Slashdot Log In
$74k Judgment Against Craigslist Prankster
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:20 AM
from the hope-it-was-worth-it dept.
from the hope-it-was-worth-it dept.
jamie points out an update in the case of Jason Fortuny, the Craigslist prankster who was sued last year for publicly posting responses to a fake personal ad. The Citizen Media Law Project's summary of his case now includes a recently entered default judgment (PDF), fining Fortuny "... in the amount of $35,001.00 in statutory damages for Count I, violation of the Copyright Act; $5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion." He has also been ordered to pay more than $34,000 in attorney and court fees.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Controversy Erupts Over Craigslist Prank 674 comments
An anonymous reader writes to mention something of an ongoing controversy over a recent Craigslist prank. Waxy.org has the full details: "On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: 'Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?' He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit ad in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in ... '178 responses, with 145 photos of men in various states of undress. Responses include full e-mail addresses (both personal and business addresses), names, and in some cases IM screen names and telephone numbers.' In a staggering move, he then published every single response, unedited and uncensored, with all photos and personal information to Encyclopedia Dramatica." The Wired blog 27B Stroke 6 has analysis of the prank, which author Ryan Singel views as 'sociopathic'. He then follows that up with responses to comments from his analysis, with further exploration of the weighty issues this juvenile prank has brought up.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Craigslist Prankster Sued, Argues DMCA Abuse 478 comments
destinyland writes "Though Sunday's New York Times dubbed him a spokesperson for internet trolls, Jason Fortuny's just been sued in federal court. Fortuny re-published over 180 responses to a fake sex ad on Craigslist in 2006 — but he's finally been located and issued with a summons. The victim argues Fortuny violated his privacy, and that the photo Fortuny re-published was copyrighted. Fortuny argues he re-published the photo to stand up to the victim's bogus DMCA notice, and that the gullible victim had voluntarily provided the photo. In a motion to the court Fortuny even argues that he helped publicize a privacy risk on the internet, whereas 'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
WHat?!?!? (Score:4, Funny)
These are actually real laws?!?!?
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
"$5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion."
These are actually real laws?!?!?
Yes. In fact you are not allowed to disclose publicly that your girlfriend has clamps even if half of the town knows this anyways.
There was a highest court decision in 1912 in Felderman vs. Proppenheimer, the so called "smelly labia" case (today it's called the "fishoil" case for PC reasons).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. It's called invasion of privacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hint: Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be sued for what you say after the fact. One reason for you to get sued is if what you said was false, but that's not the only one.
Parent
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Publication of non-newsworthy, private facts about an individual that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (true defamation)(so intimate that outrage the public's sense of decency).
Intrusion Upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
I buy it. The guy posts a personal ad, then publicly posts the responses he gets. The responders had a reasonable expectation of privacy and it was violated in a most offensive manner. Seems like a lot of money, but maybe it will teach this douchebag a lesson.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A reasonable expectation of privacy replying to a message in a public message board?
If I recall correctly, they responded to him in email.
Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, though, a classified ads site is not the same thing as a web forum. If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly? No. That's what expectations are all about. It doesn't matter that he CAN post them publicly. If you follow your logic then there is no such thing as privacy. I could be having a "private" conversation with you, but be secretly recording it and then post it on the internet.
That's what we're talking about here, whether you can reasonably expect certain communications to be private or not. Personally, I would rather have the law say that there is such a thing as privacy than in your alternate universe where nothing is private.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My main issue with that is viewing this as a private person to person conversation. These are emails that are sent to a completely anonymous email address that the sender has no idea what's going to happen to them.
Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public [oddstrument.com]. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable
Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, obviously.
"So what if i make an email address that forwards your email verbatim to an email list? Is that the same..."
Yes, obviously.
You set up an ad that claims a particular contact method is a way to initiate a private person-to-person contact. Someone foolishly trust you. Saying, "Sucker! You should have known I might be a lying douchebag" doesn't make you not a lying douchebag.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not when someone posts them online you fool! Did you even rtfs!? FTS:
It is the act of posting the private responses online that is a violation of seclusion.
Just because I send you a personal e-mail containing highly private contents doesn't give you any right to post it on slashdot's front page, on your web site, or on some random forum of your choosing.
If you do so, and the content is highly offensive or highly private, you may give me a cause of action to sue your ass and collect a large amount of
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and rightfully so. A little Googling:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.aspx?id=14038& [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." ... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. ... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
http://epic.org/privacy/boyer/ [epic.org]
Intrusion Upon Seclusion. Intrusion upon seclusion occurs where there is an invasion, through conduct offensive to an ordinary person, of an individual's information in which she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Amy Boyer's estate argues that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her address and social security number, and that Docusearch's action in indiscriminately releasing this information was reasonably offensive.
So basically private information of yours that nobody has any right to should never be published openly unless you can show a public interest angle. That's totally reasonable in my book.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, these people felt nobody had any right to their private information. That's why they sent it to a complete stranger on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically private information of yours that nobody has any right to should never be published openly unless you can show a public interest angle.
You can give your personal information to anyone you want but their rights to use it and redistribute it are limited.
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
When these laws were passed, their may not have been any internet, web sites or forums, but there were newspapers, notice boards, newsletters, circulars and mailing lists, and telegraphs. An individual-to-individual communication is expected to remain exactly that, unless the person sending the information gives permission for the information to be made public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violation_of_privacy [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR SILICITOR
Good day sirs. I hope that I find you well. I am Mr. GAMBO ADAMS. I am the one that contacted you from NIGERIA in the business of wishing to transfer you your country a fund of $30,000,000 ( THIRTY MILLION US DOLLARS), for which I was willing to alow you with a 20% transfer fee $1,500, 000 (ONE POINT 5 MILLION US DOLLARS). You reasponded with a promise to complete this transaction. But you only promised and promised for months and months! I did everything you asked, including of the pictures of me holding a sign with sayings on it. I have since realized you are a SPAM BATER! Also you have put all of our PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL communication on your webs site.
I am conacting you now on behalf of my silicitor that I will be courting you on VIOLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS and INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION in the US courts, and searching for damages in the amount of $35,001.00 (THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND AND ONE US DOLLARS) and courst fees. Against the adversity of my silictor I am willing to settle in the amount of only $10,001.00 (TEN THOUSAND AND ONE USE DOLLARS) if you contact me IMIEDIATELY to deposit the amount in my account #3200-20032-20002 in the BANK OF NIGERIA. If you aggree to my generous proposal, please reply promptly.
Yours in friendship,
Mr. GAMBO ADAMS
Parent
Thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...Again?
Oh shit, but the rest of us are in terror! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Pay attention, kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pay attention, kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Publishing", in the context of that law, means distribution for sale. I don't believe that's what the prankster did.
The real reason he was fined so heavily is because he didn't show up at court. Judges strongly dislike that behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
"Publishing", in the context of that law, means distribution for sale
More like distribution OR sale.
It's pretty clear: you own the physical letter that was sent to you. You do NOT own the copyright. So, you are free to burn the letter, frame the letter, etc, but you can't sell or give away copies.
Well I'm Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that people who get nasty cease-and-desist letters from lawyers are in the wrong for posting them publicly?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No show == guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a Default Judgement [wikipedia.org], which means the plaintiff did not show. That is why he lost, not because there was a thorough review of the matter at hand.
Somehow I doubt this will be valid as a precedent in future lawsuits.
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:4, Informative)
It sounds like it was the defendant who didn't show.
It also sounds like it was a civil trial, which doesn't go to a question of guilt, but of responsibility for damages.
But I only read the summary, so who knows?
-Peter
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
not showing up to your trial does not make you automatically guilty, but it does make it terribly difficult to defend yourself against accusation.
The court still goes through the same process to determine damages or guilt. The plaintiff still has to present a case and request damages/compensation. The court just doesn't get to see any defense, so it more or less means guilty unless the plaintiff's case has no merit even on their own evidence.
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, the initial default judgement was entered in November.
Status hearing held. Oral motion by Plaintiff's counsel for entry of default as to defendant is granted. It is hereby ordered that default is entered against Defendant, Jason Fortuny for failure appear or answer. Damages hearing is set for 1/7/2009 at 9:30AM.
A motion to dismiss was filed with the court in December, that was dated as written in October, but it was already too late by then. He didn't show up to the damages hearing either, thus the plaintiff got everything they asked for.
Lesson to be learned: If you have a court date, SHOW UP.
Parent
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Default judgment occurs when a defendant fails to deliver some statement of defence (which procedurally occurs quite some time prior to trial, over the usual course). Failure to show for trial is a delinquency further to a failure to defend. In many jurisdictions you don't even have to give notice of a pending trial to a defendant noted in default.
As a construction (fiction) of law, a defendant noted in default is deemed to have admitted everything in the plaintiff's claim.
While it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there is a general rule that if a defendant can show (1) that he didn't have notice, and (2) that he has a plausible defence on the merits, the default judgment may be set aside. The setting aside of default judgment may not result in rescission of the Judge's decision on costs (which are compensation for legal fees incurred), though that may depend on the manner and effectiveness of the notice of the plaintiff's claim.
When a plaintiff fails to participate properly the claim may be deemed abandoned.
YMMV by jurisdiction.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The key thing to note is that even with no opposition at all, the lawyers fees still amounted to half the judgement and they still probably take a portion of the rest.
They, of course, will get their money first I'm sure. So let's see who really won.
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the guy went entirely too far. If he had posted anonymous copies of comments they had sent etc then it probably would have been tolerable as an 'experiment'. However, he posted photos, names, emails etc. - which is fairly brutal when shared on the net
On the over hand though, regardless of the false pretense, these people gave their data to him, and took a calculated risk as to whether the ad was genuine or not. It's not as if the data was stolen or anything. So it's a bit iffy, but overall, I'd say a good judgement
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the over hand though, regardless of the false pretense, these people gave their data to him, and took a calculated risk as to whether the ad was genuine or not. It's not as if the data was stolen or anything.
Not really, actually. If you go an actual date, for instance, and your date proceeds to kick you in the groin, nobody would argue that you took a calculated risk as to whether the offer to go on a date was genuine, either.
I agree it's a good judgement (although the amount seems a bit high); I just wish it'd been a "real" one, not just a default judgement because he didn't showup.
Re: (Score:2)
If the guy promised to keep it anonymous, either through TOS or verbal agreement, then he breached the implied or express warranty of anonymity, and it is that breach he was sued for.
Of course, I have grunts of derision for the fact that he let the judgement default.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a bit iffy, but overall, I'd say a good judgement
There's nothing iffy about a default judgment. If you don't show up (or don't follow some other required procedure), you lose.
But I do agree with the rest of your post.
Guess it doesn't surprise me (Score:3, Interesting)
My freshman soc prof told us how _not_ to do research if we wanted to get published. I think the book was called the Lavender Tea Room if I remember. Guy hung out at public restrooms, took down license plates, got their address and then went door-to-door surveying. "Hello, sir. Wife? Kids? Occupation?" Discovered that a surprising number of regular family guys will stop by the restroom for a quick blow on the way to work. Sociologically interesting but no way that book was going to get distributed even without releasing subject names.
Karma's a bitch. (Score:5, Funny)
Good.
This little turd is only starting starting to get what he deserves.
Personally, I am impressed that the individual wronged took him to court. If I had his name and address, I would have probably been a lot less gentle. People have been taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet to get away with completely unacceptable behavior for too long.
Human beings are social creatures and the defective ones need to be corrected or weeded out.
Re:Karma's a bitch. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you feel that women deserve to be raped and mugged if they make poor decisions?
Thanks for the Star Wars quote. It really cleared things up for me. I now understand that you must have a lot of time to memorize movie lines while sitting at home alone after having alienated any potential dates with your offensive logic.
Parent
Can't say I have much sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say I sympathise with that bloke much. He posted an ad, and the people who responded to it did so under the assumption that it would be confidential. Not the smartest assumption, but a reasonable one nontheless.
Then, he posts the responses, including names. While this doesn't hurt him much, it can easily lead to great embarrassment and potential destruction of reputation for those men.
Regardless of what one thinks of the activities the guys thought they were responding to (sounded weird to me, but I'm a bit of a boring prude), the guy who posted people's identities is an asshat, and I can't say I feel much, or really any sympathy for him. He sounds like little more than an asshat.
On a related note, I hope the asses who post those "feel free to come and take all my stuff" ads on Craigslist, that result in people's houses being stripped down to nothingness, also get sued. Those who respond to them and steal the poor bastard's items, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should never assume anything will be confidential, particularly on the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not the smartest assumption, but a reasonable one nontheless.
Aren't "reasonable" and "not smart" mutually exclusive?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually a good question. I think "reasonable" refers to what one expects from other reasonable people. The "not smart" refers to the fact that there are a lot of unreasonable people (aka. dickwads/asshats/griefers) on the net and they sometimes look just like the reasonable people (especially when one doesn't have access to a posting history).
Just an ED troll (Score:2)
There's a strange subculture that validates this kind of douchebaggery in the name of 'epic win', and I'm unsure if any of them are past the mental age of 15.
WTF (Score:3, Interesting)
34K on a default judgment? Default judgment means he lost because he never showed up. How did you spend this much against a guy who never showed up to defend himself?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
34K on a default judgment? Default judgment means he lost because he never showed up. How did you spend this much against a guy who never showed up to defend himself?
A good deal of the work a lawyer does is typically before the trial: lining up witnesses, developing a legal strategy, researching relevant cases, anticipating the other lawyer's strategy, etc. I'm sure the amount of preparation required varies depending on the type of case, but if your lawyer hasn't done this sort of legwork in advance you need a new lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Try explaining that to ED. They posted it up there, they are the ones with the power to take it down. The admins of the site think they're both invincible and in the right, so I wonder if she/they'll be next.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because:
1- Internet dating is not illegal
2- Being weird is not illegal
3- Vigilantism IS illegal because
4- Police are held to a higher standard than citizens in that
5- Due process must be used in court and
6- The police (typically) are not using sting ops for personal gain or aggrandizement and
7- many other reasons
8 goto 1
-b