Legal mags - forum liability question

So you may or may not have noticed that a (now ex) forum member pissed off some other forum members and got outed. His full name, work address and phone number, and a few personal pictures were all posted in the outing thread. He whined to me and demanded that I remove the offending data or else he would take legal action. Rather than deal with any more bullshit, I deleted the thread.

It appears that he is now drunk with power and demanding that I delete some more stuff that he doesn't like.

Any legal mags want to comment on the question of TGR's liability as a forum host? Here's the claim:

Quote:

---

I have been advised by lawyers that you and TGR CAN become liable for the actions of the members of the board that illegally have posted PRIVATE information on a PUBLIC board. People on the board have used the information to threaten me ... This falls under the state's anti-stalking/harrasment law (18-9-11) and includes communication anonymously via computer. And because this communication is intrastate, it could be a federal issue.

---

I wanna be "advised by lawyers" too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Suit

So you may or may not have noticed that a (now ex) forum member pissed off some other forum members and got outed. His full name, work address and phone number, and a few personal pictures were all posted in the outing thread. He whined to me and demanded that I remove the offending data or else he would take legal action. Rather than deal with any more bullshit, I deleted the thread.

It appears that he is now drunk with power and demanding that I delete some more stuff that he doesn't like.

Any legal mags want to comment on the question of TGR's liability as a forum host? Here's the claim:



I wanna be "advised by lawyers" too.

---

Federal issue? No way. There would need to be a statute passed by Congress for it to be a federal issue. As regarding the harrassment, etc., he is going to have a pretty high threshold to cross because how is he going to prove harm?

You wouldn't have these problems if you hired me as your general counsel.

AS your attorney I suggest some mescaline and a trip to vegas to further discuss this matter appropriately.





























you know, hookers & blow

I want to tell DefJef to fuq off if he is reading this. I'm not a lawyer.

i am not a lawyer, but if the information that was posted was found legitimately via the internet, phone book or other source of public info, it wouldn't be considered "private information" then would it? My guess is that he just considered it private info. Private info would probably be SS#, driver's liscnese #, and credit card info, those things could acutally be used against him. As far at the threats go, that is a whole other ball game, better suited for an actual lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crinkle

i am not a lawyer, but if the information that was posted was found legitimately via the internet, phone book or other source of public info, it wouldn't be considered "private information" then would it? My guess is that he just considered it private info. Private info would probably be SS#, driver's liscnese #, and credit card info, those things could acutally be used against him. As far at the threats go, that is a whole other ball game, better suited for an actual lawyer.

---

You are correct. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy to that which is publicly attainable by using the tools of the internet.

I think the issue, though, is whether the type of harrasment (though warranted) by some of the board members is enough to hold TGR liable.

When Chris registered, he clicked a button with "I have read, and agree to abide by the Teton Gravity Research Forums rules"

In those rules it states " All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Teton Gravity Research Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message."

So, in short, Chris Gethard can go fuck himself.

Is he really going to take legal action after threatening people on the board and copyright infringement?

I'm not a lawyer, I shouldn't be here...

edit: at least somebody knows what's up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

When Chris registered, he clicked a button with "I have read, and agree to abide by the Teton Gravity Research Forums rules"

In those rules it states " All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Teton Gravity Research Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message."

So, in short, Chris Gethard can go fuck himself.

---

Wow...

This is a new low...

I'm surprised DefJef is even capable of breathing without his mommy squeezing his chest. Suing a public forum...now that is pathetic.

The way it works for us in the media is that if the information is available on the internet (like through zabasearch, myspace, etc.) it is NOT private information and is in the public domain. If someone copied/pasted or linked info from a publicly viewable and accessible website it is in fact not "private" and thus no longer the "property" of that person.

Good Luck, Suit. Please know I'm behind you 100%.

The moral of the story is: If you don't want your shit aired in a public forum don't be a dick ON that forum. Anything and everything written/posted/and linked on the internet is fair game unless legally copyrighted. Suck it up, learn your lesson, and go away.

I dealt with this issue a bit regarding my Tremblant site and a hotel operator here that threatened the same legal bs. Trust me you are fine. He is blowing hot air and is looking for a paycheck. The more you bow down to him shows you are accepting some form of liability in the issue. Not good.

You deleted what you should have and that being his personal info. Don't do anything more. I'm sending you a PM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJ.Brk

The more you bow down to him shows you are accepting some form of liability in the issue. Not good.

---

What he said.


And if he requires anymore from you, let him do it in writing.

Suit, I would suggest putting the deleted thread BACK UP, just to assert your alpha dominance regarding this petty matter.




But I'm an idiot, just ask my wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Suit

So you may or may not have noticed that a (now ex) forum member pissed off some other forum members and got outed. His full name, work address and phone number, and a few personal pictures were all posted in the outing thread. He whined to me and demanded that I remove the offending data or else he would take legal action. Rather than deal with any more bullshit, I deleted the thread.

It appears that he is now drunk with power and demanding that I delete some more stuff that he doesn't like.

Any legal mags want to comment on the question of TGR's liability as a forum host? Here's the claim:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Douchenozzle

I have been advised by lawyers that you and TGR CAN become liable for the actions of the members of the board that illegally have posted PRIVATE information on a PUBLIC board. People on the board have used the information to threaten me ... This falls under the state's anti-stalking/harrasment law (18-9-11) and includes communication anonymously via computer. And because this communication is intrastate, it could be a federal issue.

---

I wanna be "advised by lawyers" too.

---

What state's law is he claiming was violated? "18-9-11" = sounds like some state's statute, but it's not Nevada or California. Could be Utah, but dunno.

Find me a state statute citation, I'll look it up.

I wouldn't be too worried. This dud doesn't even know that "intrastate" means within a single state, and thus, not a "federal" issue. Sound like he is just trying to stir the pot.

Spoke to a lawyer, indeed. ....Yeah, right.

here is just some things you can find when googling defjef
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/user/DefJef/comments
http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/i...?showuser=6547
http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/a...hp/t-3824.html
http://www.marketblockbooks.com/nys/...iendID=5580740
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endID=86657223

just some things you can find on the net. Don't know how he can say he has a right to privacy to information that is public when the average person can google his nick and his real name and find out info this way. Tell the douche you will not file suite against him for threatening others safety if he shuts the fuck up and leaves quietly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

What state's law is he claiming was violated? "18-9-11" = sounds like some state's statute, but it's not Nevada or California. Could be Utah, but dunno.

Find me a state statute citation, I'll look it up.

---

I assume Colorado. I heard that maybe he possibly resides there, not that I'm actually saying he does reside there.

Think about the free press your going to get out of this one Suit.

I spoke to a detective today at my organization regarding a very, very, very similar situation - no crime was commited in that case or this one. If you do run into issues let the community know - I bet we could get you quite a paypal legal defense fund going.

Seeds

how did I miss this? What happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey

how did I miss this? What happened?

---

Chris Gethard aka DefJef banged your mom, and posted the pics on myspace, and those same pics ended up here on TGR.

Posting in three historical TGR threads in just a few minutes = priceless :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Chris Gethard aka DefJef banged your mom, and posted the pics on myspace, and those same pics ended up here on TGR.

---

OK. I have my popcorn ready. Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Suit

I assume Colorado. I heard that maybe he possibly resides there, not that I'm actually saying he does reside there.

---

Took a little while to find, considering Douchenozzle failed to cite the correct statute he's threatening TGR with... This is from Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-111:

18-9-111. Harassment - stalking.

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; or

(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; or

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(d) Repealed.

(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene; or

(f) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation; or

(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or

(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

(1.5) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "obscene" means a patently offensive description of ultimate sexual acts or solicitation to commit ultimate sexual acts, whether or not said ultimate sexual acts are normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or excretory functions.

(2) Harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that harassment is a class 1 misdemeanor if the offender commits harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin.

(3) Any act prohibited by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section may be deemed to have occurred or to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call, electronic mail, or other electronic communication was either made or received.

(4) (a) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that stalking is a serious problem in this state and nationwide. Although stalking often involves persons who have had an intimate relationship with one another, it can also involve persons who have little or no past relationship. A stalker will often maintain strong, unshakable, and irrational emotional feelings for his or her victim, and may likewise believe that the victim either returns these feelings of affection or will do so if the stalker is persistent enough. Further, the stalker often maintains this belief, despite a trivial or nonexistent basis for it and despite rejection, lack of reciprocation, efforts to restrict or avoid the stalker, and other facts that conflict with this belief. A stalker may also develop jealousy and animosity for persons who are in relationships with the victim, including family members, employers and co-workers, and friends, perceiving them as obstacles or as threats to the stalker's own "relationship" with the victim. Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim. Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim's personal privacy and autonomy, with an immediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to security and safety of the victim and persons close to the victim, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm. The general assembly hereby recognizes the seriousness posed by stalking and adopts the provisions of this subsection (4) and subsections (5) and (6) of this section with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences.

(b) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, such person knowingly:

(I) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with such threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or

(II) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with such threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or

(III) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this subparagraph (III), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection (4):

(I) Conduct "in connection with" a credible threat means acts which further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat;

(II) "Credible threat" means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person's safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. Such threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear.

(III) "Immediate family" includes the person's spouse and the person's parent, grandparent, sibling, or child; and

(IV) "Repeated" or "repeatedly" means on more than one occasion.

(5) Where a person commits stalking under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section, the following shall apply:

(a) A person commits a class 5 felony for a first offense.

(a.5) For a second or subsequent offense, if such offense occurs within seven years of the date of a prior offense for which such person was convicted, the offender commits a class 4 felony.

(a.7) Stalking is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the modified presumptive sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-401 (10).

(b) If, at the time of the offense, there was a temporary or permanent protection order, injunction, or condition of bond, probation, or parole or any other court order in effect against such person prohibiting the behavior described in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section, such person commits a class 4 felony. In addition, when a violation under subsection (4) of this section is committed in connection with a violation of a court order, including but not limited to any protection order or any order that sets forth the conditions of a bond, any sentence imposed for such violation pursuant to this subsection (5) shall run consecutively and not concurrently with any sentence imposed pursuant to section 18-6-803.5 and with any sentence imposed in a contempt proceeding for violation of the court order. Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall be construed to alter or diminish the inherent authority of the court to enforce its orders through civil or criminal contempt proceedings; however, before a criminal contempt proceeding is heard before the court, notice of the proceedings shall be provided to the district attorney for the district of the court where the proceedings are to be heard and the district attorney for the district of the court where the alleged act of criminal contempt occurred. The district attorney for either district shall be allowed to appear and argue for the imposition of contempt sanctions.

(6) A peace officer shall have a duty to respond as soon as reasonably possible to a report of stalking and to cooperate with the alleged victim in investigating such report.

History
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 469, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-9-111. L. 76: (1)(e) R&RE and (1.5) added, p. 561, §§ 1, 2, effective May 21. L. 81: (1)(e) amended, p. 981, § 6, effective May 13. L. 90: (1)(d) repealed, p. 926, § 11, effective March 27. L. 92: (2) amended and (4) to (6) added, p. 413, § 1, effective July 1. L. 93: (5)(a) amended and (5)(a.5) added, p. 1703, § 1, effective July 1. L. 94: IP(1), (1)(g), and (1)(h) amended, p. 1463, § 3, effective July 1; (4) and (5) amended, p. 2018, § 1, effective July 1; (5)(b) amended, p. 1719, § 14, effective July 1. L. 95: (5) amended, p. 1258, § 26, effective July 1. L. 97: (4)(b)(I) amended, p. 1540, § 4, effective July 1. L. 99: (2), (4), and (5) amended, pp. 795, 792, §§ 4, 1, effective July 1. L. 2000: (1)(e) and (3) amended, p. 693, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2003: (5)(b) amended, p. 1014, § 23, effective July 1. L. 2004: (5)(a.7) added, p. 636, § 11, effective August 4.

Annotations
Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (5) in House Bill 94-1045 and House Bill 94-1126 were harmonized.

Annotations
Cross references: For provisions concerning harassment by debt collectors or collection agencies, see § 12-14-106.

Case law in which this statute was discussed:

Annotations
ANNOTATION

Annotations
Gravamen of this offense is the thrusting of an offensive and unwanted communication on one who is unable to ignore it. People v. Weeks, 197 Colo. 175, 591 P.2d 91 (1979).

Defendant's spitting on the tenant constituted "physical contact" within the meaning of subsection (1)(a). People v. Peay, 5 P.3d 398 (Colo. App. 2000).

Subsection (1)(d) held unconstitutionally vague. This subsection violates the due process clause because it contains no limiting standards to define what conduct is prohibited and, conversely, what conduct is permitted. People v. Norman, 703 P.2d 1261 (Colo. 1985).

Former subsection (1)(e) was facially overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 541 P.2d 80 (1975).

Subsection (1)(e) held not to be unconstitutionally vague because the statute defined the offense with particularized standards to limit the scope of the offense and the presence in the statute of the words "annoy" and "alarm", by themselves, were not sufficient to render the statute unconstitutionally vague. People v. McBurney, 750 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1988).

Subsection (1)(g) is facially overbroad and unconstitutionally vague and there are no limiting constructions that will render it constitutional. People v. Smith, 862 P.2d 939 (Colo. 1993).

A defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute as facially overbroad when the defendants alleged speech is precisely the type of activity which the telephone harassment statute was designed to regulate. People v. McBurney, 750 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1988).

This section and § 18-3-207, which classifies criminal extortion as a felony, address separate and distinct crimes and the classification of such offenses have a rational basis in fact and are reasonably related to legitimate government interests. People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100 (Colo. 1990).

Subsection (1)(h) is not unconstitutionally vague on its face. People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976).

The limited scope of the statute brings it within permissible limitations on free expression. People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976).

Subsection (4)(a)(II) held constitutional. By burdening only those communications furthering, promoting, or advancing an expressed credible threat, subsection (4)(a)(II) does not reach protected conduct. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999).

Nor is the provision void for vagueness since a person of ordinary intelligence can know what conduct is proscribed. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999).

Requiring a jury to determine "reasonableness" does not make subsection (4)(b)(III) unconstitutionally vague. The statute prohibits contact that inflicts "serious emotional distress" and provides an objective "reasonable person" standard to measure whether the emotional distress inflicted upon the victim was "serious". Thus, it provides notice that conduct that would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress is prohibited. The only uncertainty raised by the statute is whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress, and the determination of "reasonableness" is a question for the jury. People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899 (Colo. App. 2003), aff'd on other grounds, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004).

Subsections (4)(b)(I) and (4)(b)(III) are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The definition of "credible threat" does not substantially burden speech and is specifically sufficient to provide guidance to the public. The term "serious emotional distress" sets forth an identifiable objective standard for measuring the proscribed conduct and therefore is not unconstitutionally vague. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

A defendant does not need to know that his or her conduct would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress. This reading of subsection (4)(b)(III) would impart a nonexistent requirement that the defendant must intend to cause serious emotional distress. The defendant must only be aware of his or her conduct, and the result of that conduct is evaluated under an objective standard to which his or her specific intent is irrelevant. People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899 (Colo. App. 2003), aff'd, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004).

What subsection (1)(h) prohibits. Subsection (1)(h) prohibits (1) "fighting words", as heretofore defined, addressed to another person, (2) consisting of insults, taunts, or challenges, (3) repeatedly made, and (4) with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person. People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976).

Rest of the case law in which this statute was discussed: (had to split up the post; first was too long)

Subsection (1)(h) requires an objective determination: Whether the words when directed to an average person would tend to induce an immediate breach of the peace. People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976).

"Annoy" in this section means "to irritate with a nettling or exasperating effect". Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 541 P.2d 80 (1975).

"Alarm" in this section means "to arouse to a sense of danger; to put on the alert; to strike with fear; fill with anxiety as to threaten danger or harm". Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 541 P.2d 80 (1975).

"Repeatedly" is a word of such common understanding that its meaning is not vague. It simply means in the context of subsection (1)(h) that the defendant uses insulting, taunting, or challenging language more than one time. People ex rel. VanMeveren v. County Court, 191 Colo. 201, 551 P.2d 716 (1976).

An electronic surveillance device installed on the victim's car "repeatedly" stored information about her movements thereby allowing the defendant to gain information about her on repeated occasions, and therefore satisfying the requirements of this section. People v. Sullivan, 53 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002).

Use of "obscene" in subsection (1)(e). Although subsection (1)(e) uses the word "obscene" to describe the speech which is prohibited, that subsection is clearly not designed to regulate the purveyance of "obscenity" as that word is used in Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, rehearing denied, 414 U.S. 881, 94 S. Ct. 26, 38 L.Ed.2d 128 (1973)). Whatever the requirements of Miller v. California may be in a prosecution for alleged violations of law prohibiting published obscenity, those requirements are inapposite when the question is whether the state may prohibit unwanted verbal assaults on a person within the privacy of his own home. People v. Weeks, 197 Colo. 175, 591 P.2d 91 (1979).

The phrase "in connection with" indicates an intention by the general assembly that a continued relationship between the credible threat and the repeated communications is contemplated. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999).

A person must directly, or indirectly through another person, knowingly make a credible threat to another person and repeatedly make any form of communication with the recipient of the threat. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999).

The repeated communications may occur before, during, or after the credible threat but they must be connected to the threat. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999).

Whether the repeated communications are "in connection with" the threat is a matter of fact just as the existence of a credible threat itself. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999).

Trial court erred in not instructing the jury that defendant must knowingly engage in conduct taken in connection with the threat. People v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2003).

The defendant could not have been charged with a violation of subsection (4) until all of the elements of the crime are completed. People v. Bastian, 981 P.2d 203 (Colo. App. 1998).

The defendant may be charged with increased penalties because of amendments to subsection (4) that became effective in July when the defendant did not consummate following the victim until August, but had committed elements of the offense prior to July. People v. Bastian, 981 P.2d 203 (Colo. App. 1998).

The phrase "under surveillance" includes electronic surveillance that records a person's whereabouts as that person moves from one location to another and allows the stalker to access that information either simultaneously or shortly thereafter. People v. Sullivan, 53 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002).

Evidence sufficient to establish the conviction under subsection (1)(c). Although the evidence could be viewed in two ways, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's inferences that the defendant did follow the victim in a public place. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

Defendant's statement that he was going to kill the victim if she did not see him was sufficient evidence to support a finding that he had made a credible threat. People v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2003).

Evidence sufficient to support a finding that contact was made in connection with a credible threat. Defendant called the victim repeatedly on one day and threatened that he would kill her if she did not see him. Following this threat, defendant contacted the victim numerous times in person and by telephone and repeatedly asked to see her. This evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the contact was made in connection with a credible threat. People v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2003).

Serious emotional distress was supported by the evidence where the victim testified that she suspected the defendant was stalking her for over a month, that she was concerned about constantly being watched, that she took alternate routes to her destinations, that she was uncomfortable and had stomach aches, that she had trouble sleeping and was anxious, and that she took a leave of absence from work to enter a safe house for her safety. People v. Sullivan, 53 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002).

Evidence sufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of serious emotional distress where the victim testified that defendant's behavior caused her to change her work schedule, take days off from work, and feel unsafe; she was nervous and had trouble sleeping; and she felt she was constantly being watched by defendant. The statute is clear that serious emotional distress need not be such as would compel professional treatment or a breakdown. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

Evidence sufficient to establish a "credible threat". The credible threat does not need to be separate from the harassing behavior or verbal. Therefore, evidence that the defendant was only at the victim's place of employment when the victim was there, the defendant would approach and make eye contact with the victim, and the defendant found out where the victim went to church and attended that church was sufficient to establish a "credible threat". People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

Court's instruction for harassment by stalking was appropriate. The court instructed the jury that "knowingly" applied to both the credible threat and to the conduct in connection with the threat. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

The mens rea of knowingly in the crime of emotional distress harassment by stalking does not apply to the element that the stalker be aware that his or her conduct would cause serious emotional distress to a reasonable person. Generally, the mental state applies to all elements of an offense unless the legislative intent is to limit its application. The general assembly recognized the stalker may be oblivious to reality of the emotional distress he or she is causing, and, therefore, it would be absurd to allow a defendant so out-of-touch with reality to avoid criminal prosecution. People v. Cross, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

The penalty provision in subsection (5)(a.5) establishes a sentencing enhancer. Since the statute does not prescribe a burden of proof, the prosecution is required to prove the prior conviction by only a preponderance of the evidence, and the court may properly determine the issue without the jury. Therefore, the court erred in admitting the prior conviction into evidence as an element of the harassment by stalking offense. The error required reversal since the evidence was highly prejudicial and had no or little probative value. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).

Applied in Verner v. Colo., 533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1982).

It's 18-9-111, a Colorado criminal statute, which means a prosecutor would have to give a shit, he can't bring a civil action under it.

Quote:

---

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; or
(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; or
(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or
(d) Repealed.
(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene; or
(f) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation; or
(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or
(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

---

I don't think that the facts of this case rise to the offense which this statute is designed to combat.

Edit: fucking chup beat me to it (again)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Chris Gethard aka DefJef banged your mom, and posted the pics on myspace, and those same pics ended up here on TGR.

---

Classic Blurred.

Wait... I thought this was about the telefunken dipshit.

WTF did I miss with DefJef?

I'm so confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pope Benedict XVI

Edit: fucking chup beat me to it (again)

---

I find your comments obscene and directed at me in a personal manner likely to cause offense. I am now in fear for my personal safety as a result of your credible threat.

:biggrin:

18-9-111. Harassment - stalking.

(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene;

(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefJef:
are you done fucking with other people on the board who are trying to sell things legitimately? you do that again to me and i'll break ya fucking neck :cussing: :fm:

---

Looks like two offenses have been committed right there.
Maybe suit wants to reinstate DefJefs membership so we can count the numerous threats he's made here.

From my experience, threatening someone with criminal action, wihtout any merit, does not lend well to any civil claim.

This guy really is stupid.

and where did these offenses occur? Colorado? Wyoming? Isle of Man?

I am so fucking calling the Goatsucker if I ever get arrested. Just sayin'....

I'm no lawyer but out of curisosity I've followed a website /forum called vampirefreaks. That site has been directly linked to at least 2 attempted (partially successful) mass murders and 1 multiple murder.(2 in Canada, 1 in the states). That site is still up and running so legal costs have yet to close it.

Obviously the crimes are very serious and prosecutors will do whatever they can to prevent more. Apparently they lack that power. If everyone clearly accepts they own their own posts it must be very hard to pin anything on the board itself. (That site actually glorifies death which is a lot closer to murder than glorifying skiing is to stalking.

Defshithead threatened the suit with a suit. What a maroon.

I do not now, nor have I ever owned a maroon suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonpierre

i gotta say its pretty fucking weak tgr deleted that thread and removed his account

---

No, its called preemptively covering their ass either way you fucking legal jong.

Anyhow, no, they can't hold you responsible for what someone said on a public forum. No way shape or form.

So if I said somebody should just go down to his office and bust a cap in this moron's head it's all cool, right?

Just askin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

So if I said somebody should just go down to his office and bust a cap in this moron's head it's all cool, right?

Just askin'.

---

Technically they could take you to civil court for threats blahblahblah, but not TGR.