Ask Slashdot: Undoing an Internet Smear Campaign? 338
An anonymous reader writes "My fiancee is a professional writer. She has a great industry reputation and everyone that knows her loves her. But her ex-husband has maintained a number of websites in her name (literally, the URL is her name) that are filled with insane ravings and defamatory content. Have you ever had to deal with an internet smear campaign? The results float to the top of every Google or Bing search of her name. He currently lives abroad and cannot be served with legal papers. His websites are hosted overseas as well, and do not respond to conventional letters or petitions. Because of his freedom of speech rights, few U.S. courts will assert that his websites are truly libelous, either, and it's still difficult to prove any real 'damages' are done by it. Still, we'd like to see them go away. I'm turning to the best community of geeks in the world: how do I deal with this given the limited options at my disposal?"
three letters... (Score:2, Insightful)
SEO
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Insightful)
mmmm... I wouldn't bother. Seems like you'd be feeding the troll. Why spend time and effort on that?
Honestly, the only thing I could say is just endure and tell people the truth of the situation if they ask. If this guy maintains this for any huge length of time, he just looks sad.
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, if it's a potential client who is simply nervous about her, she could lose gigs. I mean, as long as she has no problems finding work, that's not an issue, but it could mean less competition for her services (less demand may mean less pay), or simply an extra week, month, whatever, that she might have been able to fill with work that she may not be able to this way.
Socially? Sure, no problem. I mean, if you googled my real name, one of the top hits would be a black dude trying to find a date from prison. My coworkers and I have laughted about that. But if that has in any way impeded my ability to job search, that would be, at the very least, unfortunate. (But, in my case, I can't even fathom any suggestion that there is malice here, nevermind something illegal to hang a legal battle on. Poor guy just wants a date. Much unlike the OP's problem.) In a social situation, there's no point in feeding the troll, but in a job search situation, there may be a bigger reason for wanting to bury the ex's ramblings behind a page or three of search rankings.
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Funny)
There's actually *more* fun to be had there. You don't have just the luxury of making your online presence, but as many alter egos with the same name as you'd like. You can bury yourself in so much varied information that no one will know what to believe.
I found out the hard way, that there's always some asshole (or sometimes many) who want to find you. Let me tell you about one in particular.
I worked for a place for a long time. I got laid off because someone would do it cheaper (and worse). A few years later, some third party I knew absolutely nothing about decided to sue the company. Because I had access to so much information while I was there, they decided I would testify for them.
Part of this luxury paid witness gig I would have to spend at least a couple days about 400 miles from. At this particular time, I wasn't working, and my savings were dropping down below nil. Good gig, some may think. They gave me something like $20 in checks, and a subpoena for all kinds of paperwork that I either never had, or no longer had. I countered with an offer for my advertised hourly rate, and per diem expenses, which they responded with laughter and a bench warrant. Well, they said they had the bench warrant. It turns out it was a lie. Hmm.. Lawyers lying, say it's not so.
As the senior IT guy, I *had* access to every electronic document, and knew every password, and knew where all the secrets were kept. Oddly enough, the day I was cut loose was the day all the passwords were changed. All of my access to everything was lost. I made it a habit not to even archive my email at home. When they cut me loose, I dumped my email. I didn't want it any more. I sure as hell didn't keep it laying around for years. I needed the drive space for porn. :) Just kidding. With my newly found luxury time, I rotated through machines trying out different OSs, just because I could. I always kept one up to send out resumes every day.
So with no fundage, nothing to contribute to the court, and no way to get there, I wrote the judge a very nice letter, copied to the counsel on both sides, saying basically I didn't have anything they wanted (line item by line item), and that I didn't have funds to participate in their games.
I then started on a lucrative career in house sitting and transporting cars. Well, lucrative as in I had somewhere to sleep and food to eat, but no expendable cash. I did get around a bit, because I knew what was coming next.
The assholes that were suing, and I refer to them kindly as that, decided to go on a quest. They were going to find me, with law enforcement in tow, and "compel" me to testify. Basically, they had something in legaleeze that said handcuffs were acceptable to make someone testify in a BS civil lawsuit. Their private investigators with an off duty law enforcement officer, kept showing up to places I either used to be at, or claimed I was at online. Between MySpace, Facebook, FourSquare, and Twitter, I made a very clear trail to follow, and follow they did. Some of it was echoed back to me indirectly that they were going out to whenever I said I was, even though the echoing party didn't know that's what I was claiming. :)
I wasn't sure how much pull they had, so when I could borrow some cash, I'd pick up pre-paid credit cards (Like the Green Dot cards), and have them sent back to one of the known addresses in my name. They would then mail them off to other friends in other states for them to use. Those friends would send cash back to the person who paid for it, so nothing was really lost. It's strange, I can buy a tank of gas in California, have dinner in Seattle, and then buy cigarettes in Alaska, while my online presence said I was in New York, but chattering about recent earthquakes in Los Angeles.
At one point, I went my family financed cell phone on a cross country trip. I'd leave it turned on, so it would go as long as possible on
Re: (Score:3)
Actually you may be on to something here. Ok, the person is using the real name for the domain and is smearing someone. Create a lot of similar domains, create a lot of conflicting information, use SEO tactics to bring them up front. Make sure the re
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. Google and Bing consider the "insane ravings" as more relevant than the articles your fiancee writes, which doesn't say much about the popularity of your fiancee's work. Given this, it's fairly unlikely that she is losing any significant readership as a result of the ex's campaign.
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Funny)
In addition, I would take that fact as a red flag and reconsider whether I really want to be married to this person. Maybe what he says has merit? Maybe she is a fucking sociopath? Do you know the ex-husband? Maybe spend the time learning about him and be objective.
Apparently the ex reads slashdot.
Re:three letters... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better.. Hire a reputable SEO company for yourself, and hire a dirtbag SEO company that does their best to cheat the system (link sites linking to more link sites etc) to promote the Ex's BS sites.... If you do it right, you should be able to promote your own a bit, and get google to ban the other sites for search engine manipulation.. Google has some very strict rules, and you just have to make sure you break them when promoting the undesirable site.. Wasn't it Sony that Google banned temporarily for improper search engine optimizations? I don't think Google's bans are normally temporary.. if they are though, I'm pretty sure they're not short term.. Sony had to kiss some butt to get into Google after only a few days..
Re:four letters... (Score:5, Insightful)
claim trademark to her own name
Re:four letters... (Score:5, Informative)
That's only the first half of it. First, file a legal trademark on the name. Then file a UDRP complaint and take the domain.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't find a link.
Good for you, man. It would've probably cost you 300 Euros.
Re:four letters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasn't stopped the RIAA from claiming copyright on songs they don't own or represent, to include public domain works.
Re: (Score:2)
Fight speech with more speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Put up your own website... fill it with good content... get links?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, post links to Slashdot. What'll happen is the /. effect will take the site down.
Re:Fight speech with more speech? (Score:5, Funny)
" I'm turning to the best community of geeks in the world" - You're on the wrong website. Try 4Chan...heheheh
As The Maxim Goes (Score:5, Funny)
What Happens On The Internet, Stays On The Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
"Because of his freedom of speech rights, few U.S. courts will assert that his websites are truly libelous, either, and it's still difficult to prove any real 'damages' are done by it. Still, we'd like to see them go away."
Simple. Form a Corporation using the name. Instant win.
Re:Possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
"few U.S. courts will assert that his websites are truly libelous, either, and it's still difficult to prove any real 'damages' are done by it"
This makes me wonder what exactly the content is, if it's not truly libelous and there is no real damage being done is there really a problem? Seems more like a 'he's written something i don't like' situation, can't really tell without know what the content is though.
Re:Possibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, this sounds like "I don't like what he's saying about me, and I can't do anything about it legally". The answer is man-up (or woman-up) and ignore it, or as others have said, or create a website to refute his claims, etc.
One step away from a personal army request...
Re:Possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Reality here. Take a deep breath, realise that there are tens of billions of pages and by far the majority get seen by very few people. The next step is really hard "ABANDON YOUR DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR" forget the pseudo celebrity bullshit, by far and I mean well and truly by far the majority of people on the planet do not give a shit one way or the other. Seriously so what?
As for getting to the top of searchers simply report those pages as gaming the system to google and bing for advertising revenue. Generally those the freak out the most about what is on the web about them, lawyering up and such, well, it often because it is true and they make more profit from the lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, but things can be nasty, and "insane ravings" without being libelous. Laws vary state to state, and federally, but generally opinions are not libelous. I can write "I think exomondo is a jerk!" all I want and you'll never win a libel suit against me in the US. But if I write "exomondo is a jerk because he stole $10,000 from me," and you didn't actually steal any money, now we're talking libel.
So the ex-husband can go on a TimeCube-esque rant about how the ex-wife is crazy and she's stupid and she's
Re:Possibility (Score:5, Informative)
I may of course be missreading things, but what I gathered is that the ex is writing insane ravings on the site (using your name placeholder) sallysmith.com, not about Sally Smith, but implicitly AS Sally Smith, with the intent of making it look like Sally Smith is a raving nutjob to those who do a search for her name. Presumably, it's a rather more unique name than Sally Smith, so there is less probability of it being ignored as a naming collision. However, as the OP's fiancee is apparently a writer, it could be written in a way to make it really look like the author of the books and the author of the crazy screed are the same person without actually claiming they are.
If the site DOES claim to be the author, the fiancee may have grounds for slander of title, or, in some jurisdictions (and heavily dependent on the content of the crazed ramblings), there may be infringement on moral rights related to the original works.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Murder (Score:5, Funny)
Concrete shoes.
This one is easy (Score:2)
Re:Murder (Score:5, Interesting)
Might I suggest hosting the site in third world country without diplomatic ties to the U.S. or any of the countries he lives (or has lived) in. Have the site host the most vile and disgusting human perversions... links to NAMBLA, Neo-Nazi Organizations, Satanic Churches, and perhaps Skat-Play with Enema Porn as a cherry on top. Attack all good and reputable organizations you can think of. In short, make it a festering sore on the ass of the universe. Have the site advertise in papers in his local town. Have a man with a thick accent, call him or email him with a demand for 10 $1,000 checks to close down the site (checks must have "Pay To" left blank.)
Fill checks out to grotesque organizations and institutions and make donations. Send Anonymous letters to local newspapers about the "Monster" living in our midst. When it comes out that he's only getting what he's giving... he'll be a social pariah. He started this, the best he can do is complain that he's getting better than he's giving. Make certain you appoint an MC and never contact them again. You know nothing about this, have nothing to do with this and don't care to be a part of the drama he's created. Of course this could easily escalate into death and dismemberment. Not to mention the bad karma.
A better ploy would be to Create a Nonprofit Organization for the protection of people from Stalkers, Abusers, and Infantile Ex's who seem to be unable to move on with their lives. Use his sites and his attacks as examples of the evil idiocy perpetrated by angry men with small penii, and explain that people being abused by the small minded and even smaller hearted need to stick together and expose the Bozo's publicly. Speak with your Senator about passing a law that prevents this kind of abuse in country and contact the nation he's in to inform them that he's using their infrastructure to perpetrate evil acts half way around the world. Take the high ground. Help people. Show him compassion he doesn't deserve. Send him pictures of you smiling and thank him for inspiring you to create an organization to help women being abused by Idiot Exs. Let him know he's made you a better person, stronger, happier. Thank him. It'll drive him crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Have the site host the most vile and disgusting human perversions... links to NAMBLA, Neo-Nazi Organizations, Satanic Churches, and perhaps Skat-Play with Enema Porn as a cherry on top
You kind of went down in vile and disgustingness there. Would have been a more effective statement had you worked UP to NAMBLA rather than down from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Drone Strikes. It seems to work for Uncle Sam.
Cheap, efficient, "natural justice" (Score:3)
Four Letters: (Score:2)
DDOS
ICANN (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Copyright does not apply to names, corporate names, product names, or any other type of name. Learn the difference kid, because it makes you sound stupid.
Re:ICANN (Score:5, Informative)
I'd argue he should wait (Score:5, Funny)
My suggestion is to hold off until you've been married to her for a year or so - that way, you can better determine whether her ex-husband's statements are indeed a smear campaign or are rooted in fact.
Re:I'd argue he should wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's right. I can't find it in a quick Google search, but we went through that several years ago. Cybersquatters claimed a whole bunch of celebrity names, and tried to sell/blackmail the celebrities into buying them back at exorbitant prices. (I forget the examples, can anybody help me?)
Your name is your personal property, and you have a right to it, especially if you're using it as a business. You can make your right even more official by registering a business in your name.
Then ICANN will yank their nam
Can't copyright names, trade mark the name instead (Score:2)
Trademark violation (Score:3, Insightful)
... is the legal term you're looking for.
A trademark doesn't have to be registered. If she's been writing under her own name for years, then her name is a valuable piece of intellectual property and it's entitled to exactly the same protections as the name of 'Mickey Mouse'.
Of course, that means you need to act quickly before the trademark is considered to be officially diluted or worthless.
IANAL, TINLA etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Anon cow may be right about TM violation.
Outside of that, there is only stooping to his level.
What country does he live in? In Mexico and S. American countries , a couple hundred U.S. dollars go a long way toward removing his hands to keep him from typing.
Do some of the old school hacks on him; call up and have his utilities shut off, use a remailing service to have him loudly proclaim anti-govenment sentiment or terrorist threats to his local newspapers. Have illicit internet recreational drug sites start
IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
For God's sake begin by hiring someone who actually knows about this stuff instead of relying on what you learned from daytime TV.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're insulting Judge Judy - them's fightin' words.
Use the Chewbacca Defense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must shut down these websites!
I thought the Chewbacca Defense involved speaking loudly and unintelligibly until the other side gives up in frustration. It "works" for most politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what matters. Maybe she can trademark her name and seize the domain as being confusingly similar, but it's still throwing time and attention at somebody who clearly craves it, for dubious gain.
Re:Don't bother? (Score:4, Informative)
He said the material is not libelous. I'm allowed to start a domain called SheetrockIsATerriblePerson.com and post criticisms about you. That's not trademark infringement. You cannot use trademark law to silence critics.
Wal-mart tried this in 2008:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/court-rejects-wal-marts-bid-silence-criticism-through-trademark-law [citmedialaw.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but on the other hand, you're not allowed to register the domain "walmart.com" (in a parallel universe where Walmart has, for some strange reason, not already registered this domain) and then post criticisms of it. With "walmart-sucks-and-i-hate-them.com", you're not posing as Walmart themselves, it's clear that you're a separate party that just doesn't like them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Find out where the ex-husband works. Obtain an employee list. Start sending mail to people detailing what he's doing, with screenshots of the websites. Repeat with his friends. Repeat with his family. Repeat with anyone he's dating.
Anonymity works to your advantage as well as the ex's...
try anti cybersquatting or defamation actions (Score:3)
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/11/internet-defamation-cybersquatting/
http://www.traverselegal.com/internet-defamation/defamation/what-is-a-defamation-of-character-assessment/#more-129
I'm sure that many laywers will do this for you for $$$, but it may also be possible to have the victim file under ACPA to force the domain names to be given to them
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/legislation.html
but that may only apply to trademark owners and not defamation victims.
-I'm just sayin'
Libel (Score:2)
Many countries like England have extremely strong libel laws. She should hire an english attorney and have him prosecuted in the UK. Its pretty much irrelevant to the UK system where the harm took place.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what Texas is for?
Libel tourism and the SPEECH Act (Score:2)
Many countries like England have extremely strong libel laws.
Are you recommending libel tourism [wikipedia.org]?
She should hire an english attorney and have him prosecuted in the UK.
Defamation judgments outside the United States that violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of expression are unenforceable in the United States. This became explicit in the third quarter of 2010 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to those who got delisted from amazon.com because of a libel judgement against them in UK brought by a (rich) nonresident.
WHOIS (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you got lucky. Several years ago, I discovered that some jerk cloned one of my company's websites. I tried to contact the person through every piece of contact info in the WHOIS record (even sent a letter half way around the world and waited for it to bounce) and it was all bogus. I reported it to ICANN and the response I got after a long wait was something like "the registrar says the contact info is fine." Fortunately, the hosting company was much more responsive and made him change the site.
Re:WHOIS (Score:4, Insightful)
The submitter sounds like they are describing textbook cybersquatting.
So alternatively, they can try Domain Name Dispute Resolution
https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp [icann.org]
Disputes alleged to arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.
You can register [person]sucks.com and shit on them all day long, but you can't expect to register [person].com and keep it.
Change your name (Score:3)
Maybe she should pick a new name, possibly a business name to work through and notify her current circle of contacts of the change.
Re:Change your name (Score:4, Insightful)
Or get her to take his name when they marry.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe she should pick a new name, possibly a business name to work through and notify her current circle of contacts of the change.
The problem is every job application I have ever went through demands former names listed so they can do a credit and internet check on your name. She will still get blacklisted after the reporting agency mentions the other sites. They no longer just do criminal background checks anymore.
There are one or two sites where for a monthly fee an employer types a name and everything about you including lawsuits, blogs, facebook, myspace, livejournal, divorces, and loans pop up that employers use for hiring decisi
Alert! Alert! (Score:5, Funny)
This sounds like a tactic to get you to set a date for the wedding... Being a woman, she would have already through of this as the easy out that once she get's married she'll likely change her last name which would help greatly with this issue. Given you haven't brought that up in your post, I'm guessing she hasn't mentioned it to you. This means that your wedding isn't any time in the near future or a date hasn't been set at all. So, I'm guessing you've proposed at some point but aren't commited enough to tie the knot. Once a big deal has been made of this situation, she will suddenly come up with the 'idea' that getting married will solve things, and the sooner the better.
I'm telling you this because you also need to keep an eye on things in the contraceptive department because if this little ruse doesn't work to get you to hitched, that will be next on the list.
Look, I know a lot of people here claim to know things they don't, but I am posting as Annonymous Coward because I don't have a slashdot account so you can trust that I know a lot more about women than most people her. Stay strong my brother.
Get a lawyer... (Score:2)
Lawyers are much better than slashdot at telling you what your legal options might be.
Seriously, where do you get this stuff? There's not a lot of obvious overlap between libel law and free speech. At least in the US, the issues are whether material is (1) defamatory and (2) untrue. So far as I know, that's it; if the material's untrue, then saying false things about people is not generally regarded as "free speech". (Note: "untrue" means "provable as a matter of fact to be untrue", not just "I don't think
Re: (Score:2)
It's still "free speech", even if it's untrue. However, if it's untrue and someone gets mad, they can sue you for civil damages for that speech. You won't go to prison, however; that's why it's free speech: there's no criminal penalties. Remember, in the legal world, there's a huge difference between civil and criminal law. You can get sued (and lose, and have to pay a lot of money in damages) for all kinds of things which are perfectly legal and there's no laws against them. You can only go to prison
Re: (Score:2)
UDRP (Score:2)
1. Have her trademark it
2. File a UDRP [icann.org]
For the rest, SEO.
BTW, you are not the crazy ex trying to figure out how she can take away your cyber-stalking, right?
4chan (Score:5, Funny)
Brand Yourself (Score:2)
This website is designed specifically for this, and is free.
http://brandyourself.com/ [brandyourself.com]
Fight fire with fire (Score:2)
Using Bing, Google etc., there are about eight web pages or so that I would not want out there. Oddly enough, the origin of those web pages were back in 1989 when I gave my name and phone # to some local BBSs. BBSs and IRC channels I stopped talking on about 17 years ago. For whatever reasons, these things float back up. They're not all bad, I'd just rather they not be around.
A solution - on Google a search for my name, first page is my Github, my Twitter, my Stack Overflow, my Facebook (which is fairly
Praise campaign + legal action (Score:5, Informative)
I've been through this myself...
As a temporary action, get the word out -- literally. Build a site or two of your own on her if needed, e.g, her official site, then get in touch with her fans, list, the press, whatever, and serve them a sensationalist "writer gets libeled online by her ex" story... If they bite, the site with her name in the domain won't get to Google's first page of results with a little luck. Even if it does, the many results that mention the smear campaign on the same page will serve as a counterweight and douse it.
In my case, that was enough to get the domain. In case it's not enough for you to do the same, sue...
Sue the ex-husband for libel, defamation, whatever... but also -- and more importantly -- to recover the domain name. If it's a .com or any other US tld, it's under US jurisdiction and can be seized by a US court; period, end of story -- irrespective of where the ex-boyfriend might be based or hosted. If the MAFIAA can shut down .com domains that serve torrents, and big business can grab domains on grounds that they're too similar to their own, you can shut down or retrieve a domain. Her name is her de facto trademark. Don't just sue the ex-boyfriend, either. Also file complaints with the registrar, the hosting business, etc. They'll take pre-emptive action more often than not when contacted. Consult with an attorney specialized in this kind of stuff, and take action under his guidance.
Sue him in the UK (Score:2)
The UK is reputed to be the best venue to sue -from- (if you can afford the legal fees).
Others may be able to share their success stories...
I have an idea (Score:2)
Post an anti-smear page to spin it your way (Score:2)
I would assume that what is most worrying is that most people that google her wouldn't tell you that they did so. To at least defend against that, your fiancee should create a blog defending herself from the accusations, so at least her side would be expressed.
At least it would garner sympathy for her, and potential employers/clients may feel pity for her more than anything and overlook the whole mess.
Really? (Score:2)
"Hey, how best to censor someone saying something I disagree with?"
Any trick that will ultimately work for you, will work for some religious group trying to shut down opposed discourse. I'm sorry your ex had such terrible choice in mates before you, but I don't think there's a way to silence him saying crazyass bullshit.
I don't know if you will ever read this .... (Score:2)
This is what you need to do and it will work:
Find a highly reputable P.R. firm that deals with SEO. I'm not talking about the kind of SEO "specialist" that you find on Craigslist - I'm talking about the kind that handles Fortune 500 businesses. The P.R. firm will begin creating sensible blogs in your name having something to do with an interest of yours or possibly a business. The will create Facebook pag
It's trivial to really ruin someone. (Score:3, Interesting)
Angry at an ex? Angry at an employer? Angry at your neighbor? Pissed off that you hit on a guy and he wasn't interested and shot you down? You can easily ruin someone's life by just posting shit about them on a site called the Rip Off Report. Google curiously gives them incredibly high page ranking, but the site is nothing more than a scam. They NEVER REMOVE ANYTHING and they're proud of it. Even if you go to court. And you can be anonymous, while putting up real information (including name, etc) of your "target". It'll sit there forever. It'll get ranked high up on the first page of Google. They exploit shady SEO practices. And the only way they'll work with you is IF YOU PAY THEM for a "partnership service" that they advertise. Reportedly, it's around $5,000 -- give or take.
You can google for all sorts of controversy regarding it. It has ruined a lot of people's lives -- and you're not even dealing with international issues or anything.
I had someone defrauding users on my site, once. I banned them for it and next thing I knew, I had a really scummy "review/complaint/whatever" on this site. Absolutely no recourse and the other person is anonymous (though, obviously not -- since I recognized their insane babbling just like the hundreds of emails they sent me for a year after they were banned).
It's really really shady shit and I don't think they're the only site that does it.
Hire a man with a bat (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reputation.com? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, SEO the shit out of the sites, in the most transparent, sure-to-get-a-site-delisted ways possible. Internet Judo, use his strength against him. Since they're on top, it's not like you can make it any worse, and it also means you don't have any direct contact with the guy--it's Google/Bing delisting him, not you. Anonymize the WHOIS information, and deny any knowledge if the guy contacts you. "What, you put up a site saying bad complaining about me? Weird, man, but whatever floats your boat. Good luck with that I guess."
And of course if Google/Bing contact you, just say, "I've been contracted to make this the top result, if you try to delist this site you'll be hearing from my lawyers." They already know you can't do jack, and they'll enjoy tweaking "your" nose and you'll find the site delisted in short order.
Other alternatives
DDOS: Illegal, don't be an idiot. Also feeds the troll, you know better than that don't you?
Register trademark & use ICANN: You're rolling the dice here, feeling lucky?
Anything + lawyer: Probably best chance of success, once you sue successfully it just makes further suits easier if he's dumb enough to stick a fork in the toaster a second time. But keep in mind, these guys do not understand the Streisand effect, and what's more, many probably actively want it. Free publicity for them, and then you have to pay!
Completely ignore it: Probably the best option. People get bored. He's doing this to get a rise out of someone who rejected him. Chances are good he'll escalate when he doesn't get the reaction he wants. If he goes big enough, you'll be able to catch his hand in the bear trap of the court system, otherwise just keep ignoring it. Escalation means you're winning. If he's quietly running the same site 3 years later, well, then you're dealing with a patient, smart, asshole, which is pretty much your worst nightmare. Good luck.
Re: (Score:3)
The Mafia (the Sicilian one, not the "MAFIAA") also provides a "clean-up" service that might be useful here....
Re:Challenge the domain ownership (Score:5, Informative)
" This policy has now been replaced with a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy created by ICANN and used by all accredited registrars. Under this new policy, a trademark owner can initiate a relatively inexpensive administrative procedure to challenge the existing domain name. In order to prevail, the trademark owner must show:
that the trademark owner owns a trademark (either registered or unregistered) that is the same or confusingly similar to the registered second level domain name;
that the party that registered the domain name has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name; and
that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
If the trademark owner successfully proves all three points in the administrative proceeding, then the domain name can either be cancelled or transferred to the prevailing trademark owner. If the trademark owner fails to prove one of these points, the administrative panel will not cancel nor transfer the domain name."
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html
Re:Challenge the domain ownership (Score:4, Informative)
that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith
The domain name seems to be registered in good faith. Depending on prenuptial agreements, she might have as much claim on the domain name as he has already. A divorce lawyer might be able to help you out (IANAL tho).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
it might have been registered in good faith, but it doesn't sound as though it is being /used/ in good faith. Thus, ICANN's rules apply to the situation (assuming the situation was described accurately).
Re: (Score:3)
When I was looking to register my unusual last name as a domain, a squatter snapped it up before I could register it. I guess they troll whois lookups somehow. I now have ($name).org and ($name).net, but .com is registered to the squatter. For now, the .com site has some harmless ads, but I suppose that could change. The squatter also maintains a site which tries to extort "hosting" fees if you want to use one of the 2,000 domains he owns.
Several trademark owners filed complaints about this squatter (on
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the submitter didn't say it was true. The submitter didn't even say it was not libel. The submitter said he didn't think a court would find it to be libel, based on "free speech rights".
This does not argue that the submitter has a nuanced-enough understanding of the law to justify trying to draw specific conclusions about what the facts are from his speculations as to what a court would rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see your mistake. You think that from IF A THEN B follows If B THEN A. Rookie logic mistake. Not to mention that something can be damaging to a reputation without being strictly false, through merely presenting an unsavory association that is difficult to prove to be incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your debating skills are on par with your logic skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, being untrue is necessary but not sufficient for it to be found to be libel.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a gray area in between: what if the accusations are untrue, but you can't prove it?
Note, IANAL, so I don't know if a civil suit for libel would work out well if the accusations are all hearsay (e.g., "I heard that she has sex with her dog!"), but if the allegations are vague enough and difficult or impossible to disprove ("she told me that she's a pedophile", leading to a he-said-she-said argument with her claiming she never said any such thing), she may be in a difficult spot.
Any lawyers here with
Re: (Score:2)
I think you answered your own post. You said the material is not libelous -- ie: it's true.
Not libelous and false are not two sides of the same coin. You can't infer one from something not being the other. Example: site gets opened with the name of someone in the URL, and the site owner than proceeds to post timecube and NAMBLA articles. Not libel, but not fun either. Or, just reposts random porn to that site. Or of frat parties. Or posts about how great coke and pot are.
There are great ways to ruin reputations, none of which involve explicit falsehoods. Lets hope you never have to find out first
Re: (Score:2)
Set up some zombies to DDOS him until he goes away.
You should also talk to a lawyer. Making assumptions about what the law will and won't say when there isn't a lawyer involved is prone to failure.
I think you have those two steps the wrong way round.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if they live and/or host in a foreign country with a foreign domain, the legal options become more complicated, more expensive, and more diffi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, fairly co
Re: (Score:2)
This does NOT apply one bit to citizens having a go at one another, and if it can be shows that it's truly smear and there's nothing tangible to the accusations, then it can most definitely be treated as libelous and freedom of speech is irrelevant here. You can't just say whatever you like without there being consequences, particularly if you lie.
Yeah, but apparently you can go to someone's funeral and shout "God Hates Fags" and tell all the deceased's relatives that he's burning in Hell, and if they escort you off the premises you can sue them for violating your free speech. So I suspect speech in America is a little freer than you believe it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have I read an opinion about an injustice on /. only to find out later it wasn't such an injustice? I notice OP didn't provide any URLs to let people make up their own minds.
Good point! How do we know his fiancée isn't Sarah Palin? If she is, the OP should be aware that Amazon is not a reference to Caribou Barbie, and those negative reviews are not a smear campaign, they're the opinions of people who don't know her personally but read her book and didn't like it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That link is about folks who actually did those things and want to bury things that they think a future employer may find objectionable.
In this case, someone is making shit up and defaming someone.
The person asking this needs to have his wife sue. Do not pass go. Go directly to lawyer.
Actually, the example in the article is about a girl that had a common name that was returning search results that were not about her.
"From the article: "Samantha Grossman wasn't always thrilled with the impression that emerged when people Googled her name. 'It wasn't anything too horrible,' she said. 'I just have a common name. There would be pictures, college partying pictures, that weren't of me, things I wouldn't want associated with me.'"
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you could harass him in a similar manner: go to his family members and friends (and msot importantly, his employer) and tell them all what a giant asshole he is and how he's doing all these things to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Also, the call his mother approach often works.