$74k Judgment Against Craigslist Prankster 182
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.
Re:WHat?!?!? (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: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.
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.
Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (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: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
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.
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.
Re:No show == guilty? (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:Reasonable expectation of privacy (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 money from you, in compensatory damages, and in punitive damages.
Re:Can't say I have much sympathy (Score:3, Informative)
You should never assume anything will be confidential, particularly on the internet.
Re:Can't say I have much sympathy (Score:3, Informative)
Not the smartest assumption, but a reasonable one nontheless.
Aren't "reasonable" and "not smart" mutually exclusive?
Re:Police Sting Operation (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
Re:Can't say I have much sympathy (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).
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:2, Informative)
Article III, Section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, (etc.)
Article III, Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, (etc.)
Spelled out quite plainly. We can certainly have our opinions about the Constitution, but the Constitution says that one supreme court has juristiction overall cases of "law and equity" under the constitution.
If that is true, then how can anyone else have authority in cases of law and equity over the Supreme Court? Logically, the SCOTUS alone decides the interpretation of the Constitution.