1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big trouble for anonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by John D. Villarreal, Jun 16, 2007.


What should happen to the defendants in this case if found guilty?

  1. unmask the liars & make them pay $!

    1 vote(s)
  2. Pay $ only but keep boards anonymous

    1 vote(s)
  3. Kick them off the boards & public retraction

    2 vote(s)
  4. Too bad for the plaintiff the Internet is the "Wild West"

    2 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    I knew it would eventually come to this. I hope they unmask & throw the book at these clowns.

    What these Internet thugs did to these two women, their reputations, and their careers is unconscionable.

    If this ruling goes the right way (which I expect it will) many Internet liars, thugs, stalkers, and clowns will have to watch themselves more closely? How many of these losers think they can just throw out lie after lie and slander/libel after slander/libel with no consequence?

    There are so many of these lowlifes that fancy themselves as "Internet masters/bullies" who set up fake account after fake account, use every underhanded trick in the book, and spend all day online in their fantasy world trashing & bullying people while trying to win favor from their kook fringe. They dominate/ruin boards to the detriment of good/normal posters/readers.

    These bullies/liars/haters try to rally others to their cause taking such glee in "jacking threads", making up lies, and in general throwing as much mud and filth as possible at good/smart/decent/popular posters. Basically stoking a lynch mob mentality for the socially & ethically challenged. When they cross the line into falsely/willfully/recklessly damaging good people's real names & interests they need to pay the price.

    Looks like that bill is about to come due for some & BELIEVE me when this ruling comes down the right way the sites & mods will be changing policies REAL quick!

    Don't get me wrong I am ALL for free speech & vigorous opinion & debate, but that is alltogether different from this kind of anonymous stalker, lying, hater/bullying mentality (not that I would have ever experienced the brunt of any of that ::)).

    Enjoy (I sure did!):


  2. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Re: Big trouble for annonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

    The show button is not my friend.
  3. Bump_Wills

    Bump_Wills Member

    Re: Big trouble for annonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

    Uh, John ...

    It's a civil suit. So your jail scenarios in the poll are, um, irrelevant.

    But you knew that, of course, because you're a lawyer. Right?
  4. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Re: Big trouble for annonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

    JDV, with all due respect, I don't think comparing the criticism you receive here to the scurrilous lies that were posted on the Yale Law School Message Board.
  5. ondeadline

    ondeadline Active Member

    Re: Big trouble for annonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

    This thread will not end well and likely test the new rules
  6. Angola!

    Angola! Guest

    Re: Big trouble for annonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

    Is there big trouble for 'annonymous' posters or 'anonymous' posters? I'm confused.
  7. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Re: Big trouble for annonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

    You are correct.

    I was up too late last night & it is still early PST. Plus I have Nifong on my brain. SOOO happy he got punked!

    Anyway, yes, I will edit the poll now. Although, it is possible that criminal action could follow I would think the appropriate remedy is civil ($).
  8. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    I doubt that.

    Moreover, it is amazing to me how many things around here "won't end well" yet they never end - lol.

    Anyway, what do you think of that article/case & what do you think should happen knowing what we know now?
  9. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    Um, we're sportswriters. We deal with anonymous people attacking us EVERY DAY. Have you ever read a fan message board? Makes this place look like Sesame Street.
  10. IU90

    IU90 Member

    Really, please explain how? What specific criminal statutory provision has been violated? As I understand crim law, doesn't there have to already be a pre-existing criminal code provision making this specific conduct a crime before the act is committed? If there is, I've never heard of it. Even a civil defamation suit might be tough here, but I can't see how criminal prosecution would happen.
  11. Hank_Scorpio

    Hank_Scorpio Active Member

    Is it funny or sad that only one person has voted in this poll?
  12. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    HB, I was making a joke. That being said, I don't mind any level of criticism.

    However, some of the attacks on me (repeated false claims that I (am on steroids, have a small penis, etc., etc. (all demonstrably false)), calls for forming an SJ "posse" to comb my resume to find errors, accusing me of lying about being a member of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, trying to disrupt my business, stalking me on other sites & trash talking me &/or closely monitoring those sites, searching out people to talk dirt about me and come here anonymously to claim that, misrepresentations, lying about "sources" who apparently claimed I was not on stations/shows I was indeed on, calls to form an SJ "posse" to call all of the athletes/their reps that I have worked with to get them (I would imagine) to trash/disclaim me &/or hurt my business/reputation, etc., etc., I could go on and on) have CERTAINLY crossed the line.

    Who knows what damage may have been done to me or was intended, who may have seen those baseless attacks? Luckilly, my reputation, resume, and business contacts/track record/deal flow is strong enough that I have some resistance to such attacks as many have found.

    That being said, I am looking to move forward and hope this case & the new rules on SJ serve as a wakeup call to some to get out of the mud pit and add value to the Internet boards in positive (or at least fair) way. Honestly, I don't hold grudges and am confident in my abilities and the truth to come out. So, I typically don't worry about it. Moreover, no one is perfect & we all need forgiveness (JDV included).

    Thus, while I was also shocked at the article I am not so sure that what they experienced was appreciably worse than me (it may have been). I just think they were at a point in their careers where they were much more vulnerable to that kind of slime/slander as lawfirms have little to go on when hiring 2L's.

    As I have said elsewhere, It is amazing to me that a Yale 2L (top law school) can't get a job in this strong market.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page