Google and Stalking
May 28, 2007 12:14 AM Subscribe
Want to be Evil? Google Will Help. Rachel North is a remarkable woman. A survivor of the 7/7 London bombings she has called for tolerance and a public inquiry into Britain's worst terrorist attack. She has written a moving account of the bombing and an earlier rape that left her for dead. Now, she's been targeted a third time, by an internet stalker, who has abused her for over a year, via Rachel's blog and dozens of blogs the stalker set up. All of these contained repeated false charges - including that Rachel faked her rape for publicity - and libels against many people. She also outed Rachel's real name - rape victims are anonymous by law in the UK.
On April 2nd this year, Felicity Jane Lowde was convicted of harrasment but remains at large, using internet cafe's to update her many blogs and continues to bombard Rachel and others. Recently, in an attempt to help the police arrest Felicity, she's asking other bloggers to join in the search.
Complaints have been made to Google about the many blogs set up by the stalker, but all are met by an automated response saying it's got nothing to do with them . Is this right? Should Google take responsibility for blogs full of libel being used by convicted criminals to stalk and threaten innocent people?
If Google can censor the internet for the Chinese government and 1/6 of the world's population, why can't they dump a few blogs that harass a rape victim?
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is really a GYOB sort of post - less issuefilter, more info please -- jessamyn
issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:31 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:31 AM on May 28, 2007
Gesundheit
posted by zixyer at 12:35 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by zixyer at 12:35 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
I scanned through the links for the word "Google", but I can't see a connection between Google and this stalking. Are the offending blogs being hosted on some Google-owned subsidiary?
posted by Bugbread at 12:46 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by Bugbread at 12:46 AM on May 28, 2007
Ah, never mind. I just googled and found out that Google owns Blogger, which the blogger was using.
(Note: Making your product name into a regular word, or making a regular word into your product name, will make sentences involving both quite confusing.)
posted by Bugbread at 12:49 AM on May 28, 2007
(Note: Making your product name into a regular word, or making a regular word into your product name, will make sentences involving both quite confusing.)
posted by Bugbread at 12:49 AM on May 28, 2007
The stalker uses Blogger for her numerous blogs and Blogspot for hosting, which is owned by Google. When complaints are made, this is the standard response:
Hello,
Thank you for writing regarding content posted on http://www.deleted.blogspot.com
and http://deleted-2.blogspot.com. We would like to confirm that we have received and reviewed your inquiry dated 08/15/06.
Blogger.com and Blogspot.com are US sites regulated by US law. Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content. We allow our users to create blogs, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. Given these facts, and pursuant with section
230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, Blogger does not remove allegedly libelous material from Blogger.com or Blogspot.com. If a contact email address is listed on the blog, we recommend working directly with the author to have the content in question removed or changed.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Is this really an adequate response?
posted by quarsan at 12:53 AM on May 28, 2007
Hello,
Thank you for writing regarding content posted on http://www.deleted.blogspot.com
and http://deleted-2.blogspot.com. We would like to confirm that we have received and reviewed your inquiry dated 08/15/06.
Blogger.com and Blogspot.com are US sites regulated by US law. Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content. We allow our users to create blogs, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. Given these facts, and pursuant with section
230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, Blogger does not remove allegedly libelous material from Blogger.com or Blogspot.com. If a contact email address is listed on the blog, we recommend working directly with the author to have the content in question removed or changed.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Is this really an adequate response?
posted by quarsan at 12:53 AM on May 28, 2007
Man, somebody ought do something about this!
posted by jonson at 12:56 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by jonson at 12:56 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
They can't delete it. If they did, they would suddenly become responsible for moderating every one of the blogs they host. Why don't you look up the applicable law, yourself?
Wikkipedia:
"The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers."
posted by IronLizard at 1:01 AM on May 28, 2007
Wikkipedia:
"The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers."
posted by IronLizard at 1:01 AM on May 28, 2007
A potentially good post that made me want to strangle it for its unbridled advocacy. Please, won't someone think of my strangulation urges!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:05 AM on May 28, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:05 AM on May 28, 2007 [4 favorites]
Is this right? Should Google take responsibility for blogs full of libel being used by convicted criminals to stalk and threaten innocent people? If Google can censor the internet for the Chinese government and 1/6 of the world's population, why can't they dump a few blogs that harass a rape victim?
There is a similar case going on here in Sweden, but from a different angle. Two men (identitfied in the media only as the "Stureplansprofiles") were charged with raping a 19 year-old girl after a night out. They were acquitted by the court. Her friends have mounted an internet campaign where they have posted their names and photographs. They have also put up "wanted" posters all over town using the words "dead or alive."
In my view, these two bastards deserve it, but they WERE acquited by the courts and according to the law they are innocent and have a right to privacy. Using the internet to harrass an alleged rape victim - or those alleged to have committed rape is a morally, messy business.
The law is not on the side of her friends and I suspect the tragedy of the rape will be doubled when charges of harassment are lodged against them.
posted by three blind mice at 1:06 AM on May 28, 2007
There is a similar case going on here in Sweden, but from a different angle. Two men (identitfied in the media only as the "Stureplansprofiles") were charged with raping a 19 year-old girl after a night out. They were acquitted by the court. Her friends have mounted an internet campaign where they have posted their names and photographs. They have also put up "wanted" posters all over town using the words "dead or alive."
In my view, these two bastards deserve it, but they WERE acquited by the courts and according to the law they are innocent and have a right to privacy. Using the internet to harrass an alleged rape victim - or those alleged to have committed rape is a morally, messy business.
The law is not on the side of her friends and I suspect the tragedy of the rape will be doubled when charges of harassment are lodged against them.
posted by three blind mice at 1:06 AM on May 28, 2007
quarsan writes "Is this really an adequate response?"
Yes and no. The problem is, as IronLizard points out, that if they do it once, then they lose legal protection as a service provider, and then get treated as a content provider, which suddenly makes them liable for every incident of libel that occurs anywhere on any of their pages. So, yes, their response (not taking action against the blog) is adequate. However, their response (that email) is not, because while it mentions the Communications Decency Act, it doesn't remotely express what that entails, which means it's only really useful for those of us who already know it. A very quick explanation (2 or 3 sentences would be enough, and then a link to Wikipedia, an online explanation, the act itself, or the like) of why they don't take action against blogs like that would be far, far more useful.
posted by Bugbread at 1:10 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes and no. The problem is, as IronLizard points out, that if they do it once, then they lose legal protection as a service provider, and then get treated as a content provider, which suddenly makes them liable for every incident of libel that occurs anywhere on any of their pages. So, yes, their response (not taking action against the blog) is adequate. However, their response (that email) is not, because while it mentions the Communications Decency Act, it doesn't remotely express what that entails, which means it's only really useful for those of us who already know it. A very quick explanation (2 or 3 sentences would be enough, and then a link to Wikipedia, an online explanation, the act itself, or the like) of why they don't take action against blogs like that would be far, far more useful.
posted by Bugbread at 1:10 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
Could I make it clear that I am confused about this and realise that it is touching on a complex issue.
The email from Blogger, reproduced earlier was sent to me as an example from a person who worked for the stalker, who then stalked him for over two years. In the email he was complaining about two blogs that were set up and only contained a 'warning to women in Town X' that contained his photo, personal details, work details and said that he was a convicted rapist.
The sites were then emailed to the employers and many other people.
On the one hand, all of this should be covered by Blogger's TOS, on the other hand, it's all a bit Pontias Pilate.
posted by quarsan at 1:20 AM on May 28, 2007
The email from Blogger, reproduced earlier was sent to me as an example from a person who worked for the stalker, who then stalked him for over two years. In the email he was complaining about two blogs that were set up and only contained a 'warning to women in Town X' that contained his photo, personal details, work details and said that he was a convicted rapist.
The sites were then emailed to the employers and many other people.
On the one hand, all of this should be covered by Blogger's TOS, on the other hand, it's all a bit Pontias Pilate.
posted by quarsan at 1:20 AM on May 28, 2007
Uh, you appear to be something of an activist/participant in this whole business, quarsan.
I object to metafilter being used to further your personal vendettas, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter. In short, get your own fucking blog.
From Lownes blog:
"The principal libelers ( though there were many) were dropout bloggers , one, an officer who visits 'coppersblog', a blog for renegade yob-coppers on the web that welcomes the National Front ( Colin Brooker frequents it): one of them going by the name 'Julia', an extraordinarily malicious woman, and the other, a pseudo political dropout who goes by the name 'Quarsan.' (He's been sending malicious comments to this blog just recently.) Their blogs are not worth the time of day and I never give them as much."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:50 AM on May 28, 2007
I object to metafilter being used to further your personal vendettas, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter. In short, get your own fucking blog.
From Lownes blog:
"The principal libelers ( though there were many) were dropout bloggers , one, an officer who visits 'coppersblog', a blog for renegade yob-coppers on the web that welcomes the National Front ( Colin Brooker frequents it): one of them going by the name 'Julia', an extraordinarily malicious woman, and the other, a pseudo political dropout who goes by the name 'Quarsan.' (He's been sending malicious comments to this blog just recently.) Their blogs are not worth the time of day and I never give them as much."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:50 AM on May 28, 2007
Should Google take responsibility for blogs full of libel being used by convicted criminals to stalk and threaten innocent people?
No.
posted by CCBC at 1:56 AM on May 28, 2007
No.
posted by CCBC at 1:56 AM on May 28, 2007
What Delmoi said about Google is basically right, except that google.com is usable from china. However if the search returns a blocked web page, google.com as a whole is then blocked for about 5 minutes or so. I've said it before, but Google gets a bad rap in regard to China, When compared to Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft, all of whom actively participate with the Chinese government in Internet censorship, Google is by far the least cooperative. They do not offer blogger, google video or gmail through googel.cn in a large part because they do not want to deal with the censorship issues.
posted by afu at 2:04 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by afu at 2:04 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have never contacted Lownes, left any comments on her blog or contacted her. If you read her blog you will see that she makes a great number of claims about many people. All false.
posted by quarsan at 2:13 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by quarsan at 2:13 AM on May 28, 2007
If I gave half a rat's ass about every tragic tale pet cause everyone wants to spread the word about, a score of pied pipers could hardly keep pace. Certainly, Google is subject to far more tales of woe than I can imagine. Simply put, they haven't the staggering number of rodent rectums to spare, and you can't hand one out unless there's enough for everybody.
posted by Saydur at 2:14 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by Saydur at 2:14 AM on May 28, 2007
afu said what I was going to about Google in China.
Readers in China might find the Gladder extension handy if they use Firefox. Re-enables the Google cache and auto-proxies other blocked domains (*.wordpress.com etc) without resort to other proxy services.
posted by Abiezer at 2:20 AM on May 28, 2007
Readers in China might find the Gladder extension handy if they use Firefox. Re-enables the Google cache and auto-proxies other blocked domains (*.wordpress.com etc) without resort to other proxy services.
posted by Abiezer at 2:20 AM on May 28, 2007
quarsan writes "Could I make it clear that I am confused about this and realise that it is touching on a complex issue."
It's a confusing issue, so that's ok.
A quick rundown, as I understand it (and I am probably largely wrong) is:
Publishing libel, or child porn, or whathaveyou, is illegal.
Laws which made the penalties for things like this were strengthened.
Then people realized that, the way the laws were written, an ISP could be found liable for the information they carried. It's the equivalent of finding AT&T legally liable if someone uses it to call in a bomb threat, or suing UPS because one of the packages they delivered had an actual bomb in it. This was challenged, and then the law was amended to say, basically, "Ok, there are two types of internet entities: service providers, and content providers.
- A service provider is an entity which works like a phone: it doesn't touch what people say, it just shuttles it along to others. They don't manage what's on their system, so they aren't liable for it, and the liability is entirely in the hands of the people who use it wrongly". This is like saying "The US postal system is not criminally responsible if it delivers what turns out to be a bomb. However, the person who sent the bomb is, of course, criminally responsible".
- A content provider is like a newspaper or TV station: it edits what people say, so it is responsible if bad stuff gets said. This is like saying "The New York Times published photos of kiddie porn. It is criminally responsible for it, and so is the person who took the pictures."
So companies like Google have a choice: they can edit the stuff they carry for content, or they can leave it alone. If they leave it entirely alone, they're like the phone company or the postal system. If someone uses them for evil, they aren't responsible. If they start editing stuff, deleting stuff, etc. (presumably it's ok to delete stuff for things like excess bandwidth usage, failure to pay, abandonment, etc., but not based on actual contents), then they're like a newspaper, and they can get in tons of trouble for what their users post, despite the fact that their users are random internet jackasses.
posted by Bugbread at 2:27 AM on May 28, 2007
It's a confusing issue, so that's ok.
A quick rundown, as I understand it (and I am probably largely wrong) is:
Publishing libel, or child porn, or whathaveyou, is illegal.
Laws which made the penalties for things like this were strengthened.
Then people realized that, the way the laws were written, an ISP could be found liable for the information they carried. It's the equivalent of finding AT&T legally liable if someone uses it to call in a bomb threat, or suing UPS because one of the packages they delivered had an actual bomb in it. This was challenged, and then the law was amended to say, basically, "Ok, there are two types of internet entities: service providers, and content providers.
- A service provider is an entity which works like a phone: it doesn't touch what people say, it just shuttles it along to others. They don't manage what's on their system, so they aren't liable for it, and the liability is entirely in the hands of the people who use it wrongly". This is like saying "The US postal system is not criminally responsible if it delivers what turns out to be a bomb. However, the person who sent the bomb is, of course, criminally responsible".
- A content provider is like a newspaper or TV station: it edits what people say, so it is responsible if bad stuff gets said. This is like saying "The New York Times published photos of kiddie porn. It is criminally responsible for it, and so is the person who took the pictures."
So companies like Google have a choice: they can edit the stuff they carry for content, or they can leave it alone. If they leave it entirely alone, they're like the phone company or the postal system. If someone uses them for evil, they aren't responsible. If they start editing stuff, deleting stuff, etc. (presumably it's ok to delete stuff for things like excess bandwidth usage, failure to pay, abandonment, etc., but not based on actual contents), then they're like a newspaper, and they can get in tons of trouble for what their users post, despite the fact that their users are random internet jackasses.
posted by Bugbread at 2:27 AM on May 28, 2007
I have never contacted Lownes, left any comments on her blog or contacted her. If you read her blog you will see that she makes a great number of claims about many people. All false.
He said, she said.
This thread is becoming a bad parody of reality.
The only thing missing is someone asking Lownes what she was wearing whilst blogging.
posted by three blind mice at 2:27 AM on May 28, 2007
He said, she said.
This thread is becoming a bad parody of reality.
The only thing missing is someone asking Lownes what she was wearing whilst blogging.
posted by three blind mice at 2:27 AM on May 28, 2007
From the article:
So, the remaining issue is that the offending blogs are still up.
Now it could be that Google/Blogger are being "evil" in not taking down these blogs. But have they been properly asked to do so?
I'm seeing a jarring shift into the passive voice in this bit:
Or did the complaints just random people saying "I don't like what she's saying, make her shut up"?
Without knowing what actual complaints were made to Google, we can't really tell whether they are evil for not complying with them.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:38 AM on May 28, 2007
Last month, her stalker, Felicity Jane Lowde, 41, who Miss North has never met, was convicted in her absence of harassment after failing to attend her trial at Stratford Magistrates' Court in East London.The UK has exceptionally tough anti-stalking and libel laws. The harrassment law seems to have been used pretty effectively in this case: I don't think you can say the system has failed here.
The mother of one is on the run and a warrant has been issued for her arrest.
So, the remaining issue is that the offending blogs are still up.
Now it could be that Google/Blogger are being "evil" in not taking down these blogs. But have they been properly asked to do so?
I'm seeing a jarring shift into the passive voice in this bit:
"Complaints have been made to Google about the many blogs set up by the stalker, but all are met by an automated response saying it's got nothing to do with them "Who has made these complaints? Did the complaints mention that the blogs carry illegal harrasment or libel? Were the complaints made by an actual lawyer, citing actual law?
Or did the complaints just random people saying "I don't like what she's saying, make her shut up"?
Without knowing what actual complaints were made to Google, we can't really tell whether they are evil for not complying with them.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:38 AM on May 28, 2007
So companies like Google have a choice: they can edit the stuff they carry for content, or they can leave it alone.
This is, indeed, the untenable status quo.
A service provider is an entity which works like a phone: it doesn't touch what people say, it just shuttles it along to others. They don't manage what's on their system, so they aren't liable for it, and the liability is entirely in the hands of the people who use it wrongly.
Except the phone company doesn't cache conversations, nor can they reasonably edit them. Google are providing the means and earning a dollar from hosting blogs; it is well within their reasonable ability to delete, block, and take down anything on their servers.
Why should Google be able to turn a blind eye and get a pass? Should it be so easy for rich corporations to avoid any corporate responsibility in cyberspace?
posted by three blind mice at 2:40 AM on May 28, 2007
This is, indeed, the untenable status quo.
A service provider is an entity which works like a phone: it doesn't touch what people say, it just shuttles it along to others. They don't manage what's on their system, so they aren't liable for it, and the liability is entirely in the hands of the people who use it wrongly.
Except the phone company doesn't cache conversations, nor can they reasonably edit them. Google are providing the means and earning a dollar from hosting blogs; it is well within their reasonable ability to delete, block, and take down anything on their servers.
Why should Google be able to turn a blind eye and get a pass? Should it be so easy for rich corporations to avoid any corporate responsibility in cyberspace?
posted by three blind mice at 2:40 AM on May 28, 2007
Thanks bugbread, that makes things a bit clearer and I can understand the position of Google, but in that case why aren't they implementing their TOS?
Theophile, I have not made any complaints, but in the example earlier another target of hers made complaints about blogs that said he was a convicted rapist. I also understand that the police also complained - they see the blogs as 'aiding and abetting' the offence - and also got nothing more than an automated reply.
I think there is a line somewhere that providers would have to take action over. The content in many of these blogs is a clear breach of Blogger TOS, so perhaps I shouldn't be asking why Google aren't doing anything but why Blogger are not implementing their own TOS?
I thought this post was of some interest because of the google thing and also for Rachel's appeal to London bloggers to help the police to search for the stalker.
posted by quarsan at 2:47 AM on May 28, 2007
Theophile, I have not made any complaints, but in the example earlier another target of hers made complaints about blogs that said he was a convicted rapist. I also understand that the police also complained - they see the blogs as 'aiding and abetting' the offence - and also got nothing more than an automated reply.
I think there is a line somewhere that providers would have to take action over. The content in many of these blogs is a clear breach of Blogger TOS, so perhaps I shouldn't be asking why Google aren't doing anything but why Blogger are not implementing their own TOS?
I thought this post was of some interest because of the google thing and also for Rachel's appeal to London bloggers to help the police to search for the stalker.
posted by quarsan at 2:47 AM on May 28, 2007
I'd just written a long post on this topic (a search on 'Felicity Lowde' showed no results, but 'Rachel North' brought up this post) from the perspective of engaging bloggers to publicise the search for Felicity Lowde. Googling her, it appears that the Rachel North incident is not the first time she's been asked to cease and desist from contacting someone.
posted by essexjan at 2:58 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by essexjan at 2:58 AM on May 28, 2007
quarsan, wouldn't full disclosure to MeFi have required you to explain that you were similarly being "harassed", at least?
posted by imperium at 2:59 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by imperium at 2:59 AM on May 28, 2007
Correction: the link I posted asks Ms Lowde to withdraw a false allegation, on threat of legal action.
posted by essexjan at 3:00 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by essexjan at 3:00 AM on May 28, 2007
imperium, I don't think that I have been harassed by this person, her falsely claiming a few things were said by me and some choice insults aren't enough for me to complain about. I've no involvement in the legal side of things, but I am someone who admires Rachel North, especially when, to help the police in their case, she had to sit in silence for over a year.
I am given to understand that Lowde has been imprisoned twice before for stalking and harassment.
essexjan, I would like to read what you have to say in your post.
posted by quarsan at 3:12 AM on May 28, 2007
I am given to understand that Lowde has been imprisoned twice before for stalking and harassment.
essexjan, I would like to read what you have to say in your post.
posted by quarsan at 3:12 AM on May 28, 2007
In my view, these two bastards deserve it, but they WERE acquited by the courts and according to the law they are innocent and have a right to privacy.
So acquittal in the courts is not justice? Because three blind mice has done a more thorough investigation than the police and prosecutors did, and his verdict is guilty.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:28 AM on May 28, 2007
So acquittal in the courts is not justice? Because three blind mice has done a more thorough investigation than the police and prosecutors did, and his verdict is guilty.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:28 AM on May 28, 2007
Is there a lawyer in the house?
Most of the complaints I've seen in the past are that Google/Blogger are too ready to take down blogs on flimsy evidence.
Also, having had a quick look at Rachel North's blog, she seems to be mostly complaining about being deluged with emails and comments on her own blog. I can't see anything asking for Lowde's blogs to be taken down.
Maybe North doesn't even care about Lowde's blogs being left up? It's possible to be against harrassment but in favour of free speech. She says here:
Most of the complaints I've seen in the past are that Google/Blogger are too ready to take down blogs on flimsy evidence.
Also, having had a quick look at Rachel North's blog, she seems to be mostly complaining about being deluged with emails and comments on her own blog. I can't see anything asking for Lowde's blogs to be taken down.
Maybe North doesn't even care about Lowde's blogs being left up? It's possible to be against harrassment but in favour of free speech. She says here:
Therefore, I say that the best way to protect free speech and blogging from the damage done to it by people like Felicity Jane Lowde is to use the internet for good purposes. We do not need to be regulated, we can look after ourselves and our own, and we can self-regulate. Here is an opportunity to help the police bring a woman who brings blogging into disrepute, to justice, and to do so safely and legally.posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:34 AM on May 28, 2007
essexjan, I would like to read what you have to say in your post.
Sorry, I wrote it in Notepad and deleted it when I read this FPP. But basically it was a link to a newspaper report (London Evening Standard) on the court case, a link to Rachel North's blog and then some further details about how bloggers are publicising the search for this woman.
posted by essexjan at 3:49 AM on May 28, 2007
quarsan writes 'I have never contacted Lownes, left any comments on her blog or contacted her. If you read her blog you will see that she makes a great number of claims about many people. All false.'
So she simply pulled your name out of thin air, and yet, lo and behold, here you are, making a post about her?
Also, when I look at the Rachel North blog, at the section titled 'Ace Blogs: Other', what do I see that's top of her list? A blog titled 'My Boyfriend is a Twat' -- apparently, your girlfriend's blog, on a domain that also hosts your blog.
Incestuous? Not much.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:22 AM on May 28, 2007
So she simply pulled your name out of thin air, and yet, lo and behold, here you are, making a post about her?
Also, when I look at the Rachel North blog, at the section titled 'Ace Blogs: Other', what do I see that's top of her list? A blog titled 'My Boyfriend is a Twat' -- apparently, your girlfriend's blog, on a domain that also hosts your blog.
Incestuous? Not much.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:22 AM on May 28, 2007
This is a very bad post.
posted by Optamystic at 4:45 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by Optamystic at 4:45 AM on May 28, 2007
There is a very weird witchhunt-y feel to all this stuff about tracking her down, the little buttons on everyone's blogs and their friends' blogs etc. She seems like a genuine menace and obviously convicted people should be brought to justice, but it all leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:57 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:57 AM on May 28, 2007
There is a very weird witchhunt-y feel to all this stuff about tracking her down
On reading the two blogs, that's my feeling as well. From what I can tell, what we seem to have here are two female bloggers involved in a catfight. One is popular and politically astute. The other is quite smart but clearly has serious psychological problems. Both seem to take great pleasure in publicly needling the other, but the astute one knows what lines she can and can't cross, how to whip up public support, and how to use the system to her advantage, while the unhinged one is obviously isolated and in need of help.
After reading the two blogs, I can't help but think I'd much prefer the more overtly insane one -- even though you know that eventually she'd turn on you over some imagined slight as well.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:13 AM on May 28, 2007
On reading the two blogs, that's my feeling as well. From what I can tell, what we seem to have here are two female bloggers involved in a catfight. One is popular and politically astute. The other is quite smart but clearly has serious psychological problems. Both seem to take great pleasure in publicly needling the other, but the astute one knows what lines she can and can't cross, how to whip up public support, and how to use the system to her advantage, while the unhinged one is obviously isolated and in need of help.
After reading the two blogs, I can't help but think I'd much prefer the more overtly insane one -- even though you know that eventually she'd turn on you over some imagined slight as well.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:13 AM on May 28, 2007
Peter, I occasionally comment on Rachel's blog. Over a year ago Lowde began abusing Rachel in her comments I made a reply supporting Rachel. That's all it took. Since that brief exchange I have avoided all contact and interaction with Lowde. I don't see what my partner or Rachel's blogroll has to do with anything. For a better picture of Lowde, try reading the whole page you linked to. It's bats.
Rachel mentions self-policing, but how can self-policing work in a case like this? Is asking people to report a convicted criminal to the police a witch-hunt, or is it being responsible citizens? I think the latter. I would be very surprised indeed if Rachel hadn't taken police advice before asking for assistance.
posted by quarsan at 5:14 AM on May 28, 2007
Rachel mentions self-policing, but how can self-policing work in a case like this? Is asking people to report a convicted criminal to the police a witch-hunt, or is it being responsible citizens? I think the latter. I would be very surprised indeed if Rachel hadn't taken police advice before asking for assistance.
posted by quarsan at 5:14 AM on May 28, 2007
Peter, I occasionally comment on Rachel's blog.
So you've got a bee in your bonnet because Google won't police the world the way you want it to. Because in this situation, it hasn't protected your friend. And now you're splashing it all over metafilter so as to further your cause.
That's pretty lame.
posted by seanyboy at 5:48 AM on May 28, 2007
So you've got a bee in your bonnet because Google won't police the world the way you want it to. Because in this situation, it hasn't protected your friend. And now you're splashing it all over metafilter so as to further your cause.
That's pretty lame.
posted by seanyboy at 5:48 AM on May 28, 2007
Google and direct responses: Have you ever tried to find a contact number or direct eMail on any of their web sites? Google hates contect with their clients. Even in all these Google support groups your rarely see a Google person responding to questions or help calls. It's a robo company - as long as they don't have to deal with people it's oke.
posted by homodigitalis at 5:51 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by homodigitalis at 5:51 AM on May 28, 2007
as long as they don't have to deal with people it's oke.
after reading about these people, i can't say i blame them ... it's another group of morons involved in another internet pissing contest ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 AM on May 28, 2007
after reading about these people, i can't say i blame them ... it's another group of morons involved in another internet pissing contest ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 AM on May 28, 2007
I don't see what my partner or Rachel's blogroll has to do with anything.
The link suggests a fairly close relationship with Rachel. It may only be a cyber-relationship, but unless I'm mistaken, the stalking is all cyber-stalking.
For a better picture of Lowde, try reading the whole page you linked to. It's bats.
I read the whole page. It's obviously bats. Which is why I think Rachel's continuously posting on the issue looks vindictive and mean-spirited, regardless of her mealy-mouthed disclaimers.
From what I can tell, the allegations against Lowde seem to be that she outed her by using her real name, claimed she believed that her rape was a figment of her imagination, and really pissed her off by asking why she was so fast to abandon the dying. None of these things were nice, but none of them appear to be libellous. Though as Lowde says, they do somewhat undermine Rachel's public image.
What then follows is an online cat-fight between a nutter and a political activist with a lawyer for a husband, in which the nutter does everything wrong, and the activist whips a up baying mob, thereby amplifying the insane behaviour of the nutter, sending her into nasty comment overdrive.
Given Rachel's history and her ability to promote herself and use the media, getting a conviction against the mad person becomes a slam dunk -- especially when mad woman doesn't even defend herself.
Rachel mentions self-policing, but how can self-policing work in a case like this?
Self-policing usually means controlling what *you* do, ie, *you* not posting inflammatory material, or *you* removing inflammatory material from your comments. It doesn't usually mean whipping up a lynch mob to hunt down a paranoid blogger for posting unpleasant comments on your blog.
In those circumstances, most people just delete the comments and move on.
Note also that there's been no sentence yet. For something as trivial as this, I'd expect the court to simply bind Lowde over. So these theatrics about bloggers hunting down a wanted criminal are just so much silly grandstanding, to my mind.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:12 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
The link suggests a fairly close relationship with Rachel. It may only be a cyber-relationship, but unless I'm mistaken, the stalking is all cyber-stalking.
For a better picture of Lowde, try reading the whole page you linked to. It's bats.
I read the whole page. It's obviously bats. Which is why I think Rachel's continuously posting on the issue looks vindictive and mean-spirited, regardless of her mealy-mouthed disclaimers.
From what I can tell, the allegations against Lowde seem to be that she outed her by using her real name, claimed she believed that her rape was a figment of her imagination, and really pissed her off by asking why she was so fast to abandon the dying. None of these things were nice, but none of them appear to be libellous. Though as Lowde says, they do somewhat undermine Rachel's public image.
What then follows is an online cat-fight between a nutter and a political activist with a lawyer for a husband, in which the nutter does everything wrong, and the activist whips a up baying mob, thereby amplifying the insane behaviour of the nutter, sending her into nasty comment overdrive.
Given Rachel's history and her ability to promote herself and use the media, getting a conviction against the mad person becomes a slam dunk -- especially when mad woman doesn't even defend herself.
Rachel mentions self-policing, but how can self-policing work in a case like this?
Self-policing usually means controlling what *you* do, ie, *you* not posting inflammatory material, or *you* removing inflammatory material from your comments. It doesn't usually mean whipping up a lynch mob to hunt down a paranoid blogger for posting unpleasant comments on your blog.
In those circumstances, most people just delete the comments and move on.
Note also that there's been no sentence yet. For something as trivial as this, I'd expect the court to simply bind Lowde over. So these theatrics about bloggers hunting down a wanted criminal are just so much silly grandstanding, to my mind.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:12 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
Should Google take responsibility for blogs full of libel being used by convicted criminals to stalk and threaten innocent people?
No.
posted by signal at 6:16 AM on May 28, 2007
No.
posted by signal at 6:16 AM on May 28, 2007
Google hates contect with their clients.
They do have a British presence though. Which means that they are governed by British libel law. There's no common carrier defence in the UK. If somebody alerts a British online provider to the fact that something on their site is libellous and they fail to remove it, then they become guilty of libel and liable for subsequent damages. See Godfrey vs Demon, etc.
Presumably, this avenue hasn't been pursued because, distasteful as Lowde's statements may be, she's clearly just expressing her opinion.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:19 AM on May 28, 2007
They do have a British presence though. Which means that they are governed by British libel law. There's no common carrier defence in the UK. If somebody alerts a British online provider to the fact that something on their site is libellous and they fail to remove it, then they become guilty of libel and liable for subsequent damages. See Godfrey vs Demon, etc.
Presumably, this avenue hasn't been pursued because, distasteful as Lowde's statements may be, she's clearly just expressing her opinion.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:19 AM on May 28, 2007
They do have a British presence though. Which means that they are governed by British libel law.
If by "British presence" you mean that they can be accessed from the UK, then I'm afraid you're not correct. Yes, they can be accessed from the UK, but that doesn't mean British libel law applies.
Material on a server which is physically located in the US is governed by American law, even if the blogger is a Brit and is libeling another Brit.
Note this case. Someone used Yahoo's auction site to advertise paraphernalia with Nazi symbols on it. Under French law, that's against the law and a group in France sued Yahoo's French affiliate in a French court. The French judge issued a court order to Yahoo ordering them to remove the auction from their American server.
Yahoo went to a US judge, who determined that French law had no jurisdiction even though the material on Yahoo's server could be accessed from France and even though Yahoo had a business presence in France. Since the server was in the US, US law and US constitutional protections applied, and the US judge determined that the French court order would have infringed Yahoo's rights under the First Amendment.
I absolutely agree with the decision. If the Internet free speech rights of Americans on the web are subject to a kibitzer's veto from overseas, then we won't have any at all.
It's entirely possible that Google has offices in the UK. They may have employees there. They may have bank accounts. But that doesn't give British law jurisdiction over material on American servers belonging to Google even if that material can be accessed from the UK.
Should Google take responsibility for blogs full of libel being used by convicted criminals to stalk and threaten innocent people?
Absolutely not. Google is acting exactly as it should.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:55 AM on May 28, 2007
If by "British presence" you mean that they can be accessed from the UK, then I'm afraid you're not correct. Yes, they can be accessed from the UK, but that doesn't mean British libel law applies.
Material on a server which is physically located in the US is governed by American law, even if the blogger is a Brit and is libeling another Brit.
Note this case. Someone used Yahoo's auction site to advertise paraphernalia with Nazi symbols on it. Under French law, that's against the law and a group in France sued Yahoo's French affiliate in a French court. The French judge issued a court order to Yahoo ordering them to remove the auction from their American server.
Yahoo went to a US judge, who determined that French law had no jurisdiction even though the material on Yahoo's server could be accessed from France and even though Yahoo had a business presence in France. Since the server was in the US, US law and US constitutional protections applied, and the US judge determined that the French court order would have infringed Yahoo's rights under the First Amendment.
I absolutely agree with the decision. If the Internet free speech rights of Americans on the web are subject to a kibitzer's veto from overseas, then we won't have any at all.
It's entirely possible that Google has offices in the UK. They may have employees there. They may have bank accounts. But that doesn't give British law jurisdiction over material on American servers belonging to Google even if that material can be accessed from the UK.
Should Google take responsibility for blogs full of libel being used by convicted criminals to stalk and threaten innocent people?
Absolutely not. Google is acting exactly as it should.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:55 AM on May 28, 2007
The Chinaweb is not the issue here dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, across this line you do not... also dude, Chinaweb is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian Internet please.
Judge, she flamed on my blog! Yea, she flamed on the chic's blog. Felicity, you are out of your element. Rachel, the Chinaweb is not the issue here.
That blog really tied the web together. And this chic flamed on it. She flamed on your f!@$ing blog.
This whole dust up reeks of The Big Leboski Bowling Scene
posted by clearly at 7:04 AM on May 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
Judge, she flamed on my blog! Yea, she flamed on the chic's blog. Felicity, you are out of your element. Rachel, the Chinaweb is not the issue here.
That blog really tied the web together. And this chic flamed on it. She flamed on your f!@$ing blog.
This whole dust up reeks of The Big Leboski Bowling Scene
posted by clearly at 7:04 AM on May 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
It's entirely possible that Google has offices in the UK. They may have employees there. They may have bank accounts. But that doesn't give British law jurisdiction over material on American servers belonging to Google even if that material can be accessed from the UK.
IANAL, but:
http://www.google.co.uk/contact/
British citizens, British corporate presence, British domain -- I rather suspect the British courts wouldn't feel they had any problems with the issue of jurisdiction here.
Of course, if Google decided they didn't accept accept that jurisdiction then they could contest it. But I doubt that that would stop the courts issuing a judgement.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:18 AM on May 28, 2007
IANAL, but:
http://www.google.co.uk/contact/
British citizens, British corporate presence, British domain -- I rather suspect the British courts wouldn't feel they had any problems with the issue of jurisdiction here.
Of course, if Google decided they didn't accept accept that jurisdiction then they could contest it. But I doubt that that would stop the courts issuing a judgement.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:18 AM on May 28, 2007
"blogspot.com" is not a British domain. That's where the controversial material is located.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:35 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:35 AM on May 28, 2007
« Older Math + Vishnu = Really Fast Math | MTV for emotaku Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Unless you want to pass a law about it, then Google probably won't censor it, and even then, only in the country the law applies too.
posted by delmoi at 12:24 AM on May 28, 2007 [2 favorites]