Man sues chatroom pals:

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Better watch what we say to one another....................

Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'

Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.

But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."

"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."

A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it's the Internet age ? and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit against two erstwhile cyber chums he met in the sprawling 900-room, mostly anonymous society that makes up AOL's chat universe.

Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance ? Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."

The complaint, expected in court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference, also names AOL as a defendant for allowing the alleged harassment to take place.

Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.

The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.

"Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not."

But Marlowe said he works 60 hours a week at an autobody shop and laughed at the notion that he would drive from Alabama to Ohio to take pictures of Gillespie's house.

"I have never been to Ohio and I have absolutely no desire to go to Ohio," Marlowe said. "There is nothing there ? the Cincinnati Bengals are there, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame maybe, and that's about it."

Even if Marlowe did take a trip to Ohio, posting a picture of someone's house on the Internet does not violate privacy laws, according to Chris Hoofnagle, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"Those norms require the aggressor to engage in behavior that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," he said. "Taking a picture of somebody's house and putting it up on the Web is not that."

Hoofnagle said Gillespie's emotional distress claim will also be tough to prove.

"We live in a rough society, as compared to Europe, where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action," he said.

Power Struggle in 'Romance ? Older Men'

Charpentier said he first encountered Gillespie more than five years ago and at first, the two chatters were friendly. But Charpentier says he quickly became disenchanted by what he saw as Gillespie's mean streak.

Things really turned ugly four years ago when Charpentier traveled to Kentucky to meet another chatroom regular, a woman who was also a friend of Gillespie's. The blind date did not go particularly well, and when Charpentier returned to he discovered that Gillespie had gone on the attack.

"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."

Charpentier, who has filed a response seeking to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie, said Gillespie threatened to kill him and "made sick and disgusting remarks about the passing of my grandmother."

"He is an AOL computer thug, that is all he is," Charpentier said.

Marlowe characterized the dispute as a petty power struggle. He said Gillespie was the de facto leader of the "Romance ? Older Men" chatroom, and didn't like it when he and Charpentier challenged his authority.

But Marlowe said he never took the chatroom antics personally ? until he was served with a lawsuit.

"I don't know how four years of bantering back and forth led to this insane nonsense," he said. "It's just the Internet, for God's sake. It's nothing important."

Michael Gordon, an attorney for AOL, declined to comment, saying, "This is just the beginning stages of this thing."
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,808
6,362
126
Judge: "AOL chatroom? All parties must hereby hand in their Man Cards"...clonk clonk "Next case!"
 

Apocalypse X

Member
Jan 10, 2006
90
0
0
man as if that sort of stuff happens everywhere..........
It would never be tolerated in these forums.....................
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
598
126
Can you imagine the lawsuits involving the AT forums people if the guy was to win?

:)
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,177
14,547
136
Why can't people just learn to press the "X" in the upper right corner...... (But I guess that's why the person was using AOL)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
You can sue anyone for anything does'nt mean swaut. (cept legal bills) In fact some people sue just to drain the adversary of thier assets. No chance in hell this guy will win.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Republicans support the guy who is suing. In fact they want to send the harassing criminals to jail(assuming the guys used their handles and not their real names).
See this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1776524&enterthread=y
It appears that Congress passed (and the President signed) a provision in a recent Justice Department funding bill that says that if you "annoy" someone on the internet without disclosing your full identity, you could go to jail for up to two years.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
As if the courts don't deal with enough trivial nonsense wheres judge judy when you need her?

But in retrospect was kind of wierd the guy went so far as to travel and photo his house...sounds like a demented stalker or something.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
I deeply apologize to everyone I may have offended here......... yeah that oughta cover my arse.

This guy cannot come to terms with the fact that he doesn't have IT. The ladies don't like him, so he acts out against an easy target, a bully.
 

Shortass

Senior member
May 13, 2004
908
0
76
So obnoxious. People like that need to get laughed out of court. How can lawyers take these guys seriously? If you're getting emotionally upset over an AOL chat room, then go out and get some real friends. I mean, he's gone to the same one for years. That's ridiculous in itself.

Originally posted by: techs
Republicans support the guy who is suing. In fact they want to send the harassing criminals to jail(assuming the guys used their handles and not their real names).
See this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1776524&enterthread=y
It appears that Congress passed (and the President signed) a provision in a recent Justice Department funding bill that says that if you "annoy" someone on the internet without disclosing your full identity, you could go to jail for up to two years.

Republicans? As in ONE republican who put it in a bill sneakily and it was passed in the House and unanimously passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing is likely to come from this anyway, Constitution, etc. Why are you blaming Republicans for this one? Nothing better to do with your time? :disgust:
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."

Pretty funny stuff. I think this should be on judge judy. You'd have poeple skipping church to watch!
 

imported_Rampage

Senior member
Jun 6, 2005
935
0
0
This is why we need a law that says any lawsuit brought to court seeking damages where the plaintiff fails to prove their case, the plaintiff is forced to pay the defendants legal fees.

Frivolous lawsuits solved.
But the lawyers and Democrats (who support them) will scream to stop something like this from ever happening.
 

fierydemise

Platinum Member
Apr 16, 2005
2,056
2
81
Rampage I'm not sure I agree, it would discourage poorer people from filing lawsuits for fear of losing and having to pay extravigant legal fees, I think that it should definatly be something judges are allowed to do (they might be already I'm not sure) and should be common in many circumstances but not all.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Originally posted by: Rampage
This is why we need a law that says any lawsuit brought to court seeking damages where the plaintiff fails to prove their case, the plaintiff is forced to pay the defendants legal fees.

Frivolous lawsuits solved.
But the lawyers and Democrats (who support them) will scream to stop something like this from ever happening.

To the contrary, most states and the federal court system ALREADY have a rule enabling the judge to impose actual costs upon the losing party in frivilous cases. Unfortunately, this is rarely done so at the present it is a mostly toothless remedy. It is rarely implemented for many reasons Some judges (of all political persuasions) don't like the rule. Some conservatives rail at it from a philisophical viewpoint, as the legislature wrongfully sticking it's nose into judicial business. My personal view is that most judges don't like it because it puts them on the hotseat with lawyers who appear before them every day. Also in some states (like mine) the judge is compelled to report the offending attorney to the disciplinary committee if he makes a finding that litigation was frivilous. So now the judge is faced with a decision that will wreck someone's career (and livlihood), when it quite possibly could have been a situation where the client was, to put it mildly, not quite truthful when he outlined his case initially (unlike most jobs, lawyers ethically cannot just walk off a job).

It would be a huge disservice to the American public to impose actual legal costs in every civil case. The most common defense tactic of a large corporate defendant is to try to overwhelm the plaintiff with motions, etc. If all losing plaintiffs must pay the attorney fees then you might as well close the courthouse doors to the average citizen, as the business of justice was just sold off to big business and the moneyed class.

Calling for universal actual attorney fee provisions is a common reaction, but it is short sighted and wrong. Fine tuning, and better enforcement of the current law, could solve this problem.

I do think that the turning of the man cards would be a good initial step, though.
 

imported_Rampage

Senior member
Jun 6, 2005
935
0
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: Rampage
This is why we need a law that says any lawsuit brought to court seeking damages where the plaintiff fails to prove their case, the plaintiff is forced to pay the defendants legal fees.

Frivolous lawsuits solved.
But the lawyers and Democrats (who support them) will scream to stop something like this from ever happening.

To the contrary, most states and the federal court system ALREADY have a rule enabling the judge to impose actual costs upon the losing party in frivilous cases. Unfortunately, this is rarely done so at the present it is a mostly toothless remedy. It is rarely implemented for many reasons Some judges (of all political persuasions) don't like the rule. Some conservatives rail at it from a philisophical viewpoint, as the legislature wrongfully sticking it's nose into judicial business. My personal view is that most judges don't like it because it puts them on the hotseat with lawyers who appear before them every day. Also in some states (like mine) the judge is compelled to report the offending attorney to the disciplinary committee if he makes a finding that litigation was frivilous. So now the judge is faced with a decision that will wreck someone's career (and livlihood), when it quite possibly could have been a situation where the client was, to put it mildly, not quite truthful when he outlined his case initially (unlike most jobs, lawyers ethically cannot just walk off a job).

It would be a huge disservice to the American public to impose actual legal costs in every civil case. The most common defense tactic of a large corporate defendant is to try to overwhelm the plaintiff with motions, etc. If all losing plaintiffs must pay the attorney fees then you might as well close the courthouse doors to the average citizen, as the business of justice was just sold off to big business and the moneyed class.

Calling for universal actual attorney fee provisions is a common reaction, but it is short sighted and wrong. Fine tuning, and better enforcement of the current law, could solve this problem.

I do think that the turning of the man cards would be a good initial step, though.

Isnt it a huge disservice to have a ton of frivolous lawsuits clogging up our system and courts, costing the state tons of money sorting these things out?

I think the burden of proof should be on the accusers head, not the defendants. If you practically ruin someones reputation by falsely accusing someone of child molestation (for example), and the defendant is proven innocent, then at the very least for wasting his time his accuser should be forced to pay his legal fees..

if not pay a fee to the state for wasting state employee time, the use of public buildings that could have been better used for real cases ect.
The last part is a bit extreme, but I think if you wage a suit, you should be damn sure its not just to burn up the defendants cash reserves, mar their reputation or similar.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Originally posted by: Rampage
Isnt it a huge disservice to have a ton of frivolous lawsuits clogging up our system and courts, costing the state tons of money sorting these things out?

I think the burden of proof should be on the accusers head, not the defendants. If you practically ruin someones reputation by falsely accusing someone of child molestation (for example), and the defendant is proven innocent, then at the very least for wasting his time his accuser should be forced to pay his legal fees..

if not pay a fee to the state for wasting state employee time, the use of public buildings that could have been better used for real cases ect.
The last part is a bit extreme, but I think if you wage a suit, you should be damn sure its not just to burn up the defendants cash reserves, mar their reputation or similar.

As I said above, most American jurisdictions already have rules providing for reasonable attorney fees in frivilous cases. The problem is in the enforcement of those rules.

The burden of proof to prove his case is already upon the plaintiff. I do not know where you got the concept that it is on the defendants (some jurisdictions put certain burdens of proof on defendants, for such things as affirmative defenses, but I doubt that is relevant here). For the child molesting accusation a libel action can be brought.

Contrary to popular belief, there are not "tons" of these cases. A few patently absurd ones do get more than their share of publicity. I'll let you in on a little secret of human nature though-nearly every litigant feels that the other side in his/her case has taken a ridiculous position totally unsupported by the facts or law, merely to frustrate justice. If you don't believe, talk (seperately) to both sides in any hotly contested divorce that you know.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,818
6,778
126
Nobody puts anybody down who does not hate himself. You can't even know what would hurt somebody unless you had already experienced and are carrying that hurt. Every asshole you will ever meet is yourself.