Welcome to Book Readers Heaven! Find Books, Reviews, Short Stories, Authors, Publicity, a little poetry, music to complement...and other stuff including politics, about life... "Books, Cats: Life is Sweet..."
She was supposed to sing one of the songs soon to be available, but instead she chose to sing one of her own. When Paul Milias cornered Kasey Cartwright after the show ended, he was angry, yelling, asking why she had changed the song after the entire group had rehearsed and were ready to perform. Both raised their voices, but the argument ended when Kasey Cartwright had thrown a glass of iced tea into the face of the owner of her record company!
Paul Milias went to the restroom to clean up and soon each of them left for the after-party, where Paul's wife called Kasey a "cow". Soon Kasey was leaving the party and heading for the Plaza... With Paul, realizing that he needed to apologize, followed her. While Kasey left him in, even though it was around 2 in the morning, the friction continued and Milias slapped Kasey across the face! She started crying and ran into the bathroom, locking the door. Finally realizing that she was not going to talk to him, he left and got a cab home...
And the next morning when the maids came to clean the room, they found her lying across the bed--Dead.
...an up-and-comer named Derek Birch, a long-legged, dope-smoking, Jack Daniels drinker who considered himself a rebel, an artist, and the most important country music icon of the young century. Kasey Cartwright had toured with him for two months during the summer when she was sixteen, but Birch had since switched from Paul Milius’s label to another record company. Jack had been told that Birch didn’t much care what anyone thought about him and would give an honest—if not drug-and-alcohol-addled—opinion on most anything. Jack didn’t audio or videotape his conversation with Derek Birch, but he took detailed notes, and I was satisfied that he recounted it for me accurately.
Jack walked into Birch’s backstage dressing room at around nine thirty on a Friday night at the Bridgestone Arena in downtown Nashville. Birch was the headliner, wrapping up a six-month tour, and was scheduled to go on stage at ten thirty. There was a large makeup mirror in the antique-white room, a couple stools, a leather couch against the far wall, and two acoustic guitars on stands. Birch was sitting near the mirror with a red Solo cup in his hand, wearing a denim shirt, denim jeans, and cowboy boots. He had dark, aviator sunglasses on and a John Deere cap pulled tightly down over his head. He had a male model chin, with a jawline and teeth to match. The air in the room was thick with marijuana smoke.
Jack noticed a tall, decorative glass bong sitting on the counter near the mirror. Next to it was a handle of Jack Daniels, a two-liter bottle of Coke, and a small cooler filled with ice. “Yo, what’s up?” Birch said as Jack walked cautiously into the room. “Close that door behind you and lock it so we can have some privacy.” A band called Buick Five was on the stage, and the rockabilly was blasting. Closing the door didn’t muffle the sound completely, but it made it possible for Jack and Birch to talk without having to shout. Jack, who had dressed in country music concert gear—jeans, flannel shirt, boots, cowboy hat—shook hands with Birch, who motioned for him to take a seat on the couch. As soon as Jack was seated, Birch picked the bong up, walked over, and offered it. “No, thanks,” Jack said. “Don’t smoke?” “I’m working tonight.” “So am I,” Birch said. “You ain’t one of them tight asses, are you?”
“No, no,” Jack said, but then he smiled. “Well, maybe. I’m wound pretty tight most of the time.” Birch laughed. “At least you’re honest,” he said. “Sure you don’t want to hit this? It’ll mellow you right out.” “Not right now,” Jack said. “Maybe later.” “So my agent tells me you’re working for the lawyer who’s defending Paul Milius,” Birch said. “Says the lawyer is actually your dad.” “That’s right,” Jack said. “I’m in my last year of law school.” “You’re a big dude, so please don’t get up and kick my ass for what I’m about to say, but I’ve never met a lawyer who had a soul, man. Do they surgically remove it in law school, or do you lose it later on?”
Jack shrugged his shoulders. “I know what you’re saying,” he said. “But I think my dad’s okay. He’s been at it for a long time, and I think he’s been able to keep his soul. Most of it, anyway. And I don’t think I’ve lost mine. At least not yet.” “Then you’re as rare as a well-lived life, man. Hope you can keep it that way. I was just thinking about our culture and how bankrupt it’s become before you walked in. Gave me an idea for a new song. I’m going to call it ‘Empty Malls.’” “Empty Malls?” Jack said. “What’s it going to be about?” “I’m just going to write a tune about an empty mall in the South, and how it’s this big, empty shell covering the scattered shards of our broken retail dreams.”
“Sounds depressing,” Jack said. “It is depressing, man. We’re depressing. But it’s the freakin’ truth.” “Speaking of truth,” Jack said. “There are some things I’d like to talk to you about.” Birch popped off the stool and started pacing in a circle. “Now that was lame, dude,” he said. “Bad, bad segue. We’re sitting here rapping, establishing some trust, talking about empty malls and bankrupt dreams, and you go and try to slide that awful segue in there. I should just go ahead and have the security guys come toss you right now.” “I’m sorry,” Jack said. “I’m just not used to … I haven’t talked to anyone like you in a while. Hell, I’ve never talked to anyone like you in my life. By the way, there are cops all over this place. Don’t they mind that you’re smoking dope in here?” “They’re not on duty, man. They’re freelancing. We pay them. We can do whatever the hell we want as long as we don’t kill anybody.”
“Speaking of killing somebody ….” Jack smiled again, and Birch slapped his knee and went back to his chair. “Okay, lawyer’s son,” Birch said as he picked up the bong, lit it, and took a long pull. “You seem to be honest, and you’ve got a sense of humor. What do you want to talk about?” “I’d just like you to tell me what you know about Kasey Cartwright and Paul Milius.”
Birch blew the smoke out slowly and set the bong back down. He picked the Solo cup up and took a long drink. Jack could smell the whiskey from five feet away. “Kasey came out on tour last year for a while before I left Paul’s label,” he said. “Why’d you leave?” Jack asked. “Just a creative-differences thing, man. Happens all the time. But Kasey, she’d open the night, do about an hour, then she’d come to my bus or to my dressing room and get high with me when the show was over. Earthy chick, you know? All about what was natural, at least that’s what she wanted people to think. But she liked the retail dreams. She wanted to make as much money as she could. Wanted the fancy houses and cars and all that. She used to talk to me about it all the time. ‘What’s fair? How much can I make doing this or that? Is Paul screwing me?’”
“Was he?” Jack asked. “Screwing her? Financially, a little I’m sure. The new ones always get screwed. Physically, definitely.” “So he was having sex with her?” “Absolutely, man.” “How do you know for sure?” “Because I saw them getting it on in her trailer. I have this little habit of wandering around after shows. Harmless creepin’, you know? Helps me wind down. Sometimes I like to look in windows, check out what people are doing. I saw them doing the nasty, man, with my very own eyes. But Kasey had already told me she was doing him, which is the main reason I wandered over that way that night. I just couldn’t resist the chance of getting to see Kasey naked. Did you ever see her? I mean when she was alive?” “All I’ve seen is pictures,” Jack said. “Pretty girl.” “Sensuous, too,” Birch said. “But anyway, Kasey thought she was playing Paul so she could make more money. I didn’t have the heart to tell her she was just an amusement to him, just a temporary thing. But ol’ Kasey, she got tired of Paul before Paul got tired of her. She started seeing Cameron Jones as soon as she turned eighteen.”
“Cameron Jones is another singer on Paul’s label, right?” “Yeah, good buddy of mine, Cameron. Good artist, too. A little more old-school than me, not as edgy, but still good at what he does.” “Did Paul know Kasey was seeing Cameron?” “Yeah, yeah. Cameron said Kasey was upfront about it. It was kind of funny. What he told me was that she went all John Hancock about it. I’d never heard that phrase before.” “Did Cameron say how Paul reacted?” “Paul doesn’t like to lose. He didn’t get where he’s at by letting people take what he thinks is his. Cameron said Paul wasn’t none too happy about it.” “Unhappy enough to kill Kasey?” “I guess that’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? I’m sorry, but I don’t have any answers for you. Listen, man, it’s getting close to show time, so if there isn’t anything else, I need to start getting my voice warmed up and let my makeup girl put my stage face on.” Jack rose from the couch and reached out a hand to Birch. “Thanks,” Jack said. He didn’t say anything about sending Birch a subpoena. It might not happen, but Birch said he had actually seen Paul Milius and Kasey having sex. That was admissible in court. Jack just didn’t know whether there would be any use for the testimony. And since Cameron Jones had apparently stepped in and lured Kasey away from Paul, Cameron might be a candidate for the SODDI defense. Maybe it had been worth the time and trouble to talk to Derek Birch. “Sure you don’t want to hit this bong before you head out?” Birch said. “It smells really good,” Jack lied, “but I think I’ll pass.”
~~~
Readers meet Paul's wife, Lana Raines-Milius in the Prologue, so this isn't a whodunit, y'all! LOL She had been a top country star, but had lost her voice. Now she was roaming around a large estate called Zanadu, where she had slowly become addicted to just about anything, including alcohol. Now she was aiming higher...
But when Kasey was murdered, she took the opportunity to play the devoted wife and sought out Joe Dillard and offered him $1M(!) to defend her husband. Initially Joe was hesitant, especially as his wife Caroline was going through a more difficult time than ever before, but she convinced him that he couldn't back down from a case...on the chance that she could get worse... Especially with a $1M fee upfront, which would be the highest payment Joe had ever received. Still, it was moving into the entertainment area and all it included that bothered him. And he was right to be hesitant... But Leon, his friend had made the recommendation to the couple and so he'd proceed...
Jack his son is acting as his clerk and investigator, as well as Charleston (Charlie) who is Jack's girlfriend was to handle pre-trial activities. After many interviews with as many people as they could think of that would be related to the recording business, they had still not found anything significant that could be used to defend his client... That is, until he was kidnapped and flown somewhere he never knew (he was hooded all the time). And there he learned exactly what happened--from a couple who refused to return to testify!
I have been binging on the Joe Dillard Series, reading from book 1 up to this one...only two more to go! I'm loving Joe Dillard, as well as all the characters in this significant legal series.
The merge of a character's family and home life within a professional career has always been intriguing for me. With Caroline, Joe's wife dealing constantly with cancer concerns, readers are privy to the devastating effect this catastrophic medical issue affects not only the individual living with cancer, but also all those who are living within the severely changed home life. At the same time, Jack, Joe's son, who fell hard for Charleston (Charlie) Story, even with her background and an explosive event within her life has increased the intrigue. While the unexpected marriage of his daughter and Joe's acceptance of having to welcome--and love--a son-in-law who has taken a wrong detour in their relationship adds a level of depth for Joe Dillard as well as those with whom he shares his life.
Additionally, Pratts' honing in on so many of the major legal issues that are predominant and moving ever more into violence and dangerous territory, is a welcome decision on the part of today's writers that I not only appreciate, but want to support! Scott Pratt Rocks in my opinion!
Each novel is so uniquely drawn, moving from one type of issue, which includes a variety of characters... sometimes only with Joe Dillard (and his wife) being the lead characters in all investigations, brings a variety of methods by which each legal issue can be addressed... Just think of what has been bothering you with today's top criminal activities and you'll read about either a minor or in-depth case where right ALWAYS wins, or at least a step forward is made--even if what happens never enters a courtroom... This book has a quite unusual twist that you'll not want to miss!
By the way, I've joined The Pratt Pack on Facebook, a group where we can talk about this series and others by Scott Pratt. Check it out... I just may be his newest, but ongoing, fan!
Dr. Kent Abner began the day of his death comfortable and content. Following the habit of his day off, he kissed his husband of thirty-seven years off to work, then settled down in his robe with another cup of coffee, a crossword challenge on his PPC, and Mozart’s The Magic Flute on his entertainment unit. His plans for later included a run through Hudson River Park, as April 2061 proved balmy and blooming. After, he could hit the gym and some weights, grab a shower, have a bite in the café. On the way home, he thought he’d pick up fresh flowers, wander through the market, and get the olives Martin so enjoyed, maybe a nice selection of cheeses. Then he’d meander to the bakery for a baguette and whatever else appealed. When Martin came home, they’d open a bottle of wine, sit and talk and have some bread and cheese. He’d leave the choice of eat in or eat out to Martin, with, hopefully, a romantic ending to the day—if Martin wasn’t worn out. They often joked Kent as a pediatrician handled the adorable babies and charming kids, while Martin as headmaster for a K–12 private academy juggled charming kids with hormonal and broody teens. Still, it worked for them, Kent thought as he filled in 21-Down. Toxic. He spent an entertaining hour with the puzzle, tidied up the kitchen while music filled the air of their townhome in the West Village. Kent changed into his running clothes, added a light hoodie. He packed his gym bag, deciding he’d drop it off in his locker before his run. As he zipped it, the doorbell rang. Humming to himself, he carried his bag out to the living room, set it on the coral sofa he and Martin had chosen when they’d redecorated six months before. Out of habit, he checked the door monitor, saw the delivery girl he recognized with a small package. He disengaged the locks, opened the door.
He collapsed, convulsing as Mozart’s Queen hit high F.
“Good morning!” “Morning, Dr. Abner. Got a package for you.” “So I see. You just caught me.” He took the package, offered her a smile as the Queen of the Night’s vengeful second-act aria poured out to Bedford Street. “Beautiful day!” “It sure is. You have a good one,” she added before she walked down the steps to the sidewalk. “You, too.” Kent closed the door, studying the package as he carried it back to the kitchen. Since it was addressed to him, he opened the drawer for the box cutter. The return label had a Midtown address and a shop name—All That Glitters—he didn’t recognize. A gift? he wondered as he cut the box. Inside the box, under the packing, another box. Small, simple, he thought, smooth, dark faux wood closed with a small lock, the key attached with a thin chain. Baffled, he set it down, unlocked the clasp. Inside the box, nestled in thick black padding, sat a small—undeniably cheap—golden egg, closed tight with a tiny hook. “All That Glitters,” he muttered, flipped the hook. The lid stuck a bit as he started to lift it. He gave it a harder tug. He didn’t see the vapor, didn’t taste it. But he felt the effects instantly as his throat seemed to snap shut, his lungs clog. His eyes burned, and his well-toned muscles began to tremble. The egg dropped from his fingers as he stumbled blindly toward the window. Air, he needed air. He tripped, fell, tried to crawl away. His system revolted, expelling the light breakfast he’d had with his husband. Fighting through the tearing pain, he tried to drag himself across the floor.
~~~
It's been years since I've read J.D.Robb, who is actually my very favorite author. So when I recently saw an email showing her latest was now out, I decided to take the opportunity to at least renew my interest, and, hopefully, try to catch up with the backlog of books by this prolific writer that I haven't yet read...
So it was a little surprising that, after learning of the first death as soon as I opened the book, that, as the investigation started, I felt the story begin to drag a little. Yes, I'm aware that this is normal in police cases, but I was also anxious to once again feel my own connection with the main character, Eve Dallas, and her spouse, Roarke...
It didn't take long to find the first very important clue, which exploded into lies, deceit, drugs, death and more. The only thing was that a second victim was found which moved the investigation back in time to a private school...
“We believe the package contained an as-yet-unidentified toxic substance.” Lydia’s blue eyes went momentarily blank, then filled with alarm. “You mean like poison or something? Like terrorism or something?”
“We’ll do it. He’s a lit professor at Columbia.” Eve sat back. “Maybe it’s a big stretch to connect that to the headmaster of a private academy, but it’s the only link we have. We’ll come back for the rest of the house,” she decided as she rose. “He’s in class now, according to his schedule. We’ll go to him.”
As soon as I entered the halls (metaphorically learning of the school through the book) of the Theresa A. Gold (TAG) Academy, my mind started to think about the state of our schools today and how children can be manipulated, bullied, assaulted, all under the supervision of those to whom we've placed trust. Teachers, or the Headmaster, as was found at TAG who were involved in allowing these things to occur. Specifically, it was the headmaster who was more concerned about bringing money into the school and cultivating relationships with the parents of the rich students, while those who were there by scholarships were often harassed, one even beaten badly...
And, of course, when some teachers started to complain, that headmaster quickly found another position in a similar school and started her routine activities there...
So that when a new headmaster was named and things began to greatly change, there were many students who soon, for one reason or another, gone from TAG... The atmosphere had been functioning satisfactorily for many years.
Following the money...following the headmaster and students was not easy after eight years. Yet, when a change occurs in the present, then earlier facts of bad behavior of all kinds come to the surface, it doesn't take long to discover the Truth! No matter how long and how deep the earlier transgressions had been hidden only to be found with sufficient evidence to prove the criminal laws that had been broken.
During the investigation, as many rich people became involved, there were, unfortunately, what we have come to expect in America. Those who checked the background of Dallas and Eve and saw no educational backgrounds that could possibly make them peers with those under investigation. As in all of Robb's books, she enjoys (and readers benefit) spotlighting the fact that their backgrounds have brought them both to the success where they are.
Roarke, of course, although probably known by the intellectuals involved, is soooo rich that he's often building off-planet... He's soooo rich that, often, when Eve has to enter a building on a case, the building is owned by Roarke and she has total access, which often upsets building occupants...
And, yet, Roarke is so in love with Eve, that he ensures her life style is indeed on the same level of class as those who she sometimes...jails! In this novel, knowing that Eve would be talking to those that consider themselves the rich and famous, he purposely pulled together an outfit, along with a long leather coat that would ensure that everybody would understand...
Eve Dallas is somebody you'd better treat right...or you may find yourself next facing Roarke. Not a man to have on the wrong side of your meeting, if you get my meaning!
For me, the characters make the story. So, if you enjoy police procedures, set in the future...don't forget to search for J. D. Robb, Aka Nora Roberts! I applaud her for effectively illustrating what a life of lying can lead to...
Robb has taken a major issue direct from headlines and presented a wonderful novel, spotlighting the growth of lying as a routine part of daily life. Given the title, I felt led to share a little more directly from the book. If you recognize the words as what you've heard, then you may want to think hard about your family and friends and their communication with you.
Eve shifted when the elevator stopped to let more people on. “The lying’s autopilot with him, and not very skilled. He lies about the obvious and inconsequential, so by the time he gets to the big stuff it’s just red-faced blather.” A woman in a business suit and sunshades glanced at Eve. “Sounds like my ex-husband. Some people plan a lie. Others?” she continued as the doors opened to let yet more people on. “It’s involuntary instinct, like breathing.” “Tell me about it,” someone else piped up. “I dated this guy once who’d lie if you asked him his name. He just couldn’t help himself.” One of the new passengers let out a snort. “It’s worse when they believe the lie—convince themselves it’s true, keep beating you over the head with it until you start wondering if you’re the one who’s crazy.” “They all sound like my ex,” the first woman commented as the doors opened on the lobby level. “He gets around,” Eve said, and heard the woman laugh as she and Peabody strode to the doors. “That was interesting,” Peabody decided as they walked back to the car. “Lying liars unite strangers in elevator. Dateline New York.” “Everyone knows at least one lying sack.” “That’s really true. I’ll check his alibis to see if they were a crock, too. Being such a crappy liar, he’s never going to be even...halfway decent... “Add deeply stupid. A lying sack who can’t lie worth crap, and a complete schmuck.” “His lies aren’t holding.” Mira glanced toward the interview room door. “So he’ll shift them. I suspect he’ll shift any blame.... “Yeah, I’m with you there.” “He feels entitled to lie, as he was entitled to punish those who offended or betrayed him—or who simply became inconvenient. He doesn’t fully recognize, certainly doesn’t respect, your authority over him. And it infuriates him. He has no feelings of guilt or remorse, even doubt, to trip him up. It’s his anger that will.”
Folks, I know from time to time we might purposely choose to tell a "white lie" so that we don't hurt somebody's feelings. But when it is being shown that politicians as well as judges within our government have cultivated a climate of lies, we need to act to call them out whenever possible!
One question: Do you mind if your children and/or family members lie to you?
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
“By state or region … for every age, for both genders, where there are more guns, there are more total suicides.”
Facts and Quotes
“The … cliques that rule American high schools are every bit as murderous as Harris and Klebold, only their damage is done in slow motion, over a period of many years, and fails to draw the attention of parents or teachers.” —a posting on the Internet
“ ‘Every day being teased and picked on, pushed up against lockers—just the general feeling of fear in the school. And you either respond to a fear by having fear, or you take action and have hate.’ ” —Brooks Brown, a student at Columbine High who knew both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Rolling Stone, 6/10/99
Several news organizations pointed out that the ratio of students to counselors at Kipland Kinkel’s high school was roughly 700 to 1.“Like most students, I lived in fear of the small slights and public humiliations used to reinforce the rigid high school caste system: Poor girls were sluts, soft boys were fags. And at each of my schools, there were students who lived in daily fear of physical violence.” —a posting on the Internet after Columbine
“Outcasts loathed Columbine. With equal venom, they detested popular kids and an administration that in their minds kowtowed to the popular kids.” —Rolling Stone, 6/10/99
“How many kids ostracized, humiliated, and assaulted in American high schools, like the survivors of Columbine High, are left scarred for life? How many commit suicide every year? So long as some kids go out of their way to make high school hell for others, there are going to be kids who crack, and not all of the kids who crack are going to quietly off themselves.” —a posting on the Internet
More than 50 percent of male youths say it would be easy to obtain a gun.
“I went to three [high schools], and in none of [them] did I for a moment feel safe. High school was terrifying, and it was the casual cruelty of the popular kids that made it hell.” —a posting on the Internet
“Most of the attackers in the recent cases had shown signs of clinical depression or other psychological problems. But schools, strapped for mental health counselors, are less likely to pick up on such behavior or to have the available help.” —New York Times, 6/14/98
In 2016 the United States led all high-income countries in firearm deaths among its youth. The rate in the US was 36.5 times higher than in a dozen comparable countries. —CNN
“The hallways erupted in screaming, terror- stricken pandemonium as students realized this was … another, increasingly familiar scene: a student with a gun.” —USA TODAY, 5/21/99
In today's world, we can easily guess what a book will be about with a title like, Give A Boy A Gun. But 20 years ago, when Todd Strasser first published the book, I was fascinated by the fact that assignments were made to create book trailers for the story! I was pleased to see them and picked out a few to include with this article. To me, it is quite telling. What about you?
In an interview for the Velshi Banned Book Club, the author points out that, yes there were some concerns about guns, but that most of the time, it was caused by students who were actually attending that school. And caused by student bullying. While since then, there is no such connection for school shooting. There is simply a mass shooting epidemic that has sometimes had no connection to the location where the shooting occurs!
Still, Give A Boy A Gun, is an excellent story based upon just how some students become dominant, many times this group is made up of athletes or other students active in social events. The key question, though, is why do those dominant, or popular, students decide to bully classmates?
The book moves from excerpts of the associated suicide notes and the interviews with students related to the two individuals who came to school with guns--and more! Both the 8th and 9th grades were reviewed.
More of Eighth Grade: I thought I knew Gary better. We sort of went together on and off for nearly two years. It’s obvious now that I didn’t know him. Not really. I knew he had that whole other thing with Brendan. Sometimes it almost felt like they had their own language. They each just seemed to know what the other was thinking. But now it’s obvious he hid a lot. Not just from me, but from everyone except Brendan. —Allison Findley
Until Gary came into the picture, I think I was Brendan’s closest friend. I can’t say I was really sorry when that changed. By then I’d gotten to know some other girls who were like me—quote, unquote “outcasts”—and we were trying to have a life in spite of all that cliquey weirdness at school. I don’t know why, but Brendan couldn’t get past the weirdness. He was more fixated on it. It was almost all he would talk about. I was trying to get away from it. He just wanted to keep looking at it under a microscope.—Emily Kirsch.
Gary and I got into my mom’s car one day. It was parked in the driveway, facing the garage. Gary sat behind the wheel, and I was next to him. He put his arm around my shoulder, and we just pretended we were driving somewhere. We were staring at the garage door with big flakes of white paint peeling off it, but in our minds we were going through the desert. Gary had done that once, so he was talking about cactus and sun-bleached bones and jackrabbits and hot sun. I leaned my head on his shoulder, and I could see it all in my mind. The two of us, all alone, driving through the desert, a million miles away from everything. Just sagebrush and creosote bushes and burned reddish cliffs. A trail of dust flying up behind us. Gary pulled me close and kissed my hair, and it was one of those really happy moments. I guess it was about as close as we ever got to blissful puppy love. Ha, ha! Then Gary stopped. I looked up and saw that he was staring into the rearview mirror. I turned around, and Deirdre Bunson and Sam Flach and a bunch of other kids were in the street, pointing at us and laughing. I wanted to die. Gary did too. He couldn’t even turn around. He just slumped down in the seat and stared at that stupid garage door and the peeling paint. It was like they’d just stuck a knife in his heart. Sometimes Gary and I could escape into that world where no one bothered us or laughed or made fun. But it never lasted long, and then it was like waking up from a dream and facing the cold, bald truth that it wasn’t real and never would be. For the popular kids the dream was real. They lived it. They never had to be afraid of waking up. —Allison Findley
Ninth Grade: It started to change at the beginning of ninth grade. I went away with my parents for two weeks in August, and Brendan and Gary stayed home and just hung with each other. When I got back, it was different. I can’t exactly explain how, but I felt it. There was something dark in Brendan. I don’t know where it came from. Whether it had always been inside him, or whether it just started to grow because of the way people treated him in school. —Allison Findley
Gary wasn’t always like that. When we were in eighth grade and some big jock would body-slam us into a chalkboard or rip the pocket off our shirt, we’d be pissed, and we’d grumble about how we’d like to kill this guy and kick his face in. The thing was it was all sort of make-believe wishful thinking...
In many ways, the book is written as if it was a police file of what happened. Readers get to know the characters through their own notes or through the response to questions from classmates. Frankly, it is not an easy book to read. In fiction form, we would be able to separate our lives as well as the involved students from the actual reality of the events. In the book, Give A Boy A Gun, the stark reality of the shooting is so real--in one way, even more real than seeing the hundreds of news videos that show us what was occurring. Knowing students' named, their thoughts, feelings...and pain, forces us to absorb the lives of those who are no longer living into our minds...and hearts...
No matter how you feel about the Second Amendment, in my mind after seeing so many killed through the use of a gun...and, if I remember right...all of them were just boys... Boys that had no real awareness of what he or she might have caused through their bullying... Or, because guns had become some type of symbol for them that led it to be available at such an early age, that even their minds have not yet matured enough to know and understand... and... control their thoughts... and actions! This book needs to be shared with teens--boys and girls. And, NOT banned by those that are using guns as a political issue rather than an epidemic caused by manipulation of our children... Just my personal opinion, of course!
Read this book... Share this book... Vote for Gun Control to keep guns out of the hands of our children... and to keep all of our children safe!
I've been reading the children's books written by Carole P. Roman for over a decade... and I enjoy each one! In this time when we are even more involved with children and what affects them in school, church, or even at home, it is important to gently but specifically talk about things that bother all of us, from grade school to adult!
Using animal characters often helps to take the child out of this world into a make-believe world where things that make us different in America, can be explored without pinpointing the real differences. In the case of bullying, this may be especially important. I don't think this book is about bullying per se, rather it is a book about getting to know and liking--and love ourselves, no matter what we look like...
The minor twist used by Carole in identifying the issue facing Henrietta Hedgehog's prickly problem, was perfect... You see, Henrietta was not liking who she was--a hedgehog that had quills on her body, which, at certain times, would help her against any enemy that might attack another. She knew that if somebody got too close to her, though, they could be hurt, even if she didn't mean to hurt anybody!
What to Do? Henrietta wanted to just not go to school. But her mother wouldn't allow that. So, thinking about those she knew in her class, she remembered that Bella Beaver was somebody she thought looked nice, so she made a mask to wear that made her look just like Bella...
But when she got to school, Bella took one look and thought that Henrietta was making fun of her front teeth, which were Bella's prickly problem for seeing herself as needing to change... Wow! Henrietta soon realized that everybody had something that they didn't like about themselves...and that the others still were willing to be...a prickly hedgehog, a beaver who didn't like her front teeth, a squirrel who doesn't like his "squeaking" voice...and many others who came to talk to Henrietta and tell her that they still liked her, even with her quills!
How about you? Is there anything that you don't like about yourself? Well, think about it and be open to talk about your problem with your mother, or even your teacher... Sometimes, you'll find that the problem you have really isn't prickly at all!
We all know that line, and many of us have used it in retort to a vicious verbal verbal attack. But the truth is that words can hurt you, especially when they are broadcast online to thousands or even millions of people. We’ve also all heard the old adage “Don’t believe everything you hear,” but the fact is that many people do believe everything they hear and, whether they do or not, have a tendency to repeat it; especially if it’s scandalous.
The advent of the Internet has had a profound impact on the manner in which ideas and information are exchanged in the 21st century. It has leveled the publisher’s playing field, putting newspapers, magazines and bookstores out of business, and enabled any average person with access to a computer the potential to reach a broad audience on whatever subject that person may choose. However, unlike a newspaper or magazine, authors of Internet “articles” are not restrained by ethical guidelines or legal principles.
While the notion of free speech may be an honorable one, the first amendment’s sanction is by no means absolute. Just as the second amendment’s right to bear arms does not give a person the right to shoot somebody, the first amendment’s protection of free speech does not apply to all speech. Defamatory speech is specifically not protected. There are many examples of the power of the Internet in today’s cyber-world that have had a profound effect on the real world. Middle Eastern governments have been toppled using the Internet as a weapon of social change. Whistleblowers can now “blow their whistle” to a larger audience, but, as we can see in the cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, the power of the Internet is no match for power of the United States government, whose boundaries of enforcement go beyond any geopolitical border and can even force down the airplane of a government official of another sovereign state if it suspects you are harboring a treasonous criminal. In the days before the Internet, bullies, people jealous of your success, competitors in the workplace, or competing businesses were still out there; but their attacks were short-lived and soon forgotten. The Internet gives them the power to permanently destroy any reputation that is associated with any name that can be “googled,” and the results will outlast your lifetime. Questions like “Mom, was grandpa really a bad man?” may become commonplace in this cyber-age. Technology has moved faster than the law with regard to the Internet. The Internet gives the defamer the power to destroy a hard-earned reputation with a few clicks of a mouse, with far-reaching effects, to an unlimited audience. The Google algorithm prioritizes the “most popular” searches on the first page of search results. Let’s face it: people love scandals. Many a top news story has been made, especially in the United States, from a scandal. Remember Monica Lewinsky, for example? People, in general, love bad news; which is why the news is so full of it. Bad news is a “headline” and everything else is just a “feature.” What this means to the Google algorithm is that the more scandalous the gossip is, the better position that gossip will achieve in Google’s results, and the longer it will stay there. Gossip which used to go by “word of mouth” would never have been published by any respectable newspaper or magazine. Now any blogger can be a “reporter” – even an investigative reporter - without any journalistic skill, responsibility or conscience. And the gossip that they spread about you can ruin your credit, cost you a job opportunity, or lose you clients.
The Internet Age has changed the rules for bullying. With the growing phenomenon of cyber-socializing on the Internet, and the fact that school-age children and teenagers have computers, iPads, and cell phones - all with Internet access - bullies can reach a broader audience with their humiliation and hate speech, do it instantaneously, and the defamation assumes a permanent place in cyberspace. This is known as cyber-bullying, and it has reached such epidemic proportions that it has been cited as the cause of many teenage suicides.
Megan Meier was the victim, in 2006, of an elaborate cyber-bullying scheme that is fairly common. As retribution for allegedly gossiping about her daughter, a neighbor’s mother and her bullying friends set up a fake My Space account purporting to be that of a 16-year-old boy. They sent messages to Megan and chatted with her, and Megan fell in love with the imaginary boy. Then came the last act: the imaginary boy sent messages “breaking up” with Megan, shared her messages to “him” all over the Internet, humiliating her, and then sent a message saying, “You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.” Megan then killed herself.
Cyber-bullies spread lies and rumors about their victims, often anonymously, including pretending to be their friends (much like Russ and Gary did with me) in order to obtain personal information and photographs which they manipulate and post on blogs and websites. Bullying is also done by email and text messaging. In the days before the Internet, bullies, people jealous of your success, competitors in the workplace, or competing businesses were still out there; but their attacks were short-lived and soon forgotten. The Internet gives them the power to permanently destroy any reputation that is associated with any name that can be “googled,” and the results will outlast your lifetime. Questions like “Mom, was grandpa really a bad man?” may become commonplace in this cyber age.
But cyber-bullies do not stop when they leave school. They become cyber-stalkers. The problem with cyber-stalkers is that they have more power when they are cloaked in anonymity, as well as less responsibility. If a cyber-stalker acts anonymously, it is harder to identify him and bring him to justice. Anonymous free speech has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). Of course, that was over 50 years ago, when there was no Internet; but it’s still a good law. So, as a result, you have cyber-bullies using modern technology to torture their victims to the point of despair and even suicide, and they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want, anonymously. Threats of violence, harassment of former romantic partners, and posing as the victim and posting private matters and photographs on the Internet is very common. A cyber-stalker will go to any length to try to cause you pain and ruin your reputation. As the name implies, they will virtually “stalk” you on the Internet, to no end. In the real world, this behavior would possibly be criminal and you could seek a restraining order against it. But in the online world, there is literally nothing to protect you, and the cyber-stalker will often hide behind a mask of anonymity to prey on his or her victims. Groups of cyber-stalkers will even organize together on Internet chat boards and help each other to harass a stalker’s victim, publishing altered photographs, threats, and personal information. These “cyber mobs” find validation in reputation. As the name implies, they will virtually “stalk” you on the Internet, to no end. In the real world, this behavior would possibly be criminal and you could seek a restraining order against it. But in the online world, there is literally nothing to protect you, and the cyber-stalker will often hide behind a mask of anonymity to prey on his or her victims. Groups of cyber-stalkers will even organize together on Internet chat boards and help each other to harass a stalker’s victim, publishing altered photographs, threats, and personal information. These “cyber mobs” find validation in statement, it is slander, and if it is a written statement, it is libel. If you are a public figure, you have to prove the additional element of malice, which is a “knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.” Public figures such as celebrities (and especially elected officials) are pretty much fair game. If they weren’t, Jay Leno. and similar hosts, would be in a lot of trouble. Defamation is, in most jurisdictions, a civil wrong, or a tort, but there are many countries, including Russia and China, where defamation is a crime.
In California, the defamation law is essentially a codification of the common law. It is either libel or written defamation, slander or oral defamation. It is essentially a false statement, made to another person which causes harm to that person’s property, business, profession or occupation. Libel is “a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” California Civil Code section 45.
“Slander is a false and unprivileged communication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: 1) charges a person with crime or having been indicted, convicted, punished for crime; 2) imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; 3) tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; or 4) imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; 5) which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.” California Civil Code section 46. California, like many other jurisdictions, also has defamation per se, where damages are assumed if the false statement accuses the victim of a crime of moral turpitude, a loathsome disease (such as a sexually transmitted disease), or accuses a married person of not being chaste. Pretty clear, isn’t it?
Okay, so someone has published an untrue statement about you on the Internet, which caused real damage to your reputation. Remember the Franciscan Monk? Attack!!! Ready, fire, aim!!! Wait a minute - not so fast. As my criminal law professor said the first day of class, “In the first semester, I’m going to teach you how to put the criminals away; but in the second semester, I’m going to teach you how to get them off.”
There are defenses to defamation that you have to be aware of, such as privilege, truth, and opinion. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. So, if your cyber-bully can prove that what he is saying about you is true, there is nothing you can do about it. There are also certain cases where you are protected from whatever you may say about a person. These are cases of privilege, and you generally have a privilege to say anything you want, no matter how outrageous or harmful it may be, in a judicial, legislative, or administrative proceeding. If a statement by your cyber-bully is an opinion about you, this is a defense to libel. For example, if he said: “I think Joe Blow is a jerk,” and he knows something about you from which he can formulate that opinion, the statement is probably not actionable. Likewise, if it is a “fair comment” or an expression of your opinion about a matter in the public interest, like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, for example (I purposely chose the most ridiculous example), the statement is probably not actionable.
Okay, your cyber-bully or mob has published statements about you on the Internet, you’re not a public figure, the statements are false, they accuse you of a vicious crime or loathsome disease, and it has completely ruined your reputation and your business. So what? Even if it is libel or slander per se, you still have to prove damages. You may say, “But of course my business has been damaged. It’s ruined. My reputation is my business.” Fair enough, but it’s very hard to prove that you have lost a customer or client about whom you don’t even know. In a defamation case, you have to bring evidence of the damages you suffered in order to recover anything significant. Prosecuting a legal case is expensive, time-consuming, and it’s very difficult to be a litigant. The discovery process can be humiliating and can feel like an invasion of your privacy.
Plus, you have to prove you had a good reputation to begin with. All of this takes evidence, which means that you have to locate witnesses who will testify about your good reputation before the defamation and witnesses who will testify that you had a bad reputation after, because of the defamation. It’s not as easy as you think. And that cyber-bully, the one who has all the time to post nasty things about you all over the Internet: remember him? He probably doesn’t have all that time on his hands because he’s rich and happily retired, getting bored counting his money, and just decided to trash you every day on the Internet. He probably has all that time on his hands because he is a loser with nothing else to do. How could he possibly pay you any damages, even if you're awarded them? These are all very important things you need to consider before you go out and hire F. Lee Bailey or Alan Dershowitz.
47 USC section 223, known as the anti-cyber-stalking law, prohibits the interstate or foreign communication of “obscene communications” with the intent to abuse, threaten or harass any person, and “indecent” communications to persons under the age of 18. But don’t expect the FBI to take on your cyber-harassment case anytime soon. They are too busy going after people who may have downloaded or watched any type of under-age pornography (another despicable activity). The federal law probably could be of some use if a member of a cyber-mob is posting personal information that could place you in potential danger. For example, if he or she posts your home address or telephone number, or your place of work, or information about where you may be and when, and implies or incites violence, this is a crime: and if you call it to the attention of the administrators of the website or blog where this is occurring, it is likely that the information will be removed. Likewise, if your social security number or private information is posted that could aid in the commission of identity theft against you, this is likely to be taken down if you complain. Several states, such as Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire and New York, have included cyber-harassment in their anti-harassment statutes, and Alaska, California, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wyoming have defined communications made in cyberspace to be included in their anti-stalking laws. Texas has enacted a cyber-stalking law that is similar to the federal statute. But unless it’s a statement that incites violence, then no matter how untrue and no matter how cruel, don’t expect any Internet provider or even the mighty Google to do anything about it.
Unless you can prove it’s a copyright violation, there is absolutely nothing that they will do about it, and they have the full backing of the United States government to do absolutely nothing. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) was enacted by Congress before the beginning of the “dot-com bubble” with the intention of regulating pornography on the Internet. In 1996 there was no Google, no Facebook, and no Twitter. Cyberspace consisted almost entirely of pornography, which makes the Act already outdated by the technology it was intended to control. Ironically, the anti-pornography portions of the Act were stricken by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), as a suppression of freedom of speech. The most notable portion of the Act that was left was section 230, which gives Internet Service providers (ISPs) immunity against any criminal action or federal intellectual property civil action with respect to any content that is posted on their site. Even though it is limited to federal criminal and intellectual property law, the landmark decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 Fed. 3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) held that section 230 gave ISPs immunity from all civil liability with respect to content published on their sites whether or not that content was altered by the ISP. The Zeran case was an obvious case of cyber-harassment. In Zeran, a mob of cyber-bullies advertised T shirts and other items glorifying the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building by Timothy McVeigh (such as “Visit Oklahoma…It’s a BLAST!”) and posted Plaintiff Kenneth Zeran’s home telephone number on the message. Zeran requested AOL to remove the content, which it initially did, but later it refused to remove additional, similar postings. Zeran received a barrage of threatening telephone calls and the threats of violence resulted in his home being placed under protective surveillance. While other courts around the country have rejected CDA immunity in cases where the ISPs contributed content, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Zeran case, so the result you may get in any particular case is determined by where your cause of action arose and, thus, what court you brought your lawsuit in.
On February 12, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13636, calling for the development of a Cyber Security Framework to protect systems and assets vital to the United States which could have an impact on security or national public health and safety. Some legal authorities have postulated that this may extend to publicly-held companies, and that it may be a sign of cyber security regulations aimed at identity theft, viruses or malware, and potential “advertising injury” which could include copyright infringement and defamation. See Insurance Cybersecurity Regulations – What Insurance Coverage Do You Need? http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/insurance-cybersecurity-regulations-wh-35583/.
Now that we have determined that it is highly unlikely to succeed against an ISP for the defamatory content that appears on a particular site or sites, there is another hurdle to overcome. If you are in a state such as California, any lawsuit that is determined to censor or intimidate your cyber-bullies can be summarily dismissed, and you can be assessed with the cyber-bully’s attorney fees and costs of suit. They are called 'strategic lawsuits against public participation' (“SLAPP” suits), and 28 states have enacted legislation outlawing them, in different incarnations. They are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington. The intentions behind the anti-SLAPP statutes are noble ones. The primary objective behind a SLAPP suit is to intimidate people who petition the government with grievances. Florida has the most restrictive anti-SLAPP law. It is limited to suits brought by the government in response to the right to peacefully assemble, instruct representatives, and redress grievances before governmental agencies, and also applies to homeowners with their homeowner’s association. California has the most strict anti-SLAPP statute. It applies to any action “arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech” in connection with a “public issue.” (California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.) This is defined in the statute as any written or oral statement made before legislative, executive, judicial or other proceeding, any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive or judicial body, any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. 'In connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest' has been interpreted by some California appellate courts to mean any issue that applies to any person who, by their “accomplishments or mode of living”, create a bona-fide attention to their activities.” Hilton v Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir 2010), quoting Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639 (1995). This leads anti-SLAPP attorneys to argue that the public decides what a public issue is and, in this case, the “public” is your cyber-mob, because it’s something that they are all talking about. As my ex-mother in law used to say, “Only famous people are talked about.” Under the California statute, your cyber-stalker can make a motion to dismiss your case in its initial stages before you have the right to discovery to even find out who your defendants are (in the case of unknown defendants, who you may sue as “John Does”). This motion stays all discovery, and shifts the burden to the Plaintiff to provide evidence that proves a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim. This is almost impossible to do without discovery, making it a fait accompli. The winning of the motion signals the dismissal of the case, and you are assessed with your opponent’s attorney’s fees and court costs.
For as long as you have been living, people have been judging you and sizing you up in almost every social capacity you have been involved in. This used to be done in person. A person would meet you, ask you questions, and get a feeling for what you were all about. In this virtual world, however, many relationships are made online. Before eyes meet, people have already exchange electronic resumes on some dating site or on Facebook. According to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the percentage of married couples in the United States who met online is a staggering 35%.
And, in a business or professional context, people used to go to a doctor or lawyer based on a personal recommendation. In this cyber world, they are more likely to let a Google algorithm do the recommending for them. Google’s search engine is the most popular in the United States, with a market share of over 65%, and is one of the most popular search engines in the world, operating in many different languages. When most people in the United States look for a business or service, they are most likely to do it using the Google search engine. The Google algorithm is a mathematical program that searches out key words on over 150 million Internet web sites and assigns a rank to each web page on which the key words appear. It is so widely used that the word “google” has also become a verb in American pop culture. “Google it” is a common answer you may hear to a question that requires research. And when people are trying to decide whether to use your services or patronize your business or hire you as an employee, they are likely going to “google” your name and use the information they read about you to make a decision. Is that a sound way to make a decision? Probably not. Just because something is printed about you on a website, or even ten or 100 websites, doesn’t mean that it is true. But it is what they are going to look at in making their decision, so you have to face it. The power to speak anonymously, once used as a political tool, can now be used by virtually anyone. An email account, Facebook account, or Twitter account can be set up for any fictitious person. Anonymous people chatting on Internet chat rooms or bulletin boards can be difficult, if not impossible, to trace, and the sites themselves that post libelous material have the immunity to do so thanks to the CDA.
Gossip is becoming the equivalent of news. What used to be written on the bathroom wall about a teenage girl’s reputation can now be broadcast to thousands, and the record of it stays in cyberspace forever. The same teenage girl, when she becomes a mother, can look forward to her daughter reading, in explicit detail, how much of a slut she was when she was a teenager or, even worse, watching pornographic videos or pictures (possibly even manipulated) that may have been taken by a scorned lover or ex-husband. The perpetrators of these crimes go unpunished. Since they are not committing the crimes face to face, the distance and removal from the victim is like an air force pilot who drops a “smart bomb.” It becomes impersonal, the victim is dehumanized, and morality is altered. It’s easier to pull the trigger when you can’t see the person you are aiming at or witness the blood and gore as the bullet connects with its target. The Google algorithm doesn’t care if the search results it returns are true. It is designed to rank the most popular sites higher.
Your cyber-bully doesn’t have to make up some of the information he chooses to spout about you on the Internet. He has help: you. Posting personal information and photographs on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or LinkedIn, or any number of other sites is fodder for cyber-gangs to manipulate and repost that information and photographs in ways that you may not consider to be very flattering. Just remember: everything you put into cyberspace stays there, so make sure it’s something you want people looking at 10 years from now, before you do it. It will be there online, easily accessible to all, long after you are dead and gone. My wife tells me not to talk to people about my personal life, which is good advice. It’s even better advice, in this virtual world, not to post something personal about yourself on the Internet, no matter where you post it or whom you intend to see it. It is a little slice of your privacy that you may be giving up forever. Because rumors can be posted on the Internet and published to millions instantaneously, they have more powerful effects than in the past, where they were spread from mouth to mouth. Rumors of stock splits, acquisitions, and the like have caused great swings in the stock prices of huge international companies. When Steve Jobs was alive, false news that he had suffered from a heart attack sent Apple stock down $10 per share. Zynga stock rose 10% in 2013 on rumors of a possible Yahoo buyout. Nobody checks the accuracy of anything on the Internet.
Even Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, while often is a wonderful place to start research, has user-generated content. It can be contributed by anyone, as long as you follow their guidelines. Wikipedia is probably a bad example, because at least it has some degree of respectability as far as accuracy goes. But 90% of what is on the Internet is absolutely unverified and, therefore, unreliable. Anybody can post to a free Blogger or WordPress blog anything they want. And because the matter appears in printed form, it is automatically given a degree of respectability.
One of the most fascinating books I ever read was The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer. (Yes, I bought it, I had to read more!) In The Believing Brain, Shermer explains how the brain forms beliefs and then will seek out seemingly-random patterns to reinforce that belief. The same is true of what people will read about you on the Internet. The old saying “Throw enough shit on the wall and it will stick” is the principle behind these online beliefs. Simply put, if they see it in print enough times, they will believe it is true. That’s quite frightening when statistics show that people doing an Internet search will seldom go beyond the first page of search results. If the first impression that someone gets of you is what they read on the Internet, that bias is not likely to change after they meet you in person. That is why it is important to take control over what people are seeing on the first page of Google. Since the best way to advertise a product or service is word of mouth, and today’s word of mouth has metamorphosed to cyber word of mouth, it makes sense that whatever is being said about you, your business, or your product on the Internet can have a huge impact on your business or job prospects.
It may sound ridiculous, but in the online world you have no right to your name - unless, of course, you buy it. It reminds me of an old case I learned in law school called Sullivan v. Sullivan. In the early days of television, Ed Sullivan had the most popular variety show on TV. I don’t know why. He talked funny, in a nasal tone (“It’s a really big shoe tonight”). But if you were anybody (or wanted to be anybody), your agent had to book you on his show. There was a local television store owned by a man whose name was also Ed Sullivan, and he used his name as the name of the store. He was sued by Ed Sullivan the TV show host and won, because the court held that Sullivan had the equivalent of a brand of the name “Ed Sullivan.” As a result, the “nobody” Ed Sullivan lost the right to use his own name in business. The same is true of the Internet, but in a different way. Google doesn’t care (the company – not the algorithm – because it doesn’t care about anything) if someone else takes out a Blogger account named after you, or even uses your name. In my opinion, if that is not identity theft, I would like to know what is; but Google is immune and will do nothing unless you can prove copyright infringement. It’s impossible for you to prove copyright infringement of your own name. Likewise, anyone can buy the Internet domain rights to your name. It may be the most valuable thing you have; but unless you buy it yourself, you don’t own it. Mr. Cyber-bully is probably busy not just trying to smear your good name, but he has a full schedule of others to bully as well, so he probably won’t shell out the $20 or $30 that it will take to secure your name - but you should. Secure as many domain names in as many variations of your name as you can. If your name is John Smith, get Johnsmith.com, johnsmith.net, and johnsmith.org. Buy domains with variations of your name using your middle name and initial and your nicknames. When you’re finished getting as many as you can with different combinations of your name, start using dashes in between your first and last name and middle initial. For example, get the name, John-smith.com and John-J-Smith.com. Go to a domain registration site that is inexpensive, like www.godaddy.com or www.1and1.com, on which you can also purchase user-friendly packages that can help you design and put your own website online with no extra cost. The two blog sites which offer free blogs with the most Internet “power” are http://wordpress.com and http://blogger.com (which is also blogspot.com.) Make sure you get every variation of your name in both of those free blogs. Deleting yourself from databases is a good idea for anyone to do. After all, if you want someone to find you or know something about you, you can tell them yourself, right? You can opt out of the information bases of “people search” sites such as https://pipl.com in the same manner as you did with the directories – just start at their privacy policy button and keep clicking through until you get to their opt-out procedure. Make sure you opt out of every such site, including: www.123people.com (look in “privacy policy” and “remove information”), http://wink.com, www.spokeo.com, http://zoominfo.com, www.intelius.com, www.llifehacker.com, Yahoo People Search: http://search.yahoo.com//people/email.html, www.ussearch.com, www.acxiom.com, www.zabsearch.com, and www.peoplefinder.com. For some removals, you will have to be very specific. Research the site ahead of time and note the identifying information, such as city and state. This will be useful when you go to remove your personal information. It is very time consuming, so take the time it takes to do a thorough removal job. Google will remove social security numbers, credit card numbers, and images of your signature from its search database. To request removal of this information use this link: https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061. If your cyber-bully has abandoned his smear site, or you have succeeded in getting the webmaster of the site to agree to remove it, use this link to remove the cached page from Google’s search results: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals?pli=1. You should try this for any information appearing about you on the web. Google will also investigate malware, phishing (trying to obtain your personal information under false pretenses), sites engaging in “suspicious behavior” (whatever that is), inaccurate information, your name on adult content sites, a page violating your copyright or trademark rights, or other legal issues. To start this process, click here: https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?rd=1#ts=1115655.
Everything that is on the Internet that you can’t get removed by the foregoing methods will most likely always remain on the Internet – forever. When I was in the Scouts, we used to love to go to summer camp. At summer camp, we would sing songs and learn useful crafts (like how to survive in the woods if you get lost) and all kinds of other “cool stuff.” One of the things that I learned that has application to this subject is about the camp latrine. In the camp latrine there was a tool that is just about as useful as the Google Removal Tool. That tool was a stick. If the latrine got “clogged up,” we just used that stick to push “all the other shit down.” The same concept applies to Google searches. In online reputation management, the object is to put positive information about yourself on the Internet that will rate with the search engines, like Google, which will have the effect of pushing the negative information down. Since most people don’t go beyond the first page of search results of Google, and almost nobody goes past the third page, this sounds like a fairly simple task, right? Wrong! Remember back when I told you that Google puts the “most popular” results on Page One of its search page, and that the most scandalous will always be the most popular? Your positive information has to be compelling and constantly updated, because Google also rates information by its age (unless, of course, it’s scandalous enough). You can subscribe to all kinds of professional sites that will do this for you, at a very high cost. What they will do is create a generic bio about you to post as a profile on one web site (in your own name) and various profile websites on the Internet, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and many others, and link those sites to other sites so that Google will find the information to be important enough to feature on its web search results. Or, you can go to http://brandyourself.com, and for a small annual fee, they will guide you through what sites you need to have a presence on, help you create an online profile, link that profile to dozens of web sites for full exposure, and analyze an unlimited amount of links that you choose to submit. Brand Yourself will prompt you on how to “boost” your links to have them rate higher in search engine results, and will monitor and send you emails on what links are in the top ten of your Google search page. Brand Yourself is the stick in the latrine, and I highly recommend it. You can also put news services and trivia into your personal sites in order to give them more content. Make sure that they each contain information that is a little different, or you will simply be ignored by Google and the other search robots as potential “spam.” Being active on social media sites, such as Twitter, will move your Twitter profile to the top of the Google search results. If you go with Brandyourself.com, their system will prompt you to create social media sites, but unless you use them and supply them with fresh content, they will not do you any good; so be active on the social network sites to increase your positive online presence.
Blogging is a great way to build positive search results on the Internet. I have found that a blog at http://wordpress.com is picked up relatively quickly by the Google search engine. It is easy to create a blog, and if you can’t think of anything to write on it, you can scan interesting news stories and repost them to your WordPress blog. Whenever you post, enter your tags and categories on your post and be sure to include all variations of your name. If you like to write, you can also build positive results by writing opinion columns or stories in places such as www.ezinearticles.com. (I used to write for Ezine, but stopped when I routinely started to use vids, pic, etc., so check out their regulations these days... New Blogger.com, which I use, is now greatly improved and easy to use!) But if you really have something interesting to say, I have found that the website of www.opednews.com is treated very well by Google, as everything you post there comes out as news. If you become an author at Op-Ed News, you can also create a profile that receives pretty good treatment by Google.
~~~
Thank you so much, Kenneth G. Eades, for permission to share this important legal news...more scary than I realized!!! Also scary are the following vids, which I decided to include. They are all pretty heavy or slightly off the subject, but which came up in my routine search on YouTube for Sticks and Stones. But suicide, especially, is mentioned in this article, and we all know that teenage suicides have increased in recent years... YOU need to know what is out there where your children can find them... these are just a few and i'm sure there are many more! Note that there are good and bad selections offered...to give you "the flavor" of options...
I did not realize just how much can be DONE ONLINE in the name of Free Speech... But we all need to be concerned...and learn how to ensure your name and reputation is protected, although I admit that I probably won't do what all Kenneth has offered as options for us to consider. At my age, well, time is precious, so I do what is best for each time I'm on line... I agree with Ken, if I've had a bad day and started rambling...then i do go on to try to be all that I can be in meeting some basic moral regulations of conduct, especially just plain common sense...and courtesy!
