New post from Momdot.com

I'm only going to respond to some excerpts from Trisha's post:

For 16 months now I have been a victim of cyber-stalking by two online strangers. I know I have yet to talk about it, but after some lengthy discussions with some (amazing) blog and community leaders, they believe that I should advocating against it and supporting others that go through it. I think thats a fabulous idea.

Again, as I have said over and over again. I have nothing to do with any of the people you keep bringing up and I expect you to issue a very public apology to them if you bring on the legal team you threaten.

I would also never continuously use any form of media to continuously attack the same person. For one, its illegal, and for two, I think it would make me look pathetic.

No she'd never do that, she'd just use one form of media to attack multiple strangers. Apparently she needs a new team of attorneys. It's not illegal, it's called free speech.

The current rumors going around are also advocated by these same people. I am a victim over and over and over again. Same story, same people. Look it up. You will find over a years worth of the same content, regurgitated monthly about me.

What rumors? You posted a mean blog with unedited photos of a teenage girl. That's not a rumor, that's a fact.

First lets start with some education..

Cyber-bullying is a term that is often misused online. Cyber-bullies are actually only between minors. Both parties have to be under the age of 18 and include multiple incidents of technology in attempt to cause someone physical or emotional harm. Its just like at school bullying, but online. Basically, you will know it if you see it.

Again, you need new attorneys. Cyber-bullying does not require both parties to be under the age of 18, just one. Google: Lori Drew.

Cyber-stalking includes these things:

• Malice
• Premeditation
• Repetition
• Distress
• Obsession
• Vendetta
• No Legitimate Purpose
• Personally Directed
• Disregarded Warnings to Stop
• Harassment

• 
  

The criteria for meeting cyberstalking claims are as follows (from the same wiki article Trisha quoted but did not source):

A number of key factors have been identified:

• False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.^[4]
• Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims. ^[5]
• Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
• False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.
• Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim's computer by sending viruses.
• Ordering goods and services. They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim's name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim's workplace.
• Arranging to meet. Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.^[6]
• 
  

Unfortunately for Trisha, none of my posts meet that criteria. And if she did even in fact meet with lawyers they would have told her that.

When I looked into an attorney a few months ago, most attorneys I was talking to really didn’t know what to do. Internet law is few and far in between. But this week I decided I was going about it the wrong way and I needed to embrace the community around me and see what info they could pass on to me. In doing so, I was able to be recommended right to media and blog attorneys that fellow large bloggers use on the net and had an appointment with them today.

Really? You had an appointment with a prominent media and blog attorney, on a Sunday over a holiday weekend, in Nowhere, Alabama?

Its to the point where its illegal. You are not allowed to contact someones work, family, friends, or business associates w/ slander and I am finally through with being a victim.

Slander? Are you kidding? I'm posting my opinion on your posts. Let's talk about slander shall we? To start howling about slander my posts need to be false. Unfortunately, none of what I stated is false. I wish it was. We could talk about that Alexa traffic post but of course my attorney would subpoena mr.webvisitsnow, those ebay records, and your hosting receords. Here you go if you need it, standards for online slander

We have also documented all IPs from every account created or used to input my email address into false places. If you would like a copy of these IPs to block from your blog so you don’t become a victim, let me know I will supply it.

She is opening herself up to a world of lawsuits, because she doesn't have a privacy policy or terms of service on momdot.com that indicates she may share IP addresses or other personally identifiable information with other web sites what she is doing is illegal. Furthermore, even if one was posted and she forced everyone currently on the site to accept the TOS and privacy policy it still wouldn't cover former visitors to the site. But your crack legal team told you that too huh?

We should be allowed to, in our own writing styles, talk about social commentary, political views, controversial topics, snark, or any other form of how we want without being subjected to fake accounts, attacks, harassment, and more. That is NOT freedom of speech. That is illegal.

Sorry, I posted a blog yesterday about freedom of speech, you're free to attack 15 year olds and hairy people in hot tubs and the rest of us are allowed to attack you for posting photos of them with cruel comments. It's not illegal, it's the 1st amendment.

How many of the “outraged” can tell me my daughters name? Tell me where I went to college? Tell me the past 5 posts I have put up about my family? Tell me what I like to do on the weekends? Whats my favorite book? My favorite band? Can anyone outside of regular readers answer those questions without looking them up?

Who cares, all I need to know is you are cyber-bullying teens. Do you think finding out what your favorite book is will make everyone say "Oh wow, she likes Chicken Soup for the Soul! That cyber-bullying post is A-OK by me!

I am taking a stand for you. For all of us. For everyone in the blogosphere that wants to write about their mother in law, their job, their neighbor, their kids, their husband, their sex life, their disease, their college years, their handicap, their true thoughts without fear of online assault. For everyone that wants to join groups they want to, be a part of what they want, to go to their site without someone telling them what they can and cannot do.

Sure you are. Just like you took a stand for that 15 year old, that orthodox jew, Mr. Mohawk dude, and that couple in the hot tub.

I will update as I can, but much of what I am doing legally will most likely be held back from any discussion I have online.

Yeah, that was predicted in a post I wrote this morning.

For the record, as a blogger, if I have offended someone to the point I feel like I need to remove content, then I will choose to do that. I don’t owe the “Internet” an apology for people coming to this spot. My opinions are not widely known as light and airy. But as it was, I did remove the offending material and there is nothing more I can do to set things “right”. I did what was asked and that should be the end. Anyone continuing after the posts were removed is merely advocating hate, not an issue.

No, you don't owe the "internet" an apology, you owe that girl an apology and until you publicly apologize and acknowledge why what you posted was wrong or your lawyers stop me I'm not going away. And for the record, if you have good attorneys they'll tell you it's cheaper and a lot easier to do just that.

Have your attorney send me a love note and they should send it to Google too, Google won't remove this blog without a court order and neither will I. Bring it on. I have no problem with it.