Mysterymom7

Alright, my LISK blog is back up, feel free to click on it over in “My Stuff” and see for yourself what all the crying is about. As I have stated many times I stand by the blog and it will not come down. There will be a few new posts before I end the blog properly. This is not due to any outside pressures, I had already decided to bring it to an end even before I was threatened with lawsuits.

I did remove a few things to appease MM7 but obviously she just really wants the whole blog down and that is not gonna happen. She sent me a long email yesterday, here it is:

Jan 22 at 4:01 PM

Since you are afraid to click the links I’ve shared with you, I’ve copy/pasted the content from this website: http://sarafhawkins.com/blog-law-defamation-and-social-media/

“We’ve all heard the phrase “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.” When it comes to social media and online content, though, its seems the phrase is actually “If you can’t say something nice, blog, tweet, facebook, or post it online.” While I shouldn’t be, I am surprised at what people post online. It’s as if there is no internal filter on some people. For others, Shakespeare has nothing on the drama they call life. Defamation has been around for ages and now social media is giving it a new platform. Social media defamation is definitely on the rise and no longer being ignored.

While it may not seem like many, as early as 2007 several hundred bloggers have been sued on a variety of legal theories, with defamation topping that list. And, as recent as 2011 a blogger was held liable for defamation and assessed $2.5 million in damages. Legal liability for what you post (and even comments made) on your blog is not a theoretical discussion. It is very real and is happening more often than you may imagine.

What is Defamation?

Defamation covers two types of communication, written (libel) and spoken (slander). Generally, defamation is a statement that is communicated to a third party and makes a claim, either expressly or implied to be factual, that injures another’s reputation or causes others not to associate with the person or business. Malicious intent is not generally required. And given that few bloggers would likely be classified as Public Figures within the very narrow definition, don’t rely on the “but they have to prove malice” defense.

With blogging, the main concern will be libel. Even if it’s not a written blog post but rather a vlog or podcast or some other type of internet-oriented medium, you’re likely going to be dealing with libel.

How does this apply to bloggers?

Your Own Statements

While 40 states do have Media Shield Laws which protect members of the media and media organizations, not all of those states include the internet in their Shield laws. As such, bloggers are not able to use those same protections when they write negative things about other people or organizations when those statements are implied to be or stated as factual when in-fact they are not.

We’re not talking about bloggers giving a review and sharing their opinion and their personal experiences which happen to be negative. Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim, but you have to have some proof that what you state is, in fact, true.

In addition, one of the key words in the definition requires that the statement be asserted as fact. This is why many bloggers and users of online forums, chats, and social networks and platforms are very clear to assert that their statements are merely their opinion.

For most bloggers, when it comes to their blog the risks of defamation are low. The topics covered don’t generally lend themselves to the assertion of allegedly false statements of fact nor do the comments and discussions move in that direction. However, with the US legal system as easy to use as it is there is a real possibility of being sued. Because being sued isn’t the same as being held responsible, someone can sue you just because they have a good faith belief that you’re defaming them. (Just ask Donald Trump.)

Comments On Your Blog

One of the great things about blogging is connecting with our readers. Engagement and comments are what we live for. In general, bloggers keep an eye on the comments. We need to filter out the junk, make sure people aren’t taking advantage of our generosity with the link juice, and try to keep the haters at bay. Some people moderate all their comments so they can control what goes out publicly on their blog. Others feel that moderation impedes conversation so they allow anyone to comment and it be available in real time.

Are bloggers really responsible for what a commenter says on their blog? As a lawyer, the answer is a resounding … MAYBE! In general, we’re not responsible for libelous statements made by others. So much so that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) offers protections that apply to bloggers who permit comments on their sites. However, this won’t prevent someone from filing a suit against you or subpoenaing you and/or your blog records, but it will be an affirmative defense you can raise. And while you may not be liable, having to spend your time and money being involved in a lawsuit are often very high costs to standing your ground.

Where Can You Be Sued?

I’ve been asked this a few times. And while the answer is somewhat complicated, at the same time it’s very easy. The short answer is Everywhere! It is the world wide web, after all. And that first word, world, is quite broad. Chances are though, that if you were sued for defamation you’d likely be sued in the US in some state other than where you live. And that creates lots of problems.

Jurisdiction, the ability of a court to hear a case involving you and your actions, can be pretty tricky. For example, criminal courts can only hear cases about alleged violations of criminal laws. It can’t rule on divorce or probate or contract disputes. Civil courts, though, hear cases about civil matters. That’s called subject-matter jurisdiction.

With any court, though, they also have to have authority to hear a case involving you specifically. Known as personal jurisdiction, the state has to have some relationship to the parties or the matter to haul you into their system. You can’t just file a lawsuit against someone anywhere in the US. The parties involved have to have some relationship with the state to be subject to their court system. Even in Federal Court, the courts have special rules about which court you can use.

If you blog in California and the person or company that alleges you have defamed them is in Florida, where do they sue? Besides looking at the question of state or federal court (which I won’t discuss), should you have to go to Florida because it’s convenient for them? Why shouldn’t they sue you in California? Afterall, you are there and that’s where the alleged defamation occurred. Right?

As recently as 2010, a Washington State blogger was sued in Florida for defamation. The Washington blogger didn’t think she should have to go to Florida to defend herself because she had nothing to do with the state. Unfortunately, the court disagreed. The rule that came out of that case is that if your posts are accessible in Florida then you’re subject to Florida courts.

That’s not a US Supreme Court ruling and therefore not the ultimate law of the land. However, as precedent it is very strong. As such, just understand that even if you’re sitting in your jammies in middle of nowhere USA you may need to haul yourself into any court in the land to defend yourself for claims relating to your blog.

Comments, Discussions and Updates Made to Social Networks or Platforms

You may have heard that rocker (and wife to the late Curt Cobain) Courtney Love was sued over an allegedly defamatory tweet. In less than 140 characters, Ms. Love made allegations against a former clothing designer she had been working with. And while the case never went to trial so we won’t know if there is any legal basis, Ms. Love settled the defamation suit. However, Ms. Love didn’t think she needed any type of internal filter when using Twitter after that experience and later in that same year she was sued again for defamation, this time by her former lawyer.

While most people aren’t using Twitter or other social platforms to make allegedly defamatory statements, the increase in what are believed to be private discussions within social media and social networks are beginning to pose concerns. A defamatory statement does not require publication to any specific number of people. In fact, all that is required is that such a statement is made to a third-party. One person! A defamatory statement sent by Direct Message on Twitter, the chat feature in Facebook, instant message or even text is all that’s needed. You may wonder how the person/company/business being defamed would learn about it, but really do you.

7 Important Takeaways about Defamation (specifically, Libel)

1. You only have to publish your statement to ONE person! – Contrary to what many believe, you don’t need to tell millions of people to be held liable for defamation. With the ease of screen capping or forwarding a text, what you say to one person can easily get to the allegedly defamed person. As for those private conversations on DM, IM, chat or text, they’re fair game. As are anything said in those “secret groups” on various social media platforms.

2. You can likely be sued anywhere in the US – Anything published on the interest will likely expose you to jurisdiction in courts across the country. Be prepared. Even if what you did say turns out not to be defamatory, it doesn’t prevent you from being hauled in to court in another state to prove it.

3. You may be sued for what other people say on your blog – As a blog administrator, you have a great deal of control over comments made on your blog. And while Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may protect your from liability, it won’t protect you from being sued and having to defend yourself. Sure you’ll be able to raise a valid defense but you’re still being sued and it sucks.

4. What you write is asserted as fact either expressly or impliedly – Defamation does not apply when the statements are your own opinion. It’s when asserting things as fact that you can get in to trouble. If you’re ranting about someone (or something, or a company) and it’s just your opinion then make sure it’s clear that it’s your opinion. If you’re stating facts be clear about that as well. If you know for a fact so-and-so was smoking weed and you can back it up with either first hand knowledge or a reliable source then write about it. But if you just think so-and-so is a pothead don’t risk it with hyperbole and grandstanding. But remember you can’t shield your source and expect the court to just wave you past go to collect your $200.

5. Bloggers often aren’t treated the same as traditional media – Even for those bloggers who take a more journalistic approach to their craft, many courts still aren’t ready to extend traditional media protections to a blogger. While some states have attempted to close this gap on how bloggers are classified, most have not. But, like traditional media, bloggers should check, double-check, and possibly triple-check any sources they rely on for their information.

6. Be careful with photos and images you use – The saying that a picture is worth a thousand words can be a detriment to you if you use a photo that implies a fact that is untrue. Stay away from juxtaposing images with stories to imply something that isn’t there.

7. If you are sued, find a lawyer in your city that specializes in defamation – Don’t immediately take down the post or delete the tweet. You can’t unring the bell, but you can find out how to best defend yourself. If not handled appropriately, removing the allegedly offending piece can make the problem bigger.

While I mention this in the context of a blogger, really it’s applicable to any type of online professional or entrepreneur that publishes content on the web. While the adage is that “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”, we need honesty and authenticity. Others may not like what you have to say about them or their product, but the truth of the matter is that we’re all allowed our opinion and the ability to tell the truth.

Disclosure: While I am a lawyer, I am not offering legal advice. Posts on legal matters are intended to provide legal information and do not create an attorney/client relationship.”

Now I don’t expect everyone to read all of that but for the most part it says people can sue you, but either through truth or opinion it is easy to defend, just could be expensive. I have emails to back up everything I said was written to me by Mysterymom7, plus my blog states over and over that the blog is opinion based. Yet she keeps sending me these threats of a lawsuit. She should read the last part of what she sent me there. It says: Others may not like what you have to say about them or their product, but the truth of the matter is that we’re all allowed our opinion and the ability to tell the truth.

She also doesn’t realize that I have other emails to help support the things she has been doing with my identity since she found it.  Something that will be frowned upon if this ever does make it to the inside of a courtroom. Cristin, can I call you Cristin anymore? Cristin, stop sending me emails with threats of lawsuits, again it only does the opposite of what you want. You want me to not blog about you, then don’t pass my info out. Try to lie and say you didn’t but I can prove you did if I have to. I can prove a lot of things if I have to. But for now I’m calling it all opinion, you should leave it at that. If you keep pushing me and harassing me about million dollar lawsuits then I will only pursue this.

For example. Cristin told me a while back she started another blog, said it had to with psychology. Although in my opinion, she should stop with the blogs and get off of Websleuth all together, she has a right to do what ever she wants, and she keeps chosing to be involved in everything LISK. Since I know she has dug up info on me and passed it around to people she knows, I felt maybe I should look into her new blog to make sure she isn’t writing mixed up stuff about me.

I thought it might take me a second to find it, I might have to even use some sort of service that can check IPs and emails for other known sites connected to them. But then I remembered who I was dealing with.

I figured it was still on WordPress, even though it would have been smarter to move on to a different blog host. So the first thing I did was type Mysterymom7 into the WordPress search. I really didn’t expect to find it that quickly, but there under a few of my own posts I saw a blog called CBK Blog. Seriously? She listed it under Mysterymom7? I almost think she wanted everyone here to find it.

But I didn’t go to it, because Mysterymom7 has told me numerous times she can tell who is reading her blogs even if they don’t comment on them, and I was afraid she would say, me going to read her blog was proof I was stalking her. And yet I have to read these harassing emails from her everyday threatening to sue me. Plus I know she has given out my name and number, how do I know that? Um, I received phone calls. So I’m gonna go check it out now.

Wow, it reads right along with each email she sent me. LMFAO. Here see for yourself:

http://growingupinsocialmedia.wordpress.com/

I’m sure this will add to my troubles. But that’s life.  See so often we are our own worst enemies. Something Cristin just can’t seem to grasp. So although I would like to move on from the likes of Dorothy and Cristin, they keep this going. Dorothy commented on my Facebook today, but as she will soon see, her stuff is finding fewer and fewer places to be seen.

You’re welcome.

3 thoughts on “Mysterymom7

  1. Although im know to joke around at times, i have some serious questions about the above article. Any feedback is appreciated, as i would like to be clear on what i just read.

    It seems to me the disclaimers on Zero’s blog clearly state these are just his opinions/observations based on what he read, researched and was sent via emails ect….many of those opinions are based on others own words/ accusations, words many of us have had to defend for more than a year.

    Many of these allegations where present on LISK, but mainly elaborated upon on MM7s blog. Many times pictures and false dot connecting where used to bolster her claims, to mock and humiliate. Cristens defense to this is that she pulled her blog, and although many have taken those false statements as truth and continue to slander, she is NOT responsible how others feel. I have secretly read what these “others” are spewing about some of us, and many of the core beliefs came straight from her blog. Many of the gross allegations can ruin reputations, or even ruin careers if one of these crazies decides to complain to an employer or licensing board.

    If lingering, residual harm was created by these admittedly false accusations, is one exonerated by just pulling the blog?

    In threatening to sue Zero (regardless of disclaimers, which her blog lacked), isn’t she opening herself up to numerous lawsuits??

    Again I ask this not so much to accuse, but so that I can understand the law more clearly. At this point it almost seems she is asking to be sued?? Im confused.

    • From what I read in the numerous stuff sent to me by my would be suer, pulling the blog is the worst thing you can do. Plus (and she goes back n forth on this in my emails, sometimes calling her blog crap and others saying she still believes she was stalked by CPH) she admits it was harmful to others. to mention a few, Murt, the Hacketts, the Newmans, the Coletti’s, Fieldnotes, Jen, Linda, and many others she personaly wrote about and accused some of them of crimes. She should accept what her blog brought her, as Too Close said, she was warned many times that she would have to answer for her blog, she dsaid many times she would if she was wrong, but she insisted she wasn’t wrong. Though I say my stuff is opinion, she called her stuff facts many times, like the fact she knew where Mr. Hackett was all the time (though if you remember back sometimes she said he was in Florida and others it was New York) or the fact she knew what vehicle the doc was driving. I don’t get this whole lawsuit thing myself, and it only makes me want to point out more about Catching Lisk. She needs to leave me alone with the threats and stop giving my personal info out. If she wants out, get out. She was played by everyone, Joey, Dorothy, Jen, and many more I believe. Whether it was to use her to spread false info, use her to find out where she was getting her info, use her to expose her blog, what ever the reason she was easily used, still is, in my opinion, of course. Dorothy and Nancy though, they will have to sue me to shut me up. What ever game they are playing with everyones name (not caring who they are) They have earned a spot in my blogs forever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s