What the hell are these broads smoking?
An AP story out of Buffalo, New York tells of two men arrested for smoking marijuana in public. They pulled up to a KFC drive-thru window in a virtual Cheech and Chong-mobile. A plume of smoke drifted into the restaurant, where two narcs were having lunch. Oops!
And in Vermont, an 18 year old boy was sentenced to one to seven years in prison for chopping the head off a corpse. He told his friends he was going to dry the head out and make a bong with it. Surprise, surprise, he’s been diagnosed with mental health issues.
But a couple of Florida broads named Tasha and Lida have got to get a grip. Whatever it is they’re smoking, keep it away from me:
A lawyer has sued a Florida-based Web site claiming he was defamed on Don’tDateHimGirl.com. The site allows women to vent about ex-boyfriends and spouses and, presumably, to warn others about their exes’ nasty habits. But Todd Hollis of Pittsburgh says his former girlfriend published false and malicious information about his health and sexual habits. [snip-clip]
Tasha Joseph, who founded the site, argues that she is protected by the Communication Decency Act, the [Miami Herald] newspaper said. “Internet service providers such as myself aren’t responsible for the third party postings of our users, because it’s not me defaming Todd Harris, but the woman accusing him of cheating on them,” Joseph said. (UPI)
~~~~~
Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, an attorney representing Joseph, said the site is no different than the proverbial coffee shop where people go and “chitchat.”“You would never think of holding the coffee shop owner liable because other people went in and defamed other people,” Rodriguez-Taseff said. (ABC News)
~~~~~
Justin Levine clarifies:
“But back to attorney Todd J. Hollis for a second. Maybe he isn’t up on his Communications Law, but recent changes mean that he is likely s**t-outta-luck on this one (even assuming that what was said about him is false). The Communications Deceny Act is simply vital to preserving the Internet as we know it.”
Fine, they can have their website. But Tasha and Lida, put down whatever you’re smoking and think about it. Do you want thousands of cheating, herpes-ridden, possibly closeted gay guys mad at you? Oh, you like having men get mad at you? Got it.
(Top photo is of Cheech and Chong, not the suspects, via rhapsody.com; nice doggie photo via wellwomen.orcon.net.nz)
July 7, 2006 at 12:55 am
Ms. Joseph their can be no lively debate amongst people where the woman is allowed to speak and post without interruption and the man is forced to respond by emailing you and waiting until you feel like posting the so called response.
Ms. Joseph if the debate is so important that you proclaim to be a cyber black board then why place the proverbial mask over the face of the women and grant them anonymity when they speak. But you disclose not only the name of the so-called cheating man but also his picture. And if a women’s picture just happens to be posted your site removes it.
I can answer both of these questions in short it is because your site is not interested in lively debate it is focused on the ill and pains that you have suffered from your failed relationships (I know you got married at 18). It is unfortunate that you were unable to learn from those life lessons as most of us have. But instead you have disingenuously learned to capitalize from the misery of others. This site has little to do about the rights of women but more to do with the monies that you receive in advertising dollars. (I know about the 2004 Jaguar and houses in Los Angeles and Miami) If you were truly invested in women’s rights you would not have contemplated the companion site involving men.
My issue with your ideals are not merely focused upon the pain and misery that you have caused to my family, friends and peers but to the pains that you reap upon others that cannot fight back (You are a bully). The people who get up and work every day to support what little they have. Have you no decency. Set the legal issues aside and tell the world which is now the platform for this discussion and say that you bear no moral responsibility for the lives that you have ruined as a result of this site. It seems that the dinner you had with your girl friends when you were bashing men which spawned the creation of this site would have been better spent looking within yourself and addressing your personal issues.
I never wanted this lawsuit. But life never gave me one nickel more than what my work and effort demanded and sometimes that fell short. But I never complained and I will not allow anyone to take from me what I have worked all my life to achieve.
You have engaged a determined man willing to lose everything for what he believes in and in the end regardless of what the courts say you can never repair the anxiety or pain that I am forced to live with as a result of your frivolous response to my simple request to be removed from your site.
Todd Jonathan Hollis, Plaintiff
January 23, 2007 at 9:08 am
[...] links here and here. Interesting comments here. Meanwhile, The Happy Feminist is admittedly “unamused” at [...]
April 21, 2007 at 12:16 pm
This article from the Associated Press should clear things up permanently!
LAWSUIT DISMISSED AGAINST POPULAR SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE
(AP) A Florida-based Web site that invites women to warn others about men they have dated cannot be sued in a Pennsylvania court by an attorney who said its postings falsely claimed he was unfaithful and had sexually transmitted diseases.
Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. ruled he has no jurisdiction over part of the lawsuit Todd Hollis filed last June against DontDateHimGirl.com and its creator, Tasha C. Cunningham, 34, of Miami.
Hollis, of Pittsburgh, claimed Cunningham’s site is liable because it solicits negative comments but does not screen them for truthfulness. Hollis also is also suing those who posted comments that questioned his sexuality and said he tried to dodge paying child support.
The judge let stand the attorney’s defamation claims against seven women who posted messages criticizing him on the site.
Cunningham and her attorneys say a 1996 federal law shields Web sites from such lawsuits.
Wettick did not address that issue. He simply ruled that Pennsylvania’s court system has no jurisdiction over a Florida Web site, even though Pennsylvanians post messages on it. The ruling, issued Thursday, does not address Hollis’ still-pending claims against women who posted the messages.
Hollis said he did not learn of the judge’s decision until The Associated Press called him for comment Tuesday. Hollis has not decided whether to sue the Web site again in another venue.
“I think he must have had the idea that just because you can access the Internet anywhere in the world that you can sue someone anywhere in the world, and that’s not true,” said Robert Byer, Cunningham’s Pittsburgh-based attorney.
Byer acknowledged Hollis could refile the suit in Florida or in U.S. District Court, which accepts lawsuits involving parties in different jurisdictions. “But then he’d come up against the Communications Decency Act, which says the site can’t be held liable for postings by a third-party user,” Byer said.
Hollis contends Cunningham can be sued because she is more than just an inactive overseer.
Cunningham’s site has tripled in size since the lawsuit was filed, with 27,000 profiles that she markets as “a new cost-effective weapon in the war on cheating men.” Cunningham works full-time on the site and is developing others, including a Spanish language version that will launch in June.
One of the women Hollis sued has since filed a counterclaim, denying she made any posts. Another Pittsburgh-area woman who dated Hollis, Meritt Lattimore Dallas, acknowledged posting comments but denied damaging his reputation.
Dallas’ attorney, Laurene Beckie Kane, said much of the bad publicity Hollis received came from his own efforts to publicize his case in Pittsburgh-area media.
“If that’s affected him, that’s his own doing,” Kane said.
April 21, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Well, “Anonymous,” we knew that legal decision was coming, especially if you read the trackback left by Patterico. But how do you figure anything has been “cleared up”? What, the whole thing is “over now” and everybody goes back to the way they were the day before this all started?
I’m just saying, once words are published, that’s it. Whether the words contain truths or falsehoods, it’s out there. So why not take a few moments beforehand and contemplate what we write, what we publish, and make sure it’s all good? Not just true or false, not just legal or illegal, but good.