Kcdc-west Div (sdc) Y4-000622 01-26-2004

King Co Superior Ct 08-9-32243-8 10-23-2008

King Co Superior Ct 08-2-30301-2 09-04-2008

Pierce Co Superior 00-2-08421-3 06-02-2000

King Co Superior Ct 08-2-36569-7 10-23-2008

Pierce Co Superior 01-9-08250-8 06-22-2001

Kirkland Municipal 17424 06-12-2002

Kcdc-east Div (isq) C00006878 06-03-2004

Kcdc-east Div (ned) Y2-030364 04-24-2002

Fircrest Municipal C00035455 03-29-1999

Kirkland Municipal 16442 09-04-2001

Federal Way Muni CA0029461 05-29-2003

Kcdc-east Div (isq) I00032441 06-23-2004

Kcdc-east Div (isq) Y4-001372 03-02-2004

Still, what really worries me (and I’m an academic who diggs heavily and studies new media) is the utter lack of charity on this Troll’s part (I like it as a noun which refers to Fortuny). Not only this other dude, but likely all or most of his victims’ live were substantially —-ed (pun intended) because he “caught them with their pants down.” Reminds me of the bully in sixth grade who kicked open the stall door to show the other kids you were doing your business. I agree, it also smacks of entrapment. Lastly, it reminds me of the mind-numbingly ignorant beauty contestant who became famous recently– not just for a week but wherever she goes now. In a digital age, there’s a lot to be said for anonymity and forgiveness and charity (the ability to realize how you might identify with the person judged as someone who also makes mistakes and feels pain). We should remember to remember these things.

And by the way, arguments which suggest that people who disagree with you have “something to hide” are fallacious. They’re ad hominem attacks. Unethical and ignorant. You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I don’t think the stunt was very nice, but if someone got caught being unfaithful to his wife and sneaking around, maybe he shouldn’t have been doing that in the first place.

I totally agree that there are so many people who don’t realize how much information can be passed around over the internet.

Also this suit is another example of how lawyers will do anything for a buck. Who do you think built the case and filed in Illinois.

Technically, any work is copyrighted when it’s first created, but the official filing of the copyright is what makes it more legally defensible in US courts. Either way, considering Fortuny isn’t claiming to have “created” this photograph himself, I think the copyright will hold, but maybe not to the full extent of the DMCA (which is mostly a bullshit act anyway).

However, I would hold Fortuny fully accountable for deliberately disclosing private information obtained through a Craigslist ad. Whether or not it contains John Doe’s real name, regular email address, etc. doesn’t matter. What does is the fact that he posted a false ad, obtained personal information from people that was meant to be transmitted in private and he posted it to his blog for all the world to see.

I don’t care if JD had marital problems to begin with or that Fortuny is an insufferable troll: at the very least, Fortuny broke Craigslist’s ToS. How much monetary damage that translates into remains to be seen.

I don’t see anything wrong or even mildly unfunny about this, morally challenging maybe if you’re a prude. Anyone that completely disregards personal privacy and safety as these guys did deserve to be ridiculed online that’s what the internet is for!

But people get so caught up in the idea of a “bad guy” getting what he “deserves” that they ignore the fact that the service of process, venue, and causes of action in this case are all laughably preposterous and, if accepted, would set a devastating precedent for future Internet cases, where the defendant might not be someone so easy to paint as a villain. Like you, maybe.

Think about this case with your heads, not your hearts. This is bad, bad law, pure and simple.

Got something to hide George?
If some perv responds to a fake sex ad and then bitches because his family found out - who is the real criminal? Is it the perv that with malicious intent deceived his family as to his true nature or the poster of the false information that has lured a despicable adulterer to his doorstep?

HAW!:)

Love watching scum like Fortuny earn such public demise… Ironically his little experiment proved a few things he hadn’t counted on. Sweet irony! Hee.

Defending trolling with more trolling doesn’t seem particularly effective to me.

DU

Likewise, with Dateline’s “To Catch A Predator”, the sex offenders on that show make a choice to go to an internet chat room, make sexual comments to a minor while online, and then travel to the minor’s home. While you are right that there is no hard evidence they were going to follow through with anything at the minor’s home, it still exposes the fact that most of these men have solicited someone they believe to be a minor through a chat room.

For those of you who want Fortuny to lose this case, you should realize that the internet is not in any way a private place. Everything a person says or does on the internet can come back to haunt them. Your comments make me wonder if any of you have skeletons on the internet you’re afraid of coming out.

Didn’t John Doe and co. just get caught with their pants down (quite literally in some cases:-)?

The Copyright issue doesn’t seem appropriate, just an attempt to ‘get him’ on a technicality, …sour grapes anyone?

Tempting someone into something they might not have otherwise done, and then claiming you have “exposed” them as “that type of person” is all wrong. Which one among you can claim you could never be tempted into doing, or at least considering enough to investigate, something that you wouldn’t normally do? No matter what the reward offered? Isn’t this what the movie Indecent Proposal made us think about?