What Is Cyberstalking?

Cyberstalking is the use of electronic media to stalk, harass, or seriously alarm or annoy another person. With the increasing use of the Internet and electronic devices, more and more people are using such media to strike fear and terror into the hearts of others. In fact, many believe that cyberstalking has become more common than physical stalking, which makes sense given that nearly everyone has access to a computer or a mobile device these days.

Stalkers use several means to harass and intimidate their victims. They follow the online movements of their victims and attempt to gather information about them. Stalkers will post private information about the victim on the Internet, typically in order to cause fear or embarrassment. For example, they will post the person's social security number or their telephone number and then post it on a site, urging others to call the site repeatedly, causing the victim severe mental and emotional anguish. Or in other instances they will post pictures of a personal nature (sexual) on sites.

But by far the most common tactic of the internet stalker is to publish false and tremendously damaging statements about the victim, in an attempt to destroy the victim's reputation. This is defamation.

All of this behavior takes a tremendous toll on the victim and is very serious. Fortunately, California has passed a number of criminal and civil laws to deal with these kinds of issues. However, there are a number of potential pitfalls and, like most things, it is usually best to hire a professional to help you put an end to the stalker's behavior.

UK: Draft Defamation Bill

American defamation lawyers and others have criticized British Libel law for years; and for good reason. Among other things, English law requires the defendant to prove the truth of the alleged defamatory statement, whereas in the U.S., in most states, and in most circumstances, the plaintiff must prove falsity. Because of England's pro-plaintiff laws, it has become a destination for plaintiffs looking to find the most favorable forum in which to file suit, AKA "Libel Tourism." But now it looks like this is all about to change. 

The Draft Defamation Bill published by the Ministry of Justice last month, seems to be a step in the right direction. While I haven't read the entire 132 page document just yet (just skimmed it), it is clear that this bill was written, at least in part, in response to the " . . . perception that [its] courts are an attractive forum for libel claimants with little connection to this country, so that [its] law is respected internationally." Obviously the Brits care what the international community thinks, so I think some potentially major changes are on the horizon.

I'll write a more detailed post regarding the draft bill when I get a chance. For now, here is a copy for your reading pleasure: UK Draft Defamation Bill.

Think About This Before Responding To A Negative Customer Review

Most small business owners experience severe anguish when they think about the effects of a negative customer review in regard to their internet business reputation. So much so that they are willing to do just about anything, including sending the oft ill-advised demand letter.

Usually, general counsel will tell the business owner that sending such a demand letter is no guarantee that the alleged defamer will agree to retract or remove the objectionable material. But general counsel sends the letter because the business owner insists on it, and typically one of two things occurs: (1) there is no response; or (2) the alleged defamer steps up his or her efforts to impugn the business owner's reputation.

Then what happens is general counsel will contact an internet defamation expert and ask him if he can assist the company in filing a lawsuit. In many cases (but not all), the expert will advise counsel that filing a lawsuit will expose the company to an anti-SLAPP motion, with potentially devastating consequences.

Faced with no reasonable alternative, and fearing that most prospective clients will believe the alleged defamer's comments, the business owner instructs general counsel to respond to the defamer's comments by posting a comment online. Sounds reasonable, right? Tell your side of the story? Big mistake. What very few people know is that by posting a response you have enhanced the visibility of the negative posting in the SERPs.

Instead of responding, you should consider other legal and reputation management methods. Learn from other's mistakes.