| “The Troll Patrol:” Protecting yourself against vigilantism Derek “The Fallen One” Logue January 19, 2008, Last Update July 2008 Vigilantism is one of the most prevalent concerns among sex offenders, as stories abound regarding the harassment, vigilantism, and even murders of sex offenders or those merely accused of sex crimes. Sex offenders are so reviled in the community, even the accusation that a person is a pedophile, untrue it may be, has led to “vigilantism” or “organized stalking” against the accused. “Vicious lies are circulated throughout the community, and these lies don’t stop. Such lies as the target is a prostitute, a drug user, a drug dealer, has a long criminal record, or the highly destructive favourite (applied to men and women,) the target is a pedophile… ‘vigilante stalking’ is sometimes used because of the false allegations that targets are active criminals.” (Eleanor White, “Organized Stalking- A Taboo Subject.” www.opednews.com, July 4, 2007). Vigilantism is a real threat; however, there are things you can do to protect yourself from being targeted by vigilantes. Vigilantism Defined Vigilantism is a definition of perspectives: the definition itself depends largely on your feelings about a situation. Do you feel an action by someone else to be a vigilante act? If so it probably is. The following definition of vigilantism as it relates to sex offenders is from www.sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com, a subsidiary of www.geocities.com/eadvocate:
Vigilantism at its worst There have been a number of recent headlines shedding light on the real risk of vigilantism at its worst. In Bellingham, Washington, a man posing as an FBI agent murdered two level three sex offenders he picked off the Whatcom County sheriff’s sex offender website (“Man Surrenders In Slayings Of Bellingham Sex Offenders.” Komo TV, Sept. 6 2005). In 2004, a Canadian man was convicted in Maine on two counts of attempted murder on two different sex offenders he pulled off the Registry (Gitika Ahuja, “Sex Offender Registries: Putting Lives At Risk?” ABC News, April 18, 2006). These are just a few examples of murders linked to the registry. Eadvocate maintains a comprehensive list of murdered sex offenders, those accused of sex crimes, and even innocent bystanders; as of October 29, 2007, the list counted 112 total murders in 103 incidents spread over a number of years (eadvocate, “Murdered In The United States: Registered Sex Offenders and Others.” Sex Offender Research By A Voice of Reason, www.sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com, Oct. 30, 2007, see also http://www.geocities.com/voicism/harm- master.html). While the aforementioned articles represent the most extreme cases of vigilantism, at some point we are likely to face some form of vigilantism to a lesser extent. The more prevalent form of vigilantism occurs online. Cyber-Terrorism The television ad for www.zwinky.com epitomizes the Internet culture: “Be anyone, do anything!” Under the guise of anonymity, Internet surfers typically assume an alternate identity, and in many cases, an alternate personality. Unfortunately, the Internet has become an ideal breeding ground for would-be terrorists. Cyber trolls and cyber- stalkers abound over the Internet. While this trend is not limited to sex offenders (any forum or discussion is open game), sex offender issues are hot button topics and sex offenders are already at a major disadvantage due to our status in society. In short, we are easy targets. According to www.flayme.com, cyber bullies can be divided into two classes: trolls and stalkers. Both derive pleasure from disrupting any organized activity, but vary primarily by degrees of severity. Below is the characteristics of the two groups. Cyber-trolls Named for a fishing technique, not a mythical creature, “The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group” (Andrew Heenan, “Internet Trolls,“ www.flayme. com/troll/, 2007). The site finds the following to be characteristics of the cyber-trolls; with permission I adapted specifically for sex offenders:
The general consensus from www.flayme.com, www.corrupted-justice.com, and the experiences of many I have talked to is this: IGNORE THEM! It is better to not engage them at all, and if you do, keep it brief and to the point. If you counter an “F*** You” with your own “F*** you,” you are merely goading them. If you ignore them, most will give up. Many are merely attention seekers, seeking others who will give them sympathy, justify their actions, and make them feel important. Thus, ignoring them hurts them. Cyber-stalkers The more active you are in sex offender activism, the more likely you will become a target for the myriad of cyber- vigilante organizations online. While this form of cyber-vigilantism is less prevalent, it is more dangerous because it is more intrusive. The www.flayme.com definition is:
Traits of a cyber-stalker, according to www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/definition.html, is as follows:
In the realm of sex offender activism, many (but not all-some are copycats) of the current cyber-vigilante groups are affiliated in some way with the controversial www.perverted-justice.com, or “Pee-J” for short (Not surprisingly, it, Pee- J even made the list of "controversial cults/ groups" from the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, www.rickross. com). Thus, it meets the criteria of “organized stalking” (Eleanor White, “Organized Stalking” http://www.opednews. com/articles/opedne_eleanor__070704_organized_stalking__.htm). Recently the founders of this controversial group has expanded its horizons into a number of other notorious projects under the umbrella of a larger organization: The “Perverted Justice Foundation, Incorporated,” [http://www.pjfi.org/], boasting of being “the most aggressive and active anti-pedophile organization online.” Among their nefarious projects is the “Wikisposure Project” [http://www.wikisposure.com/], a data base for alleged “pedophiles organizations” and individual “pedophiles” who use them. If you are an active member of certain RSO activist or support networks, such as www. sosen.us, www.soclear.org, or www.roarforfreedom.com, there is a chance you will be listed in some way at this website; also, anyone who has spoken out publicly against sex offender laws (such as Sarah Tofte of the Human Rights Watch and even Patty Wetterling of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation) have become Wikisposure targets. This site has become a breeding ground of vigilantism activity, either directly via membership, or indirectly via the “copycat” phenomenon, where others are inspired to follow their bad example. Thus, in the world of RSO support and activism, you will likely hear Pee-J as an euphemism for cyber stalking. Whatever the case, there are a number of cyber-stalkers out there. Below is a summary of various tactics cyber-stalkers have been known to use:
So you may have a cyber stalker, so the question is how do you handle it? The hard part is the nature of the Internet itself, along with a lack of consensus on the seriousness of cyber-terrorism, as evidenced by the recent high profile case of the 13-year-old who committed suicide after she was targeted by a cyber bully. See also the 1999 Report on Cyber Stalking (www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyber crime/cyber stalking.htm). In short, local law enforcement may lack the capacity to handle internet-related cases. There are a few general tips derived from various sources: From www.flayme.com/stalker/ (used by permission)
Tips from www.corrupted-justice.com/facts
Legal issues with cyber stalking Like most issues concerning the Internet, cyber stalking laws are difficult to enforce, given the anonymity of the Internet and the lack of general knowledge of the very nature of the Internet itself. For example, though many networks and service providers have “Acceptable Use” policies against harassment and stalking, in most instances, it is difficult to get certain activities such as bogus web pages of you removed. For example, consider the following disclaimer from Google’s “Blog spot” service, in which they effectively claim no responsibility : “We do not remove allegedly defamatory content from www.google.com or any other U.S. dot com domains. US domain sites such as Google.com, Blogger, Page Creator, etc. are sites regulated only by U.S. law. Given this fact, and pursuant to Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, we do not remove allegedly defamatory material from U.S. domains. The only exception to this rule is if the material has been found to be defamatory by a court, as evidenced by a court order. The language of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act fundamentally states that Internet services like Google.com, Blogger and many of Google’s other services are re- publishers and not the publisher of that content. Therefore, these sites are not held liable for any allegedly defamatory, offensive or harassing content published on the site.” (“Defamation Definition.” www.blogger.com) If you truly feel threatened by an online stalker, the best course of action (according to both eadvocate and wiredsafety.org) is file a report with local law enforcement. The police may not have the tools to fight the stalker. They don’t have to- The main goal is to subpoena the ISP to provide the information necessary to uncover the identity of the cyber stalker. You might want to contact cyberstalking@wiredsafety.org for assistance, though I’m unsure how willing they would assist a sex offender. Eadvocate suggests you DON’T use the “Cyber Tip Line,” because they affiliated with the NCMEC and controversial founder John Walsh. It may be possible to file a complain though the FBI’s Internet Crime Complain Center (IC3) at, http://www.ic3.gov/, though the site seems made for Internet fraud. (eadvocate, “Laws and Contacts to Assist Registrants (former sex offenders) in Filing Complaints of Harassment, Stalking, Cyber-Stalking or Property Damages.” www.sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/ Sept. 4, 2007) Each state has their own laws regarding stalking or harassing communications. Again, www.wiredsafety.org has a list of links to individual laws regarding stalking laws. It is important to check the applicable laws in your state. In Ohio, for example, the requirement is three occurrences are necessary to file a harassing communications complaint. A state-by-state guide to cyber-stalking laws can also be found here: www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/index.shtml Police have an obligation to investigate cases of cyber stalking. “It is the policy of the US to ensure vigorous enforcement of federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of a computer” (47 US Code Ann. Section 230-b-5) You may also wish to consider suing in civil court for damages. Civil court has a lower burden of proof, plus monetary repercussions tend to make most people reconsider their position. Consider the recent case Marcell v. Perverted Justice.com, CV-06-0693 [US Dist Ct New Mex., Aug 3, 2006] (http://www.corrupted-justice.com/article23. html). While even hate organizations like the KKK have constitutional rights of their own, they have limits on their actions. Essentially you are free to hate all you want but you cannot put your hate into action. Typical civil charges may include charges of slander, defamation of character, harassment, impersonation, libel, and dissemination of personal information. Considering Pee-J’s recent 501[c] 3 status, now there is at least a physical address should your harasser be one of them. Keep in mind, however, the likelihood of winning a defamation suit is slim. The schema for defamation is:
There have been only a handful of victories regarding Internet defamation:
Real Life/ Physical Confrontations I spent a lot of time on cyber crimes not only because of the complexity of the issue, but also because much of the advice I described above should apply to harassment in real life as well. If you are being harassed by a neighbor, it is even more important to take the issue to the police and/or civil court, and be prepared to provide proof-- video, physical evidence, call logs, etc. Keep in mind that most states place disclaimers on online registries prohibiting using the information obtained on a public registry to harass or any other illicit activity against the registrant. In one recent case, a Wisconsin couple was cited for posting up signs around a sex offender’s home (“Couple cited for posting sex offender signs.” Fond du Lac Reporter). Recently I politely compelled a local business to take down a flyer of me under threat of legal sanctions. Works like a charm when dealing with a business. However, when dealing with an individual citizen, I would advise you NOT to confront that person lest you be perceived as threatening that person whether that is your intention for not. The best course of action is to contact law enforcement. Under penalty of law they MUST treat you the same as anyone else with a legitimate complaint. Law Enforcement and the “Public Duty Doctrine” Of particular concern with Law Enforcement is a general reluctance to assist with your case based on a sex offender label. Police officers are usually covered by the “public duty doctrine,” which basically states the police have an obligation to protect the public rather than any individual. In other words, police have a rather large amount of discretion in deciding to investigate a complaint. However, there are exceptions to this doctrine which can make police officers civilly responsible for failing to protect you as a citizen (Karen J. Kruger, “Duty To All- Duty To No One: Examining the Public Duty Doctrine and Its Exceptions.” The Police Chief, IACP, May 2007, www. policechiefmagazine.org).
Conclusion
Information sites on stalking and cyber stalking-- Please note, these are general information sites on the subject and there is no endorsement nor guarantee of assistance of any kind from of the listed organizations below:
All quotes from other sites are copyrighted by that site owner, and used by permission. Special thanks to all individuals and organizations who helped me piece this together in a manner of a couple of weeks. Please contact me if you have any more information to add here. Addendum 1: When the Violence Against Women Act was renewed in January 2008, an attachment to the law made "anonymous" cyberstalking a FEDERAL offense, punishable by up to 2 years in Federal Prison! For more information on this new provision, read the following article: Declean McCullagh, "FAQ: The New 'Annoy' Law Explained." CNET News, Jan. 11, 2008 http://www.news.com/FAQ-The-new-annoy-law-explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.nl Addendum: Info on Cyberstalking Websites If you have been harassed by members of Perverted-Justice, Absolute Zero United, Stitches 77, or any of their other affiliates and need more information on their tactics for litigation against them, or just want to see how insane they are, simply check out the following websites:
|
| (c) 2007-2010 Derek W. Logue. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner. |