Ceilidh > Status Update

@Skyla and YAL - Thanks! These details are exactly what interest me. I have noticed the same similarities, and I believe that the patterns can be picked up elsewhere. In books by the author in question, for example. In the blog posts by the same author.

If we are talking about a basis for (hypothetical) legal action, could such similarities be substantive in identifying the mysterious Tinkerbell, etc.?

Some people are so sad, to make anti bully site to bully and stalk people that is a new kind of low.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "I really wished there was a website where you could just insert some text and it would compare the styles of writing..."

Yes, exactly! The double spacing may not be significant, but the sum total of similarities probably are. Maybe there IS such a web site (I don't know of it, unfortunately).

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "The overall formatting is identical, not just the double spacing.

It's like when someone on here changes their screen name and at first I'm like "Who is this person?" and then they type a comment and I figure out who they are by their writing style...."

Exactly! Is it usable in a legal brief or in court? I don't know about that. But there is a lot of material that could be analyzed. Just sayin'.

Jim wrote: "Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "The overall formatting is identical, not just the double spacing.

It's like when someone on here changes their screen name and at first I'm like "..."
I don't know if it would be useable, Jim. I do remember in evidence class that there was talk about having experts coming in to analyze handwriting, but I don't know about style. My best guess with the limited facts would be probably. I mean, if you have an expert witness who analyzes syntax for a living and is renowned in his/her field you could probably make a case for it. Or at least I think there would be. I don't know if there's actual case precedence though to back up such an argument. It might not even come down to needing to analyzing styles. I'm sure a lot of things about the identity of the party/parties would be found just through the investigation itself.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "I don't know if it would be useable, Jim. I do remember in evidence class that there was talk about having experts coming in to analyze handwriting, but I don't know about style. My best guess with the limited facts would be probably....
I'm sure a lot of things about the identity of the party/parties would be found just through the investigation itself..."

Thank you so much for that detailed analysis, YAL! That is exactly what I wanted to see.

I can certainly understand that the analysis would have to be done by an expert, probably with statistical support of some kind and case precedence as you said. Way over my head, for sure. But it does seem that the screencapping may be very useful, if and when. Always a good idea to have the evidence, it seems to me.

Thank you so much for talking these issues through with me - YAL, Skyla, Ridley and everyone who is involved on this thread. I love you guys!

I have a couple other items that I think will be of interest, but it is getting too late for me to continue with them tonight. I plan to look things over on this thread after I sleep on it, and go from there.

Thanks again!

The Holy Terror wrote: "If you have time, here's the post where M and Searock attack Ridley and myself for defending Armintrout."

Man. I keep getting derailed, going off to read OTHER threads, this is why I tend to ignore this stuff. It goes on forever and ever.

It amazes me that there are actual Goodreads members who are not here to hang out with other users and talk books. They are here to find people who don't like certain books and then go about "calling them out" on hating books that they apparently love.

Why? I don't get it.

If they would shut the hell up, and stop defending their fave authors, those particular authors wouldn't get so much negative attention. EL James is doing just fine for herself, and those other unheard of authors would probably fade into anonymity, maybe develop better writing skills, maybe publish something else, and then maybe they would meet success later. But now, their names are associated with sociopathic behavior.

If Vanity spent more time honing her skills, and less time trying to blame popular GR reviewers for all her problems, maybe she'd recover, grow as a person and an author, and be happy.

Forgive me, I'm just reading up on all this for the first time, I know it's old news.

I have to just say--how funny is it that Shannon is called out for having her RL photos on GR, but Lucy is called out for having NO photos on GR.

About Lucy: "It is usually DEFCOM 3 bullies who, out of cowardice, will not reveal actual pictures of themselves."

About Shannon: "The image was taken from her actual GR profile. From this we can divine that she likes to take a lot of pictures of herself. How nice."

Out of cowardice? Where is Peter Pan/ Tinkerbell's photo?

The fact that people are fucked-up enough to post OTHER PEOPLE'S PICTURES AND PERSONAL INFORMATION is fucked up.

Y'all should totally make a lawsuit out of this! I'd love to see them burn to the ground.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "I know lot of people double space after periods, it's a pretty common thing I've had teachers say to double space-shrugs. But it wasn't just the spacing I noticed that was similar it was the use o..."

I very often double-space after period, because that's what I have to do for my academical essays. I try not to do it when I post, or when I write on my blog, it just takes up more space.

I know THT is aware of this blog post by Stacia Kane, but posting a link here for everyone else to take a look.

(It's also linked via Stacia's GR Author page).

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "You can buy 50 shades at Babys'r'us? What the ever loving fuck?!

There are 50 shades onesies? Seriously? What the ever loving fuck?!"

Ridley wrote: "Katie(babs) wrote: "And I thought the most disturbing thing I learned this week was you can now buy the Fifty Shades books at Babies R Us."

I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

My work here is done. Muah.

I guess people who read Fifty go onto to having babies, thus Babies R Us. I'd love to know what their sales are like of that book.

Stephanie wrote: "Katie(babs) wrote: "And I thought the most disturbing thing I learned this week was you can now buy the Fifty Shades books at Babies R Us.

O.o"

Wait, what? Link, please."

A friend who is going to be a new mother told me. She went into Babies and saw the books and went WTF?

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "And this Tinkerbell person seems to think it is up to the author to add their book to the GR.

And a couple more people who have blatantly attacked people here (Nouda for instance are commenting)."


YAL Book Briefs wrote: "@Skyla I noticed that. It makes me wonder if a lot of these accounts, like Nouda's have been sock puppet accounts that have been set up successfully for months being overlooked. Also, I noticed f..."


I don't mean to stir up trouble, and even though I myself don't condone or even respect what they have done at "Stop the GR Bullies", I just have to point out that even though of course there are bound to be trolls and sockpuppets, some real people out there actually do agree with them (at least on the point that harsh reviews = bullying/mean evil cows that need to get laid). I found this out while reading through some blog posts and their ensuing discussions on this particular topic.

Maybe people aren't getting the whole story, maybe their position automatically makes them biased, or maybe they just have the "if you don't have anything nice to say....." mentality. I think the point is people are always going to have differing opinions on this matter, and it's best to just leave it at that. Hopefully this whole site thing will just blow over (though I'm hoping they'll pay some sort of legal repercussion) and we can all go back to reading + reviewing books.

Zee lawyer says most importantly not to post personal information online if you don't want it discovered. I asked if stalking was included. However, he did say that without said person's consent it may be illegal, but he needs to see if it's a criminal law. He'll find out which law states it and more later.

Wicked Incognito Now wrote: "Forgive me, I'm just reading up on all this for the first time, I know it's old news.

I have to just say--how funny is it that Shannon is called out for having her RL photos on GR, but Lucy is called out for having NO photos on GR..."

I think you made a lot of excellent points on your posts, Wicked Incognito Now. A lot of us have the impression that the pattern of behavior in question is sociopathic. It also appears to be consistent with the known behavior of one particular person, as you alluded. I would certainly use words like pathetic, twisted, sinister and dangerous to describe it.

Does it just go on and on? I certainly hope not. A lot of us have also looked for ways to reach a relatively peaceful end to this problem. That is a worthy goal, but I am not terribly confident that it is possible.

As a working hypothesis, I am hopeful that firm ground can be established for a hypothetical legal action against the site, and whoever is behind it. I really appreciate the contributions of our 'legal team' in this effort.

From my standpoint, the evidence is what matters. By that, I mean the strength of the hypothetical case for a cease-and-desist order (or equivalent) and possible criminal penalties against the site and its author(s).

Another way of putting this: would a good, experienced lawyer, with appropriate expertise, file suit on the evidence and expect to win? Another question: is there a credible legal avenue to reach a permanent solution, for the site and its author(s)?

Oceana wrote: "Zee lawyer says most importantly not to post personal information online if you don't want it discovered. I asked if stalking was included. However, he did say that without said person's consent it may be illegal, but he needs to see if it's a criminal law. He'll find out which law states it and more later. ..."

Thanks very much for this information, Oceana! I will certainly be interested in the followup.

One thing that is clear in this case is that the site has posted grossly inaccurate information, without permission, about several individuals. Whether the posted information is slander or libel, and legally actionable as such, is something I would like to clarify.

I have no legal expertise but I would say the page about Kat's at the very least is libellous. Saying someone is an alcoholic and unfit mother?! Outrageous and, I would think, illegal.

My mom's a lawyer. Even if she's mostly in the corporate/big firms side of law, I could always ask her for some legal advice if needed. :D

On another note, just found a Wiki article on defamation. Since I'm no expert and I haven't quite dug into the topic yet, I'm not so sure on the validity on this, and whether it applies to the Internet. If needed, there's always the option of calling the site out on slander, with the derogatory remarks made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Belle wrote: "I have no legal expertise but I would say the page about Kat's at the very least is libellous. Saying someone is an alcoholic and unfit mother?! Outrageous and, I would think, illegal."

That is my thinking too, Belle.

I am also wondering if international law comes into play in that case. The GRbullying site is registered in the USA, and those claims were made against an individual in Australia. Other claims were made against individuals in the U.S.

Are these nationality differences significant for libel/slander cases? I hope our legal scholars can give us some perpectives.

Max wrote: "My mom's a lawyer. Even if she's mostly in the corporate/big firms side of law, I could always ask her for some legal advice if needed. :D"

Max wrote: "On another note, just found a Wiki article on defamation. Since I'm no expert and I haven't quite dug into the topic yet, I'm not so sure on the validity on this, and whether it applies to the Inte..."

Excellent, Max!

I know from personal experience that you can sue for libel on the internet. It doesn't matter what sort of medium they use. The gist of defamation suits is that written defamation is libel and slander is spoken. The key in these cases is to show damages. Otherwise you'll just be wasting money. Also, private disclosure of public facts is often an easier route to go suing wise because you don't have to show that the information is false. The fact that this plays internationally could play an interesting development. I don't know a lot about international law (obviously) but I do know enough to know that other countries have some stricter laws when it comes to this sort of thing than the US. Another route that might want to be looked at is intentional infliction of emotional distress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentio...

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "I know from personal experience that you can sue for libel on the internet. It doesn't matter what sort of medium they use..."

Excellent perspectives, YAL, and thanks so much! So we are talking about libel, and demonstrating damage.

I am really interested in the article about intentional infliction of emotional distress. My take is that revealing information about where a person lives, works, eats, etc., and coupling that with descriptions of the persons as bullies, etc. etc. is certainly a threat to the wellbeing of those persons, and therefore a clear case of inflicting emotional distress.

Does that sound like a strong basis for (hypothetical) legal action? It seems that a lot of the known details would be relevant here. And the screencaps would come into play during discovery, yes?

WoW, kat really isn't that bad. i believe she is tipsy not drunk. i've never heard of a drunk who reads so avidly and no one likes when an authour tries to push their books on readers

Christina wrote: "My posts seems to be getting eaten. :(

Anyway, yes, the site is the very definition of defamation. I'd posted a link to the Wiki site before, but that might have been on another thread. I honestly..."

yes, they have become what they claim they are against. oh the irony

Christina wrote: "Anyway, yes, the site is the very definition of defamation. I'd posted a link to the Wiki site before, but that might have been on another thread. I honestly don't see how there ISN'T a case here, and plus it would out the outers, so to speak..."

Those are my thoughts too, Christina.:)

Niara wrote: "yes, they have become what they claim they are against. oh the irony..."

I agree, Niara.

"Christina wrote: Jesus God. Is that something you found online, or did you just make that via Photoshop..."

Nope, it was in an Etsy shop, I believe.

I have heard of a case where an author sued a reviewer over a review because it was wrong and defamed him. And each country has different definitions on what entails defamation and libel. I can't think of the names but I think it was in the UK and it was successful.

Has wrote: "I have heard of a case where an author sued a reviewer over a review because it was wrong and defamed him. And each country has different definitions on what entails defamation and libel. I can't t..."

That's interesting. I know that in the US there are three different standards for proving a defamation claim depending on whether or not it involves a public figure, matter of public vs private concern, and for that matter whether the work itself is a fact piece of opinion. I'm really interested in seeing that case Has. If you can find it or remember one of the parties names I'd be interested in seeing it just for academic purposes. Honestly though, I think for the most part a review would not be subject to libel because it's an opinion piece. Now if the review asserted facts about the author that weren't true and it defamed them, then there'd be an issue. But in most cases...

I found it!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...


I know UK laws are different to the US and I know they are strengthening online stalking which is the case of what Voldermortina is doing.

Has wrote: "I found it!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...


I know UK laws are different to the US and I know they are strengthening onlin..."

Interesting. I know that the US is more in favor of the defendant. Thanks for the link.

Thanks very much for the link and information, Has.

And thanks once again for the knowledge and perspectives, YAL.

In the vast majority of reviews that I have seen under attack, the book in question is a work of fiction. The reviews are (my recollection) a mixture of opinion and plot summary/details that were relevant to the opinions stated. If I understand your points, YAL, none of those reviews would be covered under libel law, unless as you say there were false statements about the author or the book.

More generally, my impression is that the attacks on reviewers fall mainly into two classes:

1) The review is critical of plot and/or characters that depict negative values or traits in a positive or lust-worthy manner. Quite often these depictions are seen by the reviewer as anti-feminist (with good reason, from my standpoint). The reviewer is attacked by author or readers who loved the book, and are not concerned about the depictions.

2) The review is critical of the quality of writing or other basic elements of the book - plot, characters, etc. The author or readers take offense to the criticism, and attack the reviewer.

In both cases, the reviewer expresses a series of opinions, with quotes or plot/character details to illustrate the points of criticism.

If this is what is being attacked - and I think it is, in nearly all of the cases described as 'bullying' - then there is no basis for a claim of libel, unless I am missing something important here. Or would that basis vary from one country to another?

There's more about the author suing the reviewer here

I'm ashamed to be living in McGrath's home town but I'm glad the judge threw out his case. He's also guilty of Vanity's crimes. From The Independent article found in Lexxie's link:

'The judge also questioned whether Mr McGrath, a married father of two, might have trouble convincing a jury that he had been wronged because of his own online behaviour. During proceedings it emerged that the author had used a number of online pseudonyms to review his self-published book and come to his defence once people began to criticise his work.'

Unfortunately that's not what he thought. Also from that article:

' He also defended his use of online pseudonyms stating that he was “trying to pull off a complicated satire” at the time.

“There are artistic reasons that are not unethical, to use fake review accounts and, in sudden defence of a serious attack, it seems eminently reasonable to reach for whatever resources there are available to protect family, name and reputation,” he said.'

I don't think the dude knows what "unethical", "fake", and "unreasonable" means. He said he was going to appeal the ruling though the deadline for appeal was in April. I doubt he got anywhere.

Lexxie wrote: "There's more about the author suing the reviewer here"

That is a great thread, Lexxie!

So:

1) The author had his case thrown out, but I guess he intends to appeal.

2) The reviewer did reveal personal information about the author, without his permission.

3) Amazon put a lot of money into getting the case dismissed.

4) Oh, and the author used sock-puppet accounts on Amazon to fight back against the review.

In our case, the personal information revealed is about reviewers, and a lot of it is false. We suspect that an author is doing the revealing on the GRbullying site, and we KNOW that an author did the revealing in our last major episode (end of May).

Not-so-random question: are sock-puppet accounts (on commercial sites like Amazon) legal, quasi-legal, or illegal?

Tough to prove their status as sock-puppet accounts - I get that. But are they legal if - for example - they are used to influence the sale of books, through reviews or by attacking other reviews?

Sorry about the redundancy above - I cross-posted with Ames and Christina.

It's worrying. I wonder if Amazon and Dawkins hadn't been defendants with their big bucks barristers (£77,000!) would the case still have been dismissed? I mean, the reviewer was obviously too "well off" to receive a legal aid solicitor (lawyer) and too poor to afford anyone so he represented himself.

Christina wrote: "It takes a lot of steps to create a sock puppet account and gather "damning" information on reviewers who dare to have an opinion. Scary..."

Yes, very scary.

I do believe it to be Vanity, and here is why. I remember the nickname Stitch mentioned when she thought she outed Wendy and now its mentioned with Lucy on getting a RL pix.
I almost would feel sorry for Vanity, but I can't find the empathy for it due to the fact that she put children in danger.
I cant find the words on how disgusted I am, it brings tears to my eyes on how evil this website is.

Amy or "Ames" wrote: "It's worrying. I wonder if Amazon and Dawkins hadn't been defendants with their big bucks barristers (£77,000!) would the case still have been dismissed? I mean, the reviewer was obviously too "well off" to receive a legal aid solicitor (lawyer) and too poor to afford anyone so he represented himself...."

Very worrying - I certainly agree. But it seems clear that the author hurt his own case by using sock-puppet accounts on Amazon. And the author we have been discussing is a documented user of sock-puppet accounts on GR (my understanding). Please correct me if this is wrong - I think Archer and Lissa established this point.

Liz wrote: "I do believe it to be Vanity, and here is why. I remember the nickname Stitch mentioned when she thought she outed Wendy and now its mentioned with Lucy on getting a RL pix.
I almost would feel sorry for Vanity, but I can't find the empathy for it due to the fact that she put children in danger.
I cant find the words on how disgusted I am, it brings tears to my eyes on how evil this website is..."

Those are my feelings too, Liz.

Jim here's the case that they often use in US law school text books to introduce defamation it should give you a general idea of how the law works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York...

I think it's Vanity too. Especially since the whole Wendy Selection post is now password protected. I think that if/when Wendy appears on the site the post will probably borrow heavily from that one in its contents and comments. Hence, why the post is now under lock and key so they can't be compared. This is all a theory on my part though.

Does anyone have a screen cap of Vanity's site before she blocked it?
Yeah it makes sense that she wouldn't do Wendy first because she thinks she already outed her and it makes her look less guilty if she starts with other people.
I am just speculating here, but after what she did to Wendy I can see her making another site to do it to others.
She seems like a person that would feed off of all this attention.

Thanks for the link Christina, I really wish there was a screen cap of all the comments that were posted afterwards. I remember there were quite a few sock puppets who were communicating back and forth, and I'm thinking maybe some of them would mesh up with the ones that are on the site or something.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "Jim here's the case that they often use in US law school text books to introduce defamation it should give you a general idea of how the law works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York......"

Excellent link, YAL! That case clarifies a lot of points for me, and thank you very much!

It seems that malice is a very tough thing to prove, even if there is good circumstantial evidence that malice is a central motivating element for the site/posts in question. We should certainly keep that in mind, I think.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "Thanks for the link Christina, I really wish there was a screen cap of all the comments that were posted afterwards. I remember there were quite a few sock puppets who were communicating back and ..."


Yeah, I think it was in the comments that the name Stitch was mentioned.
I am frustrated with myself for not remembering more clearly.

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "I think Kat may have something on Cuddlebuggery with the photo of Wendy and her info blacked out. I don't think we ever got a screencap with all of the comments on because she kept deleting them."

I may have something useful in my collection, but it will take some digging for me to find it. I will try to look into it shortly.