*Link is content safe, although it contains links to non-safe content.
From VioletBlue's Story:
quote:Last Monday Seattle resident Jason Fortuny (and a friend) carried out a thought experiment into reality -- one I think anyone who has surfed Craigslist sex ads has entertained. He took a hardcore Women Seeking Men ad from another city and reposted it to see how many replies he could get in 24 hours (the ad's photo at right). Then he published every single response -- photos, emails, IM info, phone numbers, names, everything, to a public wiki (Encyclopedia Dramatica -- site is up and down, check back if down). Then they went public on Jason's LiveJournal page calling it The Craigslist Experiment, inviting readers to identify the CL ad's responders and add more info ("Your Goal: identify people you know IRL and point them out. We've already had great successes here.") It has turned into quite a meme, getting posted all over the place.
posted
It's offensive and immoral. Those guys violated an implicit social contract for privacy.
And now I just read the (first) article. So I'm in agreement with them. No surprise.
Here's my question to you: Is there some point to be made, other than what Fortuny did was stupid and wrong?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Jason "IRL," as he was engaged to a good friend of mine for a while. I thank every benevolent force on Earth and beyond that they broke up before they actually got married.
Jason is an unfortunate person. He seems to take delight in ruining people's lives, crushing their self-esteem, and getting as much attention as he possibly can for it. I wish I could say that I'm surprised by that, I know things about him that make this kind of behavior unsurprising. It's too bad that he chose this kind of behavior instead of something more positive.
He also thrives on negative attention. He does whatever he can to "prank" people when they're at their most vulnerable, and really seems to enjoy the tremendously negative response he gets from that kind of behavior. One example of a "prank" that he is particularly proud of is his exploits on a forum that was set up after Hurricane Katrina for people to reconnect with their lost family members and friends. He made all kinds of offensive remarks there just to jangle everybody's raw nerves.
He has often compared himself, and asked others to compare him to, Andy Kaufman, who many people didn't find very funny anyway - yet he lacks all of the subtlety and finesse of Andy Kaufman.
Sadly, Jason can't take what he dishes out. He was recently featured on some E/N web site (after this whole Craigslist thing), where people quickly found his personal/business web site (business is a joke - the only work he gets is that which his friend finds for him, and then he usually pisses off most of his clients). They laughed at his ridiculous resume and the rest of the content of his site, including his poetry, so he took it down. The site is next to nothing now, just email contact. So, clearly he can make other people's lives miserable, but when people laugh at his dumb poetry, he is quick to hide it all so nobody can see it. Yet he won't take down the photos and names of the people he's victimizing here. He ended up getting nonstop calls once his phone number was found, too, and rather than taking his hard-earned "fame" like a man, he changed his number so his victims and the rest of his detractors could no longer call him.
He's also being sued by one couple who was victimized (or rather, they are in the process of suing him). He reacted by having a friend leave a taunting note on the window of their lawyer's office in Yakima. Mature. Very, very mature.
This man is 30 years old, by the way.
He's such an unpleasant person. You can't even imagine it unless you know him. Needy, obnoxious, cruel, unforgiving, vain...sucks all your energy out just being anywhere near him. On the one hand, I'm really disgusted that he's achieved his goal of nationwide notoriety with this "project." He's certainly tried MANY times before to have his "Andy Kaufman" moment in the spotlight. On the other, I can't wait to see whether the New York Times, who just interviewed him a few days ago, makes him look exactly like the childish ass he is. I'm sure he peppered his interview with hundreds of potentially devastating comments. After the crap he put my friend through and the way I've watched him strive to ruin people's lives for years, I do hope that he learns something from this experience and knocks off the kiddy act, and starts behaving like a man. Maybe it will work, because I haven't seen any forum where the CL Experiment has been discussed where he wasn't thought of as an immature jerk.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems pretty foolish to entrust a total stranger with information with which, if they chose, they could "ruin" your life.
Am I excusing his actions? No. Am I blaming the victim? I'm sure some will see it that way. But I'm OK with that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He'll get his, hardcore. There's no way he'll escape being civilly liable for what he did here.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Jason has Z-E-R-O money. If he does get sued (and I hope he does - somebody needs to stop him and teach him a lesson before he self-destructs and takes many other people down with him), he'd better hope all his little internet fangirls can click those PayPal donation links like there ain't no tomorrow, because I don't know HOW he'd afford to represent himself.
It'll be interesting to watch this develop.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It seems pretty foolish to entrust a total stranger with information with which, if they chose, they could "ruin" your life.
Am I excusing his actions? No. Am I blaming the victim? I'm sure some will see it that way. But I'm OK with that.
Oh, definitely, the people who resopnded to the ad were being careless and dumb.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It seems pretty foolish to entrust a total stranger with information with which, if they chose, they could "ruin" your life.
Am I excusing his actions? No. Am I blaming the victim? I'm sure some will see it that way. But I'm OK with that.
I agree. But in case you were interested in actually avoiding confrontation and misinterpretation (which, admittedly, you never seem to be concerned with), anyone who would view you as blaming the victim would likely do so because the entire content of your post is vindictive of the victim, without any balancing.
(edited to add the smiley, to clarify that there is no snark intended)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Erso -- I have no idea what to extract from the conflicting messages of your post.
Also, the entirety of my post was not vindictive of the victim. I explicitly said that it doesn't excuse the guy's actions.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Erso -- I have no idea what to extract from the conflicting messages of your post.
Which messages are conflicting?
quote:Also, the entirety of my post was not vindictive of the victim. I explicitly said that it doesn't excuse the guy's actions.
I apologize; the overall feeling of your post is vindictive and largely unsympathetic, which makes it read one way.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how any of it was vindictive at all. None of these people have done anything to me -- why would I want any kind of revenge?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't see how any of it was vindictive at all. None of these people have done anything to me -- why would I want any kind of revenge?
"Vindictive" is also synonymous with "unforgiving." Sorry, I could have picked a better word.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Wired in response to comments that these guys deserved it because:
quote: 1. they naively sent personal information via email 2. a couple of them indicated they were married 3. a couple used their work accounts to reply, and/or 4. only losers look for sex online.
These are thin justifications for a clear violation of these men's right to privacy.
Here's a quick thought game.
What if it the Craig’s List posting was about:
* A 25 year-old woman looking for a sugar daddy? * A depressed woman looking for a fellow depressed guy? * A dom woman looking for submissive men to humiliate? * A gay man looking for 'straight' guys? * A 'straight' woman looking for a butch lesbian? * A butch lesbian looking for a 'straight' woman? * A lesbian looking for a lesbian? * A closeted gay man looking for another closeted, discreet man? * An overweight, not attractive straight guy looking for a date? * A 21-year-old hipster looking for another hipster into? * A goth woman looking for a goth guy into leather and trenchcoats? * A couple looking for a third person to watch them have sex? * A Christian woman looking for a Christian man? * A furry looking for another furry? * A Cos-Player looking for someone to dress up with them? * A middle aged woman who doesn't know she has terrible taste in poetry looking for a man who will buy her flowers, take her for walks on beaches and compose saccharine poems that rhyme?
Which of these do you feel superior enough to that you would want to see their private notes and photos displayed illegally on the internet?
And what's your justification for choosing what kind of people are reprehensible enough to you that their private lives should be splayed on the internet for anyone, from family to friends to co-workers to acquaintances to their bosses, to see?
Edit to add: Which I largely agree with. This guy seems like a real sociopath, honestly. Scary.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to hear from Dag on this one. I'm not saying what the guy did was right, but from a legal standpoint I wonder if the people affected have any grounds to actually sue. They can't sue for slander because he didn't invent anything that the responders did. Can they even sue for breech of privacy? I thought that if someone sends me a letter, unless they state in the letter that this is a private communication, I can do whatever I want with it. Wouldn't the same be true of email?
Edited to add: The link to the section of Washington Law in one of the articles was rather vague. The person writing the article linked to a portion of a chapter in Washington law but did not explain the chapter of the law and exactly how it would apply. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm curious.
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: Edit to add: Which I largely agree with. This guy seems like a real sociopath, honestly. Scary.
He is. Honestly. And it is scary, although it's not scary in the "he's going to kill somebody" way. Just in he "he honest-to-god believes that he is better than everybody else on the planet and thinks that everybody needs to acknowledge this" way.
Actually, I personally believe that he in fact has an EXTREMELY low opinion of himself, and his "pranks" are his way of trying to make the rest of the world think he is confident in himself.
But even that is sociopathic, when taken to these extremes.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I'd like to hear from Dag on this one. I'm not saying what the guy did was right, but from a legal standpoint I wonder if the people affected have any grounds to actually sue. They can't sue for slander because he didn't invent anything that the responders did. Can they even sue for breech of privacy? I thought that if someone sends me a letter, unless they state in the letter that this is a private communication, I can do whatever I want with it. Wouldn't the same be true of email?
You're right. He's pretty clever, so he's usually careful enough about this that he can't be caught in anything illegal - although, a few blogs have posted links to laws that seem to support that he violated some kind of implied privacy dealie (technical term!). However, even trying to retain a lawyer to defend himself would probably bankrupt him and hopefully teach him a lesson. I hope the couple that is trying to sue him follows through.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah the Internet. Empowering idiotic assholes to easily hurt other people. Why doesn't he just go put some firecrackers in mailboxes or something?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I know about disclosure torts is what I learned for the bar exam, which is definitely not the law of any jurisdiction but probably close to lots of different states:
The elements of disclosure are 1) Widespread dissemination 2) of genuinely confidential information about the plaintiff such as financial, medical, or academic 3) that would be objectionable to the average person.
There is a newsworthiness exception: information important to the public may be published as news.
This tort would turn on whether these facts were genuinely confidential. It's pretty clear there was widespread disclosure that would be objectionable to the average person.
Depending on Washington law, this might be not confidential, definitely confidential, or, most likely, up to the jury.
This is not a guy you want to get in front of a jury if you're a defense attorney.
There's also the possibility of intentional infliction of emotional distress: 1) outrageous conduct 2) that causes the plaintiff to suffer severe distress 3) with intent to cause distress.
Intent can be made out by showing that such distress is the almost certain result of the conduct, so he can't get away with "I didn't mean to distress them." Distress does not have to result in missed work or require medical care to qualify.
Outrageousness is often defined as "exceeding all bounds of decency tolerated in civilized society." The plotting involved here makes me think outrageousness is possible to prove. He sought out victims - he didn't just see an opportunity for a prank.
Again, all this is based on a generic kind of very basic law. The only sure thing is that Washington's law differs from this. But I think it shows that a suit certainly isn't impossible here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know Violet Blue had a newspaper column on top of her blog and editorial career. Nifty. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Plus, he was called all kinds of nasty things on the BBC this morning.
Yes, it gives me great pleasure to see his bid for attention backfire so horribly. I'm sure he was hoping to be acclaimed as the 21st century's greatest prankster. Instead, the New York Times is speculating over whether he can be sued.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you say that he thrives on negative attention, Libbie. Is it possible that he's enjoying his 15 minutes even though the consensus is that he's a jackass?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But you say that he thrives on negative attention, Libbie. Is it possible that he's enjoying his 15 minutes even though the consensus is that he's a jackass?
It sounds to me like he's enjoying it now; the question, ultimately, will be whether he continues to enjoy it after he gets hit with dozens of lawsuits.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I get away with everything I do because I understand how the system works.
You sit there frustrated and bitter at people like me because, try as you might, you just can't get past yourself. And you can't see how it's possible to be like me, and that just eats you up inside. Well that's just tough shit, isn't it?
You just take heart in the knowledge that not everyone can be a Ferris Bueller or an Alan Shore. Some of you are going to have to be the Jeanie's and the Brad's of the world, whether you like it or not. Cheer up.
posted
You know, there's also the possibility of copyright infringement here. It's probably fair use, but motives of both parties are taken into account in determining fair use.
Also, if any of the pictures are of third parties (not the senders), there's probably some serious liability there, too, although the sender would share in it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330 (Bolding mine): Can they even sue for breech of privacy? I thought that if someone sends me a letter, unless they state in the letter that this is a private communication, I can do whatever I want with it. Wouldn't the same be true of email?
I'm wondering if a case can be made on the fact that the ad responders intended their correspondence to be received by the woman in the ad, who actually exists and is active on CL, even if it's not Seattle's CL. Couldn't Jason Fortuny's actions be then construed as diverting the information from its true recipient and he therefore has no right to it?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: USER BIO ON LJ:
quote:See, I get away with everything I do because I understand how the system works.
You sit there frustrated and bitter at people like me because, try as you might, you just can't get past yourself. And you can't see how it's possible to be like me, and that just eats you up inside. Well that's just tough shit, isn't it?
You just take heart in the knowledge that not everyone can be a Ferris Bueller or an Alan Shore. Some of you are going to have to be the Jeanie's and the Brad's of the world, whether you like it or not. Cheer up.
posted
The trouble with his kind of sociopathy is that it could trigger a response from an even bigger sociopath. This is bordering on "death wish" territory, imho.
Some of the dudes who responded to that ad are probably not what you'd call well-socialized. Their idea of teaching wonder-kid a lesson is probably not going to involve law suits.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But you say that he thrives on negative attention, Libbie. Is it possible that he's enjoying his 15 minutes even though the consensus is that he's a jackass?
No. Defintely not. He pulled all his contact information down from his personal web site and his blog. He enjoys being called a jackass, but he doesn't enjoy the almost total lack of support he's getting. The ONLY people I've seen that have anything positive to say about this thing are his usual gaggle of camwhores who haunt his livejournal. Everybody else is calling for him to be sued. He's never had a prank go so far out of his control before that he had to remove his web site - his only source of income - to protect his own safely.
The BBC called him a degenerate, for god's sake. The BBC. That's not Wired or the Seattle livejournal community or Yahoo! News. It's the B B freaking C.
He knows he's screwed himself badly. Tee hee.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: USER BIO ON LJ:
quote:See, I get away with everything I do because I understand how the system works.
You sit there frustrated and bitter at people like me because, try as you might, you just can't get past yourself. And you can't see how it's possible to be like me, and that just eats you up inside. Well that's just tough shit, isn't it?
You just take heart in the knowledge that not everyone can be a Ferris Bueller or an Alan Shore. Some of you are going to have to be the Jeanie's and the Brad's of the world, whether you like it or not. Cheer up.
Aww .. inelegant, ham-fisted sociopathy!
He's adorable
Isn't he, though? I dearly hope that the people who want to sue him are taking screen captures of that bio. I want to contact them and encourage them, but I'm afraid I'll be subpoenaed or something, and I don't want to get tangled in that since I'm in an industry that serves the young, hip residents of the Seattle area who probably are very aware of this incident. The last thing I need is to be definitely connected in A-N-Y way to this dude.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know, there's also the possibility of copyright infringement here. It's probably fair use, but motives of both parties are taken into account in determining fair use.
Also, if any of the pictures are of third parties (not the senders), there's probably some serious liability there, too, although the sender would share in it.
Today the Seattle Times reported that one of the men fingered in the incident claims it was not he who replied to the ad and that somebody else used his name and photos to try to frame him. The article author suggested that Jason possibly did it.
IF that is true, and that guy isn't just trying to make excuses for his caught-red-handedness, then HOO BOY, JASON.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There are fraud issues involved. He procured the information through intentional deceit. There might also be contract issues w/ Craig's List.
The complaint should look like a torts grab bag when the lawyer is done with it.
Dagonee, can you suggest any ways that I might encourage or help out with pursuit of legal action without getting my own name/identity involved? ARE there any ways?
I really, really want to see him stopped. The Hurricane Katrina crap was bad enough. Now that he's had a taste of "fame," he'll just keep doing it unless somebody manages to come down hard on him.
You can email me if you like.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
