has the responsibility of checking every fact that is posted on it, but I do think it also problematic if people are allowed to post other's personal information and photos together with unverifiable accusations. It gets even more problematic if it keeps a large searchable database blacklist, and that's what 'Don't Date Him Girl' does. (http://dontdatehimgirl.com//about_us/index.html) Agreed. It's not black and white but it is not as simple as saying that the web site has no responsibility.

[Earthborn]

What about gay and lesbian cheaters? Or trans-sexual cheaters? How do they reconcile these?By now you should have noticed that almost all sites that deal with dating are firmly ingrained into the Hetero Man/Hetero Woman dichotomy.

[SteveGrenard]

By now you should have noticed that almost all sites that deal with dating are firmly ingrained into the Hetero Man/Hetero Woman dichotomy.

No, I didn't notice that by now since I have never heard about this until now and don't keep up with "dating sites" myself as my wife might not understand. Neither would I.

Surely special interest/gender groups have dating sites also (e.g.: girls who love physicists or guys who want to marry nurses) and soon they will probably have cheating sites.

But thanks for pointing this out.

[Polaris]

Women say they are looking for Mr. Perfect.

But they don't really want to find him. If they find Mr. Perfect, there's nothing for them to change about him. And that's not good...

Women love the idea of changing their men, more than they love the idea of Mr. Perfect.

;)

Hence the reason why makeover shows are so popular.

[AmateurScientist]

Hence the reason why makeover shows are so popular.

And the funnier part is that the makeover shows "gay" the men up. Why don't the women who like those shows just cut out the middleman and pursue gay men instead?

AS

[Polaris]

And the funnier part is that the makeover shows "gay" the men up. Why don't the women who like those shows just cut out the middleman and pursue gay men instead?

AS

I'm not even gonna take a stab at that one.

[Ryokan]

http://dontdatehimgirl.com/search/cheater.asp?ddh_id=14324&return_url=index%2Easp%3F

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Zep]

I'm not even gonna take a stab at that one.A clever pun indeed! :D

[Mojo]

So wait a sec, it's okay to post cheating men but not to post cheating women on this site?

from their site:

Do not post the names of alleged cheating women on this website!

The names will automatically be deleted!

www.DontDateHimGirl.com is for women to post the pictures and profiles of men who have allegedly cheated on them, NOT vice versa.So here they are saying that they will edit the site content, and will remove content that they deem inappropriate.

Surely this is not going to be good for their defence that they are merely providing a "public soap box", and are not accepting any responsibility for the site content.

[WildCat]

Because...it's not the same thing??? :confused:

The website was not asked to write the comments on behalf of these women, they wrote them themselves...
Then please explain why this very web site has recently put the clamps on posting copyrighted images? According to you, only the person who posted them would have to worry about being sued, and the JREF has nothing to fear.

[davefoc]

I just realized I am in roughly the same situation as the allegedly wronged man.

I own a small apartment building and somebody from years ago took a very significant dislike to us and wrote a very nasty review in an apartment ratings site.

Fair enough, sort of, I don't know who it was and maybe the things he/she claims are true. The fact is that sometimes there are problems. We do the best we can to fix them and to treat people fairly but maybe we don't succeed in every case.

But this person, got so wrapped up in this that he/she years after she has lived in our apartment building continues to write nasty stuff, anonymously about us. Seems a little extreme but the net effect seems to be minimal, even the people that have seen the site seem willing to rent from us, perhaps because others have written favorable reviews.

The bottom line here is that I suspect that in most cases the effects of somebody going on some sort of an unfounded crusade against somebody are small and perhaps doing some unfair harm to somebody every now and then is just the price society has to pay if it is going to allow these kind of sites.

A serious problem could develop, if the information on the sites ever became so widely distributed that it could serve as the basis for ruination of somebody. It seems doubtful to me that this is going to happen.

[Polaris]

A clever pun indeed! :D

Unintentional, I swear! :D