Welcome to BOOK READERS HEAVEN! Books, Reviews, Short Stories, Authors, Publicity, a little poetry, music to complement...and other stuff including politics, about life... "Books, Cats: Life is Sweet..."
The Beginning... The crowd wasn’t quite sure what to think. Donald Trump, the unlikeliest major party presidential nominee in more than a century, had drawn several thousand people to the Greater Columbus Convention Center. They laughed at his jokes, they chanted “Lock Her Up!” about Hillary Clinton, they seemed to think Mexico might pay for a border wall. They did not expect to hear that the most basic and vital element of American democracy was a sham. After suggesting that the process might be rigged, Trump declared that he had been hearing “more and more” that the election might not be contested fairly, though before elaborating further, he changed the subject to a tangent about one of his first real estate deals, in (somewhat) nearby Cincinnati. He made his incendiary accusation after suggesting that the Democrats had fixed their primary system so Clinton could defeat Bernie Sanders, making some wild link to a batch of hacked emails from the national party that appeared to indicate a preference for the former secretary of state.
But emails aside, Clinton had received 3.7 million more votes than Sanders nationwide and had established a clear lead in delegates months before her party’s convention, which had concluded just days earlier in Philadelphia. This followed Trump’s own evidence-less claim that the Republican nomination would have been stolen from him had he not won by significant margins. Part of his pitch was that he was an outsider, someone who was not from Washington and not beholden to its traditions and informal and formal rules. He wielded that status as a weapon, and at times made it appear that he was running in opposition to the Republican Party as much as representing it...
He accused the GOP of plotting against him, with claims that the system was fixed against him becoming frequent catchphrases during low-water marks of his primary campaign, months earlier, first when he lost Iowa and then when forces allied with Republican rival Ted Cruz managed to pack state delegations with supporters of the Texas senator. He claimed that the whole thing was “rigged” and also asserted that the Republican Party had changed the delegate allocation in the Florida primary to favor a native candidate, like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, at Trump’s expense.
The celebrity businessman had long been known to dabble in conspiracy theories, including jump-starting his political career by falsely claiming that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and then, incredibly, that Cruz’s father was hanging out with President John F. Kennedy’s assassin (he was not). But this was the first time Trump had asserted that November’s general election might not be on the up-and-up. And it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, a stray thought that crossed his lips, never to be uttered again. Those happened plenty. But veteran Trump watchers knew from hundreds of campaign rallies that if one of his sentiments played well with the crowd—the candidate, truly skilled in reading a room, liked to test material on the audience, like a comic workshopping a joke—it could then become part of his nightly routine. And truly, his campaign was, at its heart, just one rally to the next: outside of a few core tenets (the nation’s trade deals were bad, its immigration system worse), there was very little in the way of political philosophy to Trump. The core goal was simply to seize attention, to get the crowd to cheer, to spawn a cable news chyron, to dominate Twitter, to own the libs.
And Trump stuck to this idea, repeating the charge that night on Fox News channel’s Hannity: “I’m telling you, November eighth, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us. “I’ve been hearing about it for a long time,” Trump continued. “And I just hope that there’s really—I hope the Republicans get out there and watch very closely because I think we are going to win this election.” The host did not push back. They rarely did. Trump’s lies did not remain confined to the rally stage. They needed life; they needed amplification. He did some of that himself, via his Twitter account, which was in the early stages of a five-year reign as the most potent political weapon on the planet, one that would rattle global capitals, leave political foes cowering in fear, and, at times, weigh in on pressing matters like the quality of Diet Coke. But he needed accomplices, he needed coconspirators, he needed a way to reach those who did not live their lives 140 characters at a time. He needed cable news. Every network was guilty of giving Trump too much time, including those without conservative leanings. He was a welcome guest on panel shows, even if conversations got contentious, and his rallies received wall-to-wall coverage, far more than any other Republican candidate.
His rivals cried out that it was unfair, but the networks didn’t care. Trump was compelling TV; people couldn’t look away. Trump was ratings gold. But it was conservative media, and Fox News in particular, with which Trump eventually formed a symbiotic relationship. It’s true that Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation, which ran Fox News, was at first deeply skeptical of Trump. But the programming didn’t reflect that. In Fox, Trump had a huge platform: the number one cable channel in the country, and one on which he was never challenged. One that gave him free media and, often enough, regurgitated his lies. Fox News became a wing of the Trump campaign. The celebrity maybe-billionaire called in at will to its morning show Fox & Friends and then later did the same with his prime-time pal Sean Hannity. As Trump took power, stations launched and rebranded themselves, catering to those for whom Fox News just wasn’t conservative enough. Newsmax and One America News Network (OAN) each grabbed a foothold with those on the Right and showed a willingness to parrot Trump’s lies.
And he lied a lot. He lied about his wealth. He lied about his sex life. He lied about how many times he was on the cover of Time magazine, hanging a fake on the walls of his New Jersey and Florida golf courses. He repeatedly claimed things that did not happen. He said Obama was born in Kenya, then falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton’s campaign team had started the “birther” movement that questioned Obama’s origins. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrate the collapse of the World Trade Center after the attacks on September 11, 2001. He said Russian president Vladimir Putin called him a “genius” when in fact Putin called him something like “colorful” or “bright.” He lived in his own world and created his own reality. He refused to accept hard truths. He appeared to think that if he just said things over and over, he could will them into reality—and persuade his followers to believe them. At times, it was hard to know whether he knew he was lying or if he had somehow convinced himself of the alternate, and incorrect, reality.
Steve Bannon, the conservative provocateur who ran Breitbart News, took over the Trump campaign for its 2016 stretch run and then spent a tumultuous seven months inside the White House as the president’s chief strategist. A firebrand whose website would run sensational and at times offensive headlines, who derided the media as the “opposition party” but happily spoke off the record to reporters to help shape their stories, Bannon was not shy about coloring or shading the truth. But even for Bannon, Trump was something new. The chief strategist told me that Trump “was not looking to win a news cycle, he was looking to win a news moment, a news second.” An at-times shell-shocked Bannon would relay to aides that “Trump would say anything, he would lie about anything to win that moment, to win whatever exchange he was having at that moment.”
Entire campaign proposals had to be written on the fly, policy plans reverse engineered, teams of aides immediately mobilized to meet whatever floated through Trump’s head in that moment to defend his record, put down a reporter, or change a chyron on CNN. A hurricane map had to be redrawn after the president made a mistake. A task force was created to fight an imaginary caravan of immigrants that was getting big play on Fox News. A commission was formed to look into whether illegal votes had cost him the popular vote. And so much of it—so, so, so much of it—was to avoid the impression that Trump was wrong. Or, more dangerously, that he was a loser.
~~~
This is the latest political book I've bought, I watched the author on MSNBC on the "Morning Joe" news program. I enjoy the diverse set of hosts on this channel and find I've chosen it as my first choice for news...
I've read just the beginning of this book and it made me want to share the availability for your consideration... Frankly, it bothers me too much if I read about what is happening for too long, so I alternate between non-fiction and fiction these days. I've been tackling some of those that have been on my TBR list that went "waiting" as my health issues took top priority. Or, of course, grabbing anything I see that looks interesting...and getting stalled binging on a series from the beginning... Now that's what I call being truly "retired..." LOL
Right now, I am so thankful for the success of my left hip replacement. I am walking without any support, often, here at home. And am usually able to use just a cane when I'm out and about...
Sooooo, my next priority of major health issues is the potential of eye surgery to remove cataracts from both eyes. What I've done so far is relocate my care to the WVU Hospital, pending surgery. I immediately realized with just the first visit that I again made the right decision. My first appointment lasted about 3 hours! I had never had such an intensive, extensive eye exam...ever! The attendant was wonderful. She and I began to talk a little since we were spending so much time together. Lyndsey trained as a forensic CSI and worked many years until she decided she needed to return to her home area, so was learning a new job! Well, Kudos! to her. I pointed out that her previous scientific experience was obviously allowing her to move quickly into her new career... I also met my potential surgeon and enjoyed our initial interaction. Right now, I'll be going back in 3 months...
Mainly because the hip replacement surgeon has designated no further surgical procedures until he clears me...I'll be seeing him later this month...and hopefully, I'll be able to drive again. My eyes are still good for most activities, but since glaucoma is also in my family, I wanted to keep on top of my eye health... I could always switch to audio for books...but I would hate not being able to work on the computer...and I'm not sure just how well I would do in adjusting to learning how to use as a vision impaired individual... But, we'll see! Keep me in your thoughts and prayers...
Back to The Big Lie. It's getting a lot of coverage on MSNBC. In case you haven't seen any of the PR, here's a few talking about it with the author!
I Am The Way
The Truth
And The Life
John 14:6
Recently I saw an interview related to an issue that is now being targeted by the republican party... One woman said, "I think they are using God... and I cannot support it..." It was good to get at least one republican confirmation of my opinion...
The Truth is never more important than what we are facing here in America. If we cannot believe those officials who represent the republican party right now, and, who, by virtue of attempting to regain power, purely for its sake... Then, we must realize that what they say...is "probably" not true... I say "probably" because more and more I have seen some republicans realize that The Big Lie has taken on a life which is essentially not what they want to be known for. Obviously, the two republicans on the January 6th Committee are ensuring that the lies are being spotlighted and shown to have led to the first-ever attack on our Capitol!
If you are concerned about the continued split of America that is getting worse, rather than better, please take the time and do your own research. Read a book that may help you...like The Big Lie. What harm can it do? Do you really think that NOT facing the truth of another individual will hurt you? Then I have to ask, Why? Why do you feel that way? For surely God gave us Free Will for a reason! He expects us to be diligent to ensure that what America's leaders say is...TRUTH...
And, when Jesus went up into the hills to be tested, he endured... against the offers of power... We need to ensure that those who wish to lead our country are not dealing with things that do not meet the needs of all American citizens... We need to know that not only do they not lie...but they will act on behalf of the country, as opposed to their own desires, or opinions... Truth must be part of that activity... Lying seems to have become a cultural requirement for many republicans. We need to ensure it does not cause our country to go backward in meeting our needs, but go forward to continue to support us... and the good of ALL Americans!
Congratulations to Joe Biden and
Congressional Democrats
They have succeeded, in one week, accomplishing
more than the former president in his entire administration!
Although the entire program as proposed as he ran for president has not been achieved, you need to
realize
that it is only because the republican party
has strived to stop anything that Biden had run on!
When there is no hope for both parties to work together
as Joe Biden hoped to have
There is only one option...
Vote the present republican congress OUT
AND VOTE DEMOCRATIC TO KEEP NEW ONES OUT!
and allow America to Build Back Better
Moving Forward on all things to support
ALL AMERICANS!
In a major way, I resent that I'm using this blog to speak out
But I truly believe that it is up to every American to work to ensure that the basic needs that Biden sought to give us
are ultimately achieved.
I support Joe Biden in all Ways
I think it is appalling that republicans use pictures of moments of distress or concern to imply that Biden is not capably doing his job!
How I wish that Freedom of Speech did NOT allow Corrupt Publicity to be Used - In my Mind it is Slander
"A few hours ago, we intercepted a signal on the 1420.4 megahertz radio frequency. At first glance, it was of no acoustic interest. All the facts are on your tablets. The server immediately started a recording. There are long and short beeps that resemble binary language. As it stands," Preston mechanically raised his wrist "it's just a string of 1s and 0s. We didn't notice any significant sequence to it."
"Forgive me for interrupting you, Commander Preston," Henry Verdier called out, glancing at his tablet where the binary suite stretched. At the other end of the table, Ilyana displayed a strained smile. This intervention did not surprise her. "This signal... How did you spot it, exactly? Was there a frequency sweep?"
Preston was about to answer. However, Ilyana made him understand she was going to take over. "No, there was no sweep. You are aware certain frequencies are constantly monitored by the on-board computer, starting automatic recordings as soon as it detects something. In this case, the frequency corresponds to the wavelength of hydrogen's radiation," she explained to President Verdier. "This gas is the most common element in the universe. We presume that if an advanced civilization wanted, like us, to contact another intelligent lifeform, it would use this frequency as a reference."
Lips pursed, Verdier assessed the woman with his brown eyes which contrasted with the white of his crew cut. He knew all about it. Everyone knew that. Yet, it surprised no one that nothing ever came of their attempts at communication. "Indeed," he finally conceded.
"Now that this point is clarified, I will resume our presentation," Ilyana Ferguson said. "Four hours and thirty-two minutes after the signal came in, the radio broadcast was interrupted. The source was located at around fifty-six astronomical units, close to the orbital planes of the planets that we have spotted in the solar system. Commander Kellerman thinks the loss of the signal might be explained if it was sent from a planet that has moved behind its star. This, of course, does not exclude a transmission of natural origin."
Henry Verdier listened without flinching. He didn't look away from Ilyana Ferguson. She breathed in before resuming. "In the light of our past experiences, it is highly likely that the study of the recording we made will amount to nothing. But we have to check. In the absence of other elements, I gave the order, a few minutes ago, to steer the New Continent to the coordinates this transmission came from."
"How long will it take to arrive at our destination?" Verdier asked.
"A little over twenty-two cycles," navigator Judith Kellerman replied. Day and night did not exist in the darkness of space. There was no external marker to measure the passing of time. Only hours were left to measure what a day was, its twenty-four hours adding up to a cycle.
"Captain Ferguson," the President of the Council kept on. "When we decided a year ago, to enter into the deceleration stage, were you aware of the existence of this signal?"
"No. As Commander Preston said, we only started receiving it a few hours ago. This region is saturated with radio waves from surrounding stars. They cover a wide range of frequency bands which can interfere with other less important transmissions." "And within these few hours, you changed course without notifying the Council?"
"I'm not obligated to do so. You have now been informed." Ilyana had never lacked vigor, but Verdier had known her to be less sassy. The man rubbed his forehead with his fingertips before answering. "You've presented me with a fait accompli." "We had to explore the planets of this system out of necessity anyway," Doctor Valentin said. "It's been eleven years since we've seen anything interesting. We have exhausted our reserves. The food the factory provides us with is only an alternative. We need to restock with fresh produce as soon as possible."
Ilyana's intercom beeped. A man's hologram appeared, standing in the center of the oval table. Franck Johnson, the XO, seemed to look at her straight in the eye. He addressed her without paying attention to the rest of the assembly. "Captain, the terminals and the servers are reacting strangely on the bridge. We have no visual and nothing on our radar. No alerts either." The audience's eyes turned in unison to the barely translucent hologram.
"When did this begin?" Ferguson inquired. "Just over six minutes ago. We've started a routine diagnostic."
"I'm on my way."
~~~
"You must come back," Sami continued, ignoring Nicolaï. "This man plays at the despot. He is taking control of operations and questions everything you have done. He's freaking me out. He scares all of us on the bridge!" Silence fell sharply.
"Sami, you said what you had to say," the old man wanted to conclude. "Trust your Captain and let's leave her alone." The young liaison sought to catch Ferguson's gaze. Nicolaï led him to the exit. Sami let himself be guided without putting up any resistance, puzzled. Ferguson had betrayed his trust.
"How long before the engine is operational?" she simply asked. The question suddenly awoke the Lieutenant's interest. He freed himself from Nicolaï's grip. "Eighty minutes. No less!" That Verdier did everything to get the consent of public opinion hardly surprised her. If Johnson did not obey him blindly, he would feel pressured by the demands of the passengers alarmed by the events anyway.
Ilyana knew that the President would not hesitate to make human sacrifices in order to maintain the terror necessary to achieve his goals. She also knew that if Verdier hit a wall too fast, he would panic. He lacked the perspective necessary to think of getting around it. The President would lose his means as soon as the situation escaped him. Just like during their last game, she'd remembered, when fixing the holographic chess board on the coffee table. Once the New Continent is engaged in a new battle, the chances of escaping unscathed would fly away at the rate of the crossfire. She feared that Verdier would lose control. And if it occurred to him to flee before the reactor reached its standby temperature, he would snatch any hope of survival from the passengers.
"Nicolaï, I need to speak to Lieutenant Campbell," she finally said.
"I already failed in my principles by having the doors opened for Sami. You know my position Ilyana. I do not take sides."
"Now is the time to take sides, Nicolaï! I'm not asking you to choose between me or the President. You know most of the people on this ship. They were your children. Their own children are your students today. I'm asking you to think of them."
"Then you must find another way. I don't think the Lieutenant will speak to you. The Vice President's death shocked more than one and you know Franz Campbell doesn't really like you."
"Only he can understand that Verdier is wrong. If I can at least make him doubt, he will help me."
"Help us," Sami corrected for Nicolaï.
The old man with the white beard nodded almost too easily, which Ilyana noted with amazement. Something was disturbing Nicolaï. "I promise you nothing, Ilyana," he conceded after a moment.
"Thank you." Sami followed Father Nicolaï's step toward the exit.
~~~
I must admit that I was a little bit intimidated as I began to read the New Continent by Michael Millasseau. I was once a Trekkie as they called fans when all of the Star Trek shows were in
movie theaters and on television. Soon, I realized that it was a lot easier to watch this type of movie rather than read the book! You know, on television, you'd see the individual locations within the Starship, see the captain and his first-line officers sitting side by side and then see the communication officer, Lt. Uhura, played by Nichelle Nichols, as she connects to "Earth" or wherever they needed to reach.
(As an aside, I wanted to include recognition of our loss of Nichelle Nichols, who broke barriers for Black women in Hollywood as communications officer Lt. Uhura on the original “Star Trek” television series. She died on July 30th at the age of 89. She was certainly a woman and role model we all recognized as having "made it" during those years! She will be missed by Star Trek fans...)
Then we'd watch going into engineering and to other areas of the Star Trek, even in that magic area where those on the Enterprise would be able to create an imaginary scene of our own making or travel into past histories where we could pretend to live in those times... I loved it and decided I was really living in the wrong period of time! Especially, having a cup of tea, or whatever, magically appear on the push of a button! Sooo cool!
New Continent is the actual name of the ship where almost all of the book is set... To capture what was happening, a lot of technical terms related to the ship were used... many I had no idea what was meant... and I became hesitant... But, I was very happy to have the book in ebook format, so that I could look up the words in the Kindle dictionary, so that I knew exactly what was happening. Once I got acclimated to reading about the ship and its "parts," I began to feel more comfortable. After all, most books are character driven and it wasn't hard to get into the "political environment" even if New Continent was flying through space!
I agree with the author, this story is quite unique--different from the usual sci fi thriller... For one, it is also a mystery! A whodunit that keeps readers wondering just who killed the vice-president!
In this book, the president and vice-president are part of the council representing all passengers on the ship. New Continent has been moving from one planet to another, trying to find a home. They have been traveling for over 700 years! It is not totally known just why leaving earth had been required those many years ago. But all individuals on New Continent were aware that all other ships had been lost for one reason or another. New Continent housed the last citizens of the planet called Earth!
One of the intriguing aspects of the book is that it is conducted as if an ongoing investigation is taking place. Indeed the first chapter immediately sets the stage... It is a message coming in from outer space... in binary code... But who is sending it, and where is it coming from?! Of course, I had no desire to try to decode--I was always more interested in the outcome of what a computer can produce--even with the author giving us the challenge at the end to determine what was being sent through the airwaves... LOL
Both the Starship Captain as well as the President seem a paradox and what you would not expect for individuals in these two positions. The Captain primary goes "by the gut," even though she is the daughter of the former Captain... While, for me, I found the President too much like our US former president to have too much sympathy for him. On the whole, however, I felt that both represented the personality actions that would be appropriate within what we might call a disaster flick! For surely, after 700 years of domestic calm, as much as possible, for living in and on a starship, I don't think we should be surprised that these two major characters just might have gotten a little complacent... Myself, of course, I'd be sticking with following the female Starship Captain since she had the experience of running the ship which the President would not have been qualified to do (sound familiar? LOL).
It soon became possible--just possible--that they had finally reached Planet Earth. The Captain put together the first team to visit the planet, to determine whether, and just how much, of a danger it would be to stay on the planet... But, nobody could have planned on what, and who, they encountered!
With no information why it had been decided so long ago to leave Earth, it was not surprising to those few who first landed on what was, essentially, a dead planet. Buildings were slowly falling down, absolutely no plant life could be seen. But one building was in fairly good shape and upon entering, the team discovered that it was, a museum--so fascinating that those in the building had to be pulled out from their wandering exploration, so that they could proceed with their mission. Stop to imagine just what a museum could hold, items that had never been seen by the earth citizens who had been living only on a starship for 700 years! The thoughts and emotional response to all that the world offered in the past must have been truly mind-blowing!
Except in the distance, a number of high-rise buildings seemed to be in better shape. How were these newer buildings created? Soon, portions of the signal coming through space began to be decoded... Whoever created the message spoke of the monsters who had taken over earth, destroying so much that there was no option but to leave...
So I was getting quite involved, when the President had the Ship's Captain arrested and removed the authority of her office! Could this actually be permitted?! No matter...it was happening!
Battles soon started...Attacks are made on those individuals who have landed but attacks on New Continent also began. Could New continent make it through these attacks? Would anybody survive?! And could the President actually deal with the catastrophic events that were destroying New Continent...piece by piece...?
The Environment - One Day This Won't be Science Fiction!
I would love to see this book made into a movie! It is one way to illustrate how we could be forced to leave Planet Earth! The message is so important! We who are living here now, must learn of what monsters had taken over the planet and work to eliminate them!
As explained by the author, his purpose, his goal for his book was to point out exactly what could happen to our home planet...And then also points out that, though many other planets had been explored, there were none that could meet the needs of the human race.
The writing is excellent and the story, with several plots moves forward for readers, so much so that it becomes a page-turner after a certain point... The story is exhilarating in responding to its primary goal... Simply, AWESOME!
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!
A sub-plot in Unreasonable Force by Kenneth Eade relates to trying to stop the slanderous accusations brought against main character, Brent Marks, by those people, online, who write anonymously to denigrate the professional work of this lawyer. Marks had been attempting to get these removed, even to attempt to sue the online site. He lost...
In the following book, Murder.Com, we find the book beginning with stories about how Brent had been bullied in school. And it seemed that, even after becoming a lawyer and establishing a practice, those who bully, especially ones that do so without having the "guts" to sign their own name, were still winning. Not only did he not win the defamation online case, he was forced to pay all fees--$50,000!!! A sum of money that Marks didn't have!
Matthew Kronenberg (affectionately referred to as “Kronendork” by many attorneys who appeared in his courtroom) had a Napoleon complex, which was typical among many federal judges. Appointed for life by President George W. Bush through the recommendation of the local Congressman, he, like his brethren, marched his short frame up the stairs and roosted high above the court on his bench every day, passing judgments on strangers he had never met. Judge Kronenberg had made his mind up today to kill Brent Marks’s libel case and there was nothing that was going to change it, although he did express that his decision was a “tentative ruling” and he invited Brent, whom the tentative decision was against, to exhaust any arguments he had before lowering the boom. The judge had a permanent grimace, as if he were constantly plagued by constipation. As Brent’s mother always used to say about people like that: “If he smiled, his face would crack.”
The case was all about defamation on the Internet – and it was all directed against Brent. It wasn’t the first time he had faced down a pack of bullies, but it was easier before in a way because they couldn’t hide behind an anonymous wall like the Internet. Through much of his adolescence Brent had faced them down, so much so that his father had to change the family name from Marquez to Marks. Bullies select a trait or traits that are unique to you to exploit. In this case, it was Brent’s surname. His father, Jose Marquez, had emigrated from Spain before he met Brent’s mother. When Brent was born, Jose had never anticipated the future problems that his name would cause his son. The bullies concentrated on the name, calling Brent a Mexican, and Brent always wondered why that would be such a bad thing. He could have passed for Mexican himself, with his dark brown hair. His hazel eyes often looked brown, but he was much taller than most Mexicans. He was fluent in Spanish, which had helped him in the old days when many of his clients in Santa Barbara happened to be Mexican.
Brent faced the judge at the podium. He was dressed to impress in his best two-piece grey suit with a cobalt blue shirt and button-down collar, but that was not going to protect him from the storm that was about to hail down on him. Never back down. Great mantra, he thought as he stood facing judgment from the man who was about to turn him from the plaintiff into a defendant. “Your Honor, for this motion to dismiss to succeed, the defendant has to prove that the statement in issue was protected speech. That is impossible, because this speech is, per se, defamatory, and defamatory speech is not protected free speech under the Constitution. Secondly, he has to prove that the speech related to a matter of public interest. “The defamatory statements were all about me, Your Honor. I’m not a movie star, a president, or Congressman; or even a Federal judge like you. I'm just a regular person who doesn’t take kindly to my reputation being dragged through the mud by a mob of Internet cyber-stalkers. Therefore, I am not a person in the public interest, and this case cannot, by definition, be a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The defendants in this case are trying to seek immunity from liability for defamation, which is an improper use of the SLAPP statute under the Hilton case.”
Brent’s opposition, Geoffrey Kelley of Noble, Saperstein and Kelley was so anxious to speak, he looked as if he would pop out of his three-piece suit like a brand new tube of toothpaste that had been squeezed too hard. He kept biting his lip and wiggling in his seat, eager for his turn to spout. But Brent was determined to use his ten minutes of allotted argument time. If the motion to dismiss his defamation case was granted, there would be two consequences. He would have to pay a hell of a lot of fees, and there would be more libelous postings against him on the Internet; this time with impunity. It would be a libelous free-for-all; an opportunity to throw sticks and stones, and call Brent any names they wished, as well as accuse him of any vile, illegal or immoral conduct they could think of.
“Further, Your Honor, your tentative ruling states that the anonymous postings that accuse me of stealing money and running scams are non-actionable opinions. These are not opinions. They are accusations of a crime, and that is libel perse, which implies malice, and this is a question for the jury. It cannot be resolved by this motion.” Brent would have liked to have given his opinion of Kronendork, but that would only have earned him a one-way ticket to jail on a contempt of court citation.
“Mr. Marks, you sued the website in this case. How is the service provider not immune from the posters’ statements under the Communications Decency Act?” asked the judge. Communications Decency. What a name for a law that allows people to smear other people anonymously on the Internet, thought Brent. There was nothing “decent” about these communications. Kronendork already knew his answer to that question. Brent’s was irrelevant to him.
“Your Honor, I sued the website because they are not just acting as a service provider, giving their users a forum to post their defamatory statements, but because they also moderate and contribute their own material to the conversations, making them a content provider as well; so they have no immunity under the Communications Decency Act, according to the Kruska case that I’ve cited in my brief. “Moreover, without the defendant's website in this case, I’ll never know who the libelous posters are. This is a smear site that caters to cyber-stalkers, Your Honor, who are nothing more than grown-up bullies. They shouldn’t be allowed to publish my address, pictures of my house, and my unlisted home telephone number. That is a violation of my right to privacy.” Brent was going down in flames. The slimy cyber-mob was probably enlisting new members and readying another onslaught of slander and libel against him. 'Brent was a crook and a shyster, and should be disbarred': all these were statements of opinion, protected by the First Amendment. “Mr. Marks, your time is up.
The Court will now hear from Mr. Kelley.” Judges speak never of themselves in the first person; always the third person, like the Queen of England. Kelley stood up and almost stumbled over his shoelaces. He was so excited, he nearly bumped into Brent on his way to the lectern. Brent resisted the urge to “accidently” put out a foot to trip him. His gut lopped over his belt and some fat skin showed through where his button had popped open. “Thank you, Your Honor. The defendant has made a sufficient showing that the statements made were Constitutionally-protected opinion and that, since they concerned matters about Mr. Marks, who is a licensed California lawyer, these are matters which the public may be interested in. Therefore, under the Nygard v. Uusi-Kerttula case the statements are in the public interest. “Since we have proven that the statements are Constitutionally-protected speech and in the public interest, the burden now shifts to Mr. Marks to demonstrate that he has a probability of succeeding in his claim. This is something he has not, and cannot, show. No shit. I haven’t even had the chance to do any discovery yet. “Finally, Your Honor, the Communications Decency Act gives immunity to service providers who merely publish user-generated content, like my client. Mr. Marks is free to sue the third party users who generated the content, but not the interactive computer service which enabled them to put it online.” Yeah, all I have to do is sue 007, Shyster Crusher, and Attack Dog, who are all hiding behind your client’s skirt, Gee-offrey. “The Court will adopt the tentative in this case and grant the motion to dismiss,” said the judge.
“The case is dismissed and Mr. Marks, you are ordered to pay $50,000 in defendant’s attorney’s fees.” Okay. Let me just run to the car and get my checkbook. Or do you take American Express? It was official now. Brent Marks, once a private citizen who happened to be a lawyer, was now a public figure with no right to privacy. Anyone from now on could say anything about him, whether it was true or not, and there was nothing he could do about it. Instead of shaking his hand like a good sport, after the judge left the bench, Kelley smiled at Brent with a big mouth of jagged teeth and said, “See you in the malicious prosecution case, Marks.” Venus flytrap. The spark had gone out of Brent’s sometimes-green, sometimes-brown hazel eyes. Brent Marks, once the defender of lost causes and a champion of civil rights, and now officially a crook, a shyster, and a scammer, crawled out of the courtroom a defeated man.
Got to say, I love a man who loves cats, even when they have one that is a look-alike for the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland.
And since she is both demanding of attention especially at meal times, but also an affectionate cat that cheers him up, I just had to recognize Calico as a primary addition to the list of characters in this series!
So Brent, feeling defeated, when he found that his name and reputation could...and probably would...continue to be disparaged by any and all those who use anonymity to be the bullies that they are...plus now owing $50,000 for court fees, he was wondering just what to do... especially since Angela, his love interest, had turned away from him, admittedly with good reason... So, that was solved by Brent using my favorite flowers, peonies, and a song to seek forgiveness! Cool, right?!
Ironically, Marks gets a new, rich client who has one goal - to gain a perfect credit report. Which, given the things he got himself into, was not an easy task. But it was going well, and the money was coming in routinely for Brent, fortunately.
So, Brent asked his investigator to begin to try to discover the identities of those who were posting libelous statements about his professional work... But then, his client also began to be stalked online! Those same people who taunted Brend was now claiming that his client was a thief...
And shortly thereafter, his client was dead, supposedly a suicide.
And the Internet stalkers began an online celebration of his death!
It was interesting how speaking anonymously gave people the right to be crass; to bare their ugly inner thoughts to everyone without the responsibility of owning up to them. Bekker is dead! LMFAO – Flusher Becker commits suicide – put in your claims now – Truth Seeker.
And as time goes on in the investigation, discoveries of activities from the Dark Web began to pull everything together... Things were happening quickly and suddenly Brent was being accused of...murder!
So Brent Marks, the former defender of lost causes turned public figure with no right to privacy (and soon to be famous murderer) drowned his sorrows on his deck facing the Santa Barbara Harbor with all the available clear liquids from his liquor cabinet. The cool-headed voice of logic became dim and dull and had all but disappeared. In its place, the illogical beast with only the zest for simple pleasures and thoughts that contradicted all logic began to argue with the impaired, logical one. It’s not fair! I didn’t murder Flusher! Fair is irrelevant. This is the law – it has nothing to do with justice.
There has to be a way – there has to! There’s always a way – but not all of them are always legal. Hmmm. Saturday was a blur that managed to clear itself up by the evening, when stone cold reality had set back in. Then, early on Sunday morning, Brent found himself driving north along the coast humming ‘Mrs. Robinson’ to himself. “Dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee dee, doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.”
After passing Buellton, he began singing ‘Do You Know the Way to San Jose’ as he kept barreling northward, driven by an unknown force inside him that refused to accept that he was a week away from being convicted of a murder he had nothing to do with. Do you know the way to San Jose? I’ve been away so long, I may go wrong and lose my way…
I've told you that Eade is my favorite legal beagle...so of course, I recommend you read this one...learning more about the dark web than maybe you wanted to, sorry to say... But all is happy with Brent at the end...at least until his next case!
AFTERWORD This is a fictional story but, as with all my stories, it is based on solid research about real-life issues. If you care to read on. The Internet has outgrown the common law of defamation, and new regulations to protect the Internet, free speech and the freedom to speak anonymously have been abused by cyber-bullies and cyber-stalkers, who have used this new medium to dispense their bullying in a greater distribution among more people. I thought it may be interesting to examine the possibility of an Internet bully or cyber mob hiring a hit man anonymously through the Internet. I thought that this would be a unique idea, but, upon delving into the macabre world of the Dark Net, I realized that it was not. Most of the sites I found while searching for murder-for-hire” were probably scams or were set up by law enforcement to catch would-be conspirators, but the concept is definitely not an original one.
See more with Kenneth G. Eade as Guest Blogger, Next!
