Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'

Gxgolfer · August 30, 2006

By J.K. Dineen

Court TV

Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom. But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."

"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."

A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it's the Internet age — and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit against two erstwhile cyber chums he met in the sprawling 900-room, mostly anonymous society that makes up AOL's chat universe.

Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it." The complaint, expected in court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference, also names AOL as a defendant for allowing the alleged harassment to take place.

Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.

The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers. "Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not." But Marlowe said he works 60 hours a week at an autobody shop and laughed at the notion that he would drive from Alabama to Ohio to take pictures of Gillespie's house. "I have never been to Ohio and I have absolutely no desire to go to Ohio," Marlowe said. "There is nothing there — the Cincinnati Bengals are there, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame maybe, and that's about it."

Even if Marlowe did take a trip to Ohio, posting a picture of someone's house on the Internet does not violate privacy laws, according to Chris Hoofnagle, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Those norms require the aggressor to engage in behavior that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," he said. "Taking a picture of somebody's house and putting it up on the Web is not that."

Hoofnagle said Gillespie's emotional distress claim will also be tough to prove. "We live in a rough society, as compared to Europe, where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action," he said.

Power Struggle in 'Romance — Older Men'

Charpentier said he first encountered Gillespie more than five years ago and at first, the two chatters were friendly. But Charpentier says he quickly became disenchanted by what he saw as Gillespie's mean streak. Things really turned ugly four years ago when Charpentier traveled to Kentucky to meet another chatroom regular, a woman who was also a friend of Gillespie's. The blind date did not go particularly well, and when Charpentier returned to he discovered that Gillespie had gone on the attack. "He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."

Charpentier, who has filed a response seeking to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie, said Gillespie threatened to kill him and "made sick and disgusting remarks about the passing of my grandmother." "He is an AOL computer thug, that is all he is," Charpentier said. Marlowe characterized the dispute as a petty power struggle. He said Gillespie was the de facto leader of the "Romance — Older Men" chatroom, and didn't like it when he and Charpentier challenged his authority. But Marlowe said he never took the chatroom antics personally — until he was served with a lawsuit. "I don't know how four years of bantering back and forth led to this insane nonsense," he said. "It's just the Internet, for God's sake. It's nothing important."

Michael Gordon, an attorney for AOL, declined to comment, saying, "This is just the beginning stages of this thing." Megan Gray, a Washington D.C.-based intellectual property attorney who specializes in cyber issues, called it "a loser of a case." She said the Communications Decency Act gives AOL immunity from chatroom misconduct. "AOL cannot be held liable for the actions of people on the site," she said. She also suggested the case against Marlowe and Charpentier was doomed. "The Internet is such a vibrant, young medium, these types of cases are not taken seriously," she said.

Charlie_Foxtrot · August 30, 2006

"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."

Ah-ha!! So you admit that you are a fat, bald, broke, old man who sits around! Just not in a wheelchair! [/Johnnie Cochran]

king1066 · August 30, 2006

From the sound of it, it is no wonder they are trying to hook-up online, efin losers, lol.

03trdblack · August 30, 2006

That's it, I'm suing everyone on this forum. All the amazing tour pictures, equipment, and interesting topics have kept me from being productive at work and made me spend too much money. It's more than a man can stand!

alcap26 · August 30, 2006

Oh crap....Mac you are the man when it comes to D-man's contests

Asleep · August 30, 2006

..."He just came in...saying...that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair,"

said Charpentier..."I don't even own a wheelchair"...

Four out of five ain't bad...

Placebo · August 30, 2006

..."He just came in...saying...that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair,"

said Charpentier..."I don't even own a wheelchair"...
Four out of five ain't bad... ;)

Haha! Outstanding!

mcbush25 · August 30, 2006

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You would think that if he was being harrassed that he would stop going into the chat room, right? I hope he doesn't get a dime. The things people sue over these days is crazy.

cowboynjungle1 · August 30, 2006

My wife is hurriedly preparing an alienation of affection lawsuit against GolfWRX and Scotty Cameron

arkstorm · August 31, 2006

You guys who know me know that I'm a regular poster here on Counselor's Corner and that I often give the black and white law regarding even rediculous law suits but this one goes too far. There is no cause of action here and I certainly hope that the defendant has planned a malicious abuse of process claim against both the defendant and his attorney(s).

Charlie_Foxtrot · August 31, 2006

You guys who know me know that I'm a regular poster here on Counselor's Corner and that I often give the black and white law regarding even rediculous law suits but this one goes too far. There is no cause of action here and I certainly hope that the defendant has planned a malicious abuse of process claim against both the defendant and his attorney(s).

arkstorm-

What if there is truth to the allegation that the defendant drove from Alabama to Ohio & took a picture of the plaintiff's house, dug up personal information about the plaintiff, made up unflattering accusations about the plaintiff, and posted it on the internet - all in an attempt to humiliate the plaintiff.

Still ridiculous and unfounded?

arkstorm · September 1, 2006

arkstorm-

What if there is truth to the allegation that the defendant drove from Alabama to Ohio & took a picture of the plaintiff's house, dug up personal information about the plaintiff, made up unflattering accusations about the plaintiff, and posted it on the internet - all in an attempt to humiliate the plaintiff.

Still ridiculous and unfounded?

Unfortunately there is no short answer to your question, except for yes, still unfounded. Here's why:

There are two main issues here, (1) What would be the claim(s); and (2) who would have jurisdiction to hear the claims.

(1) As far as I can tell, the claim in this matter is something tantamount to Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress, or "IIED" for short. Without going into the minutia of proving that claim, the main issue in proving IIED is that the defendant had to have acted so outrageously that the transgression is outside the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. This is easier said than applied. For instance, making public insults isn't sufficient for liability, even in the case where a store clerk called an African American person the "N" word, the court found no IIED liability. IIED liability is typically relegated to instances of corpse abuse and things of a nature that are just objectively offensive and damaging.

Based on what I understand of this case, the behavior is not extreme enough to amount to the necessary outrageousness to maintain an IIED claim. In short, IIED is a tough threshold.

There may also be certain state civil claims for harassment that are state specific which I cannot comment about, but since whatever claim is made has to be balanced against the defendant's 1st amendment right to free speech, chances are no valid claim for damages exists here.

(2) The other problem is that even if there was a valid claim to pursue, jurisdiction becomes an issue. If, as you ask, we assume the defendant did travel to the plaintiff's state to take pictures of his house, there may be a colorable claim for jurisdiction in that state if and only if the act of taking the pictures was in and of itself a tort. However, it is not. Again, certain constitutional protections apply to the defendant's taking of the pictures.

Obviously, the plaintiff will claim that he took the pictures as part of a pattern of behavior which amounted to the IIED claim, but for a court to exert jurisidiction on a civil defendant they must follow what is known as the minimal contacts test. That is, did the defendant have such minimal contacts with the forum state so as to warrant the state asserting its jurisdiction over that defendant. If the defendant wa just passing through the state to take pictures of the plaintiff's home, which in and of itself is not unlawful, then left, there are no such minimal contacts.

Minimal contacts usually occur if the defendant conducts some sort of commerce in the forum state, or owns property in the state, or if the defendant is physically present (of his own volition) in the forum state. Merely having passed through once does not amount to minimal contacts.

A discussion of minimal contacts and of jursidictionin general can be highly protracted, so I will cut it off short, but for the cursory reasons I discussed, there is no jurisdiction and there is no claim.

Geo · September 5, 2006

AWESOME LAWSUIT!!! Somebody drop George Gillespie an invite to Golfwrx, and I'll make him feel right at home in our chat. :diablo: Maybe we can get him to join up with some other members here (you know who you are) and start a class-action suit going against me!

pitbull808 · September 5, 2006

Maybe we can get him to join up with some other members here (you know who you are) and start a class-action suit going against me!

You'll be hearing from my attorney soon beruo! :diablo:

Geo · September 5, 2006

Maybe we can get him to join up with some other members here (you know who you are) and start a class-action suit going against me!

You'll be hearing from my attorney soon beruo! :diablo:

pm hacker · September 5, 2006

Geez, anything to make a quick buck, huh? What is society coming to these days? Sheesh, I would've been sued over a thousand times already

Ducky · September 9, 2006

Ah-ha!! So you admit that you are a fat, bald, broke, old man who sits around! Just not in a wheelchair!

Haha, you read my mind.

gangster17pi5 · September 9, 2006

Absolutely ridiculous!!!

You would never here of anything like this over in England.

arkstorm-

What if there is truth to the allegation that the defendant drove from Alabama to Ohio & took a picture of the plaintiff's house, dug up personal information about the plaintiff, made up unflattering accusations about the plaintiff, and posted it on the internet - all in an attempt to humiliate the plaintiff.

Still ridiculous and unfounded?

And that quote is just plain stupid thats the same mind set this crazy guy has who is tryin to sue the pants of that poor guy! So what if the guys house is on the web, its only banter for christ sakes theres some really bad stuff happening all over the world to lose sleep over and this geek who is trying to file a lawsuit for a few name callings is not one of them the guy needs to get a grip of himself look in the mirror and pull himself together someone needs to have a word in this guys ear, what is the world coming too. If anybody gets on my back i ride it banters funny if someone has a pop have a pop back, and if you fed up of it go else where, the next thing we will here is that THE SO CALLED VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN SUPPOSEDLY HUMILIATED IS GOING TO GET HIS DAD TO GO ROUND AND BEAT THE AWFUL GUY UP WHO IS CALLING HIS SON NAMES!!!!! Rant over!

Charlie_Foxtrot · September 9, 2006

Absolutely ridiculous!!!

You would never here of anything like this over in England.

arkstorm-

What if there is truth to the allegation that the defendant drove from Alabama to Ohio & took a picture of the plaintiff's house, dug up personal information about the plaintiff, made up unflattering accusations about the plaintiff, and posted it on the internet - all in an attempt to humiliate the plaintiff.

Still ridiculous and unfounded?

And that quote is just plain stupid thats the same mind set this crazy guy has who is tryin to sue the pants of that poor guy! So what if the guys house is on the web, its only banter for christ sakes theres some really bad stuff happening all over the world to lose sleep over and this geek who is trying to file a lawsuit for a few name callings is not one of them the guy needs to get a grip of himself look in the mirror and pull himself together someone needs to have a word in this guys ear, what is the world coming too. If anybody gets on my back i ride it banters funny if someone has a pop have a pop back, and if you fed up of it go else where, the next thing we will here is that THE SO CALLED VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN SUPPOSEDLY HUMILIATED IS GOING TO GET HIS DAD TO GO ROUND AND BEAT THE AWFUL GUY UP WHO IS CALLING HIS SON NAMES!!!!! Rant over!

Hey whangster, before you go calling people stupid, you might want to learn the difference between a hypothetical question and agreeing with the premise. My point was that everyone seemed to be ignoring the activities that occurred IRL ("in real life") as opposed to on the message board. In some states, traveling cross country to spy on someone, take pictures of their house, and digging up personal information about them, and lying about them in a public forum could be considered stalking and/or slander.

If you disagree, feel free to put up a picture of your house with an address, along with some details about less than flattering things you have done, or are doing. For example, do you ever buy or sell equipment on this board or ebay? What if I posted your picture, your ebay ID, your credit history (with a few choice alterations), and claimed that you had robbed me in a deal? Still think the whole thing is harmless?

That was my point, not that someone should be able to sue for insulting someone on a message board.

arkstorm · September 11, 2006

Remember the old saying, "its a free country"?

Well, that's still sort of true.

In the US, you can say what you want, even lie, and pretty much do what you want so long as it does not hurt someone in a tangible way.

That's why cases like this are so interesting. Defining what is tangible damage is no simple task.

If I post a lie about you on an internet chat site, you still need to prove that I damaged you in some pecuniary way before you can successfully bring a libel suit against me.

As for crossing state lines to take pictures of your house, its not necessarily the crime of stalking. It depends on my intent. And believe it or not, if my intent is to take pictures of your house for the purpose of attempting to embarrass you, its most deffintely not stalking because in America I am free to do that. Strange but true.

We have a strange sytem of criminal and civil justice here in the US, primarily because our Bill of Rights causes some counter sensicle results. But its the best we've got so we have to deal with it.

The bottom line is there is probably no cause of action here for the overly sensitive guy who claims to be so humiliated that only money could remedy him.

Oh well, I'm sure he'll find some other reason to sue somebody.