Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government The Courts News

Craigslist Prankster Sued, Argues DMCA Abuse 478

destinyland writes "Though Sunday's New York Times dubbed him a spokesperson for internet trolls, Jason Fortuny's just been sued in federal court. Fortuny re-published over 180 responses to a fake sex ad on Craigslist in 2006 — but he's finally been located and issued with a summons. The victim argues Fortuny violated his privacy, and that the photo Fortuny re-published was copyrighted. Fortuny argues he re-published the photo to stand up to the victim's bogus DMCA notice, and that the gullible victim had voluntarily provided the photo. In a motion to the court Fortuny even argues that he helped publicize a privacy risk on the internet, whereas 'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Craigslist Prankster Sued, Argues DMCA Abuse

Comments Filter:
  • Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:43AM (#24479853)

    'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'

    I guess the punishment is what his victims want.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jgarra23 ( 1109651 )

      I guess the punishment is what his victims want.

      Interesting. This is more a comment on the case rather than a reply but as reprehensible and unethical as his actions were, I don't think he broke any laws with his disclosure. Did any of his victims include a privacy notice along with their email replies to his CL ad? If this person was transmitting a copyrighted picture, do they have expressed consent? I'm pretty sure JF's actions fall under fair use as he was publicly displaying the victim's pictures under

      • Re:Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bloobloo ( 957543 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @12:14PM (#24481333) Homepage

        Was it a sociological case study which had been approved by an ethics committee first? I doubt it.

        • Ethics committees are only legally mandated for specific categories of researchers, basically institutions receiving federal funding or trying to get things (e.g. new drugs) approved by the federal government. There is no law requiring them for all sociology studies; in fact, it's quite uncommon for, say, market-research experiments to be approved by an ethics committee. It's not even clear what ethics committee they'd apply to---when I do human-computer interaction studies, I apply to my university's ethics committee, but only because my university requires it as a matter of university policy.

          In addition, even if you are at an institution that requires such approval, and doing research that would require approval, it isn't actually illegal not to get it. Absent violating some other law, the only sanctions are professional and institutional ones---a journal may refuse to publish your work, or your university may sanction you, or if the university itself is frequently not overseeing studies it may get its federal funding revoked.

    • by dword ( 735428 )
      Punishing the killers won't stop murders. While we're at it, let's make all crime legal.
    • Disclaimer: I know Jason F. personally and think he is a cool guy. The whole reason that he's being sued for 'copyright violation' is that there is no real crime here. He is not a criminal and those people aren't victims. He pretended to be something he wasn't to elicit a response. People sent him nasty and embarrassing things voluntarily and what they believe about the intent or pretense of the situation is immaterial. If somebody exposes themselves to complete stranger it's their liability. I have no sym
  • EPIC LULZ (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:44AM (#24479883)
    OMG getting sued is such epic lulz for a troll, right?
  • *Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tsoat ( 1221796 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:45AM (#24479891)
    Classic forum troll behavior when they get in trouble they are surprised and inset that they were actually helping. He does point out an uncomfortable truth though, there will always be forum trolls to annoy and confound the masses with their stupidity and ill-logic.
    • Re:*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:01AM (#24480129)

      Well, yes and no.

      It's no great accomplishment to trick people if they trust you. You can argue that people should be less trusting -- and I'd have to agree -- but for the hard-core troll, all trust is viewed as weakness, and the position they are taking is essentially that no one should trust anyone, ever. Obviously, society couldn't function in such a scenario.

      At the end of the day, their "help" is not unlike shooting someone and then recommending that everyone start wearing ballistic armor. It's not an illogical suggestion, but it's more efficient to just apprehend the shooter than to supply everyone with armor.

      • Re:*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timholman ( 71886 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:32AM (#24480569)

        It's no great accomplishment to trick people if they trust you. You can argue that people should be less trusting -- and I'd have to agree -- but for the hard-core troll, all trust is viewed as weakness, and the position they are taking is essentially that no one should trust anyone, ever. Obviously, society couldn't function in such a scenario.

        Yet my experience has been that hard-core trolls are generally outraged when the tables are turned and their trust is in turn violated. They can dish it out, but never take it.

        It's impossible to generate an ounce sympathy for anyone in this story. Anyone who would pull such a prank needs a life, a soul, and a conscience to begin with. And any married man who would respond to such an ad is a contemptible idiot by definition.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by thegnu ( 557446 )

          And any married man who would respond to such an ad is a contemptible idiot by definition.

          It's not just a married man who would have his life ruined by having his reply posted. people lose their jobs over myspace pages, why not something like this? What about divorced guys and their kids see it? What about guys whose wives don't give a shit as long as nobody finds out?

          The guy is POTENTIALLY fucking with "bad" people, but probably in most cases no

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          There may have been unmarried men who responded too. Also, hippies.
    • Re:*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:58AM (#24481057) Journal
      Quote from the Man (Jason Fortuny):

      "Am I the bad guy? Am I the big horrible person who shattered someoneâ(TM)s life with some information? No! This is life. Welcome to life. Everyone goes through it. Iâ(TM)ve been through horrible stuff, too."

      He's been through horrible stuff, so it's ok to put other people through it too. Yeah, life sucks. But that doesn't mean you need to make other people's lives suck more than they already do. The key is to learn to handle the sucky stuff so you don't get hurt, but without hurting other people in the process.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This looks like passive general language used to absolve himself of any responsibility. "Life" didn't make it happen. It was not an act of God. It was not the "horrible stuff" he went through that made it happen. He is not a unthinking billiard ball. He did these things deliberately and consciously.

    • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @12:25PM (#24481581) Journal

      Classic forum troll behavior when they get in trouble they are surprised and inset that they were actually helping. He does point out an uncomfortable truth though, there will always be forum trolls to annoy and confound the masses with their stupidity and ill-logic.

      Actually, no, that's (as in many other cases) just a thin veil for another time-honoured troll technique: adding (more) insult to injury by blaming their victim.

      E.g., the "it's your fault if you can be insulted in the first place" idea was even featured in a recent NYT article, linked to on /. too. See, suddenly it's not him who's being a troll by calling the journalist incompetent, it's the journalist's fault and revealing that he got "defensive" by asking, "why? what did I do?" In reality, the trolls themselves are very quick to get insulted too. The pointing out that "shortcoming" is really just a way to heap extra insult on the victim.

      E.g., in this case, it seems to me like the same applies. The whole "raising awareness" is just a thinly veiled way of saying "it's you who's gullible." It just adds that extra jab.

      I mean, if you think about it, it doesn't even try to look at all helpful or believable in that role. The excuse boils down to, basically, "I'm an arsehole and doing X just to show that arseholes exist and can do X." Where X was actually pretty obvious to everyone in the first place.

      If he thinks that that kind of behaviour is actually helpful, then I offer to raise his awareness to the fact that he can have his head bashed in with a brick in a sock, by demonstrating it on you. Hey, I'm just being equally helpful. It's just teaching him to watch his back ;)

      If it's not an extra jab at the victim, then I'm seriously curious what kind of a deranged mind would think that that's being helpful.

      It's not even some online phenomenon. People do things on trust every day IRL too. E.g.,

      - if you ever had a photo of your girlfriedn naked, or conversely she had one of you, then one of you trusted that the other won't use it in some humiliating way

      - you leave your home unguarded, on the implicit assumption that the neighbours won't then bash your door in and steal all you have

      - you pay with a credit card at a restaurant, basically trusting the waiter to not copy the data and make other purchases with your money

      - you hop in a taxi and, essentially, trust the guy or gal that he won't kill you and dump your corpse at the first oportunity to do it unseen (more than one girl guessed wrong there, and got raped before being killed too.)

      - you give a 50 euro bill to a taxi driver for a 11 Euro trip, and trust him that he'll give you 39 Euro back. He _could_ just say, "what? you gave me nothing" and even call the cops, and it's your word against his.

      - when you open your front door for the mailman or some utilities guys, you trust them to not mug you and rob you instead. (Again, some people guessed wrong there.)


      We _are_ "gullible" like that, because nobody can live in a bunker and guard their back 100% of the time. So we have some laws against those kind of things, _and_ we essentially trust people at least to not be the stupid kind of predators. You know, the kind which gains disproportionately little compared to the harm and penalties, or even makes a personal loss in the process too.

      You trust, for example the taxi driver to not shaft you out of 50 Euros, because, frankly it's not worth it. He can only do that a couple of times, before he makes a much bigger loss than that.

      And some people trusted a perfect stranger with their photos, because it wasn't obvious what he'd have to gain by using them.

      And he's raising awareness to what? That he's a prime example of an arsehole who does it just for damage sake? I don't need anyone was that blissfully ignorant to that possibility.

      So, again, it seems to me that the whole thing was just one last jab at the victims.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )

      "A normal person who does insane things on the internet." says the caption to the troll's pic in the NYT.

      No, he isn't. Normal people don't do insane things on the internet any more than they do insane things in meatspace. Trolls like the asshat in the articles would harm people in meatspace if they thought they could get away with it.

      Sociopathic behavior is sociopathic whether in the internet or meatspace. It's just easier to get away with on the internet. Normal people do NOT act like that.

      But with six bil

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:48AM (#24479921) Homepage
    NEVER changes or impacts the culture.

    But if you punish enough criminals, you DO change and impact the culture.

    This man is damaged piece of crap. I feel sorry for him, having been abused as a child, but that does not excuse him taking out his crap on the rest of us.

    He is a semi-professional 'troll', going around pissing people off and laughing at them.

    He routinely engages in low-level criminal actions, knowing that he is unlikely to get caught and arrested for doing things that are the equivelent of spray painting a car.

    I hope he finally gets what he so richly deserves, legal punishment.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      better yet, post a craigslist ad on his behalf:

      Curious male (d-d free) seeks men to fulfill my gay-rape fantasy. Meet me at my house (xxxx, Holland, Michigan) tonight at 8. ~~ Rob

    • by foobsr ( 693224 )
      But if you punish enough criminals, you DO change and impact the culture.

      Well worth figuring out the impact, given the following.

      Quote []: "As reported in the May/June issue of Correctional News, the United States leads the world in the number of inmates per capita, with 750 inmates per 100,000 residents, according to the Pew report. During 2007, the U.S. prison population increased by more than 25,000 inmates to almost 1.6 million inmates, and local jails throughout the United States held 723,131 inmate
    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:27AM (#24480477) Homepage

      He routinely engages in low-level criminal actions, knowing that he is unlikely to get caught and arrested for doing things that are the equivelent of spray painting a car.

      Can you elaborate? I've heard the story vaguely before, but I'm not aware of him damaging other people's property. As far as I've ever heard, all he does is post the responses he receives to his Craigslist ads. What else is he doing?

      I don't feel too bad for Fortuny for getting sued, because he doesn't seem like that nice a guy, but I also don't really see where what he's doing is a crime. IANAL, but how is this different from all the other situations? If I had a website documenting letters I had received from my grandfather, without my grandfather's permission, would that be illegal? Seriously, I'm interested in these sorts of legal things.

      Mostly, I don't even think this guy is doing anything all that immoral. I don't particularly recommend e-mailing pictures of your penis to anyone if you're going to be ashamed if friends/family find out. E-mail isn't all that private/secure to begin with. But I especially wouldn't send it to random people you don't know.

      Seems like people were trolling for sex on Craigslist and they got caught. Later, they wish they hadn't gotten caught. When people get caught doing something they don't think they're supposed to be doing, they generally wish that they hadn't gotten caught. There's even a part of me that's glad that this guy is out there. The Internet is this place where people think they can do whatever they want and never get caught because it's so big and anonymous. They do some awful things sometimes and they're even careless about it. I think the whole system could use a little accountability.

      Admittedly, on the other hand, I wouldn't particularly want my entire online history sent to my parents or my boss. And this is one place where I think this little experiment highlights another problem with the internet: it might never forget. I mean, send one embarrassing e-mail when you're a teenager, and it might get posted somewhere, cached, stored in archived, etc. 50 years later you're running for president, and it could pop up in the news. That's the reality we might be faced with in the future. Our whole lives documented, stored, indexed, searchable, and public. It's probably better that we realize this early on.

  • What a twit... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:50AM (#24479967) Journal
    The guy may well be legally in the clear (although his argument that Craigslist's disclaimer that "you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading" allows him to legally engage in fraud strikes as ... unlikely). But there's no question that he's a jerk, and his whiny, pompous defense of himself makes him even more of a jerk.
  • by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:53AM (#24480011) Homepage Journal

    The article does not explicitly say anything about his lawyer, and it sounds like he is doing this on his own. Whether he is right or wrong it will probably not matter unless he can find himself a decent lawyer. Going into legal proceedings without a lawyer is a train wreck in progress.

    The only thing worse than trying to find sex on the internet is to get legal advice on the internet. Either way you are going to receive it the same way.

  • by oldspewey ( 1303305 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @10:53AM (#24480015)

    Anyone thinking of complaining that the summary is worthless without pics, near the bottom of TFA there is a link to the full list of responses and photos [] at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

    Be warned, it's NSFW ... in fact IMO it's not even safe if you're simply trying to maintain an appetite in anticipation of lunchtime

  • He goes onto a site and begins with a bait picture (which is a lie) to entice someone into a private conversation and then publishes the response. Anyone who thinks this is good natured humor knows little of human nature. This activity is particularly nasty because it often entices the dark side of owns nature to come out and then lays shame on them so this fucking worthless blogger can have something to write about. He was not conducting and experiment to prove any hypothesis, he was just looking for
  • you will note that fortuny has a history of sexual abuse as a child, that his family turned a blind eye towards. which goes far, pop psychology wise, to explaining what would motivate him to do his craigs list "expose": an attempt to find empowerment over an issue which means helplessness to him psychologically

    so, in a way, his trolling is just therapy, catharsis. which is my whole theory of trolling: far from pointless negative and twisted, online trolling is merely a way to jettison asocial impulses harmlessly (relatively harmlessly) on the internet

    having said that, and fully appreciative of the fact that free speech fundamentalists will come out in support of fortuny, i say to you free speech fundamentalists: no law or government can protect you from the consequences of what you say. in other words, there are elements of speech which have every expectation of protection. then there are elements of free speech, that, while a good argument can be made for their official, societal level acceptance, doesn't mean some asshole somewhere isn't going to get upset and try to do something about what you say

    insulting pictures of mohammed, for example. yes, a sound understanding of free speech means that insulting pictures of mohammed should be tolerated. however, a legal, societal understanding of tolerance on this issue does not protect you from the anger of religious fundamentalists who could care less about tolerance

    you don't have protection from the consequences of what you say, regardless of the legal environment. making enemies of random guys looking for easy sex is not a situation where a idealistic expectation of free speech without consequences gets you very far

    remember that about free speech: it has consequences. if you get upset about that idea, or expect government to somehow protect you from the consequences of what you say, you really don't understand the whole notion that with freedom comes responsibility, which is the only notion that will keep speech truly free

    like any right in this world, it carries with it responsibility. shoot your mouth of without any regard for conesequences, and you will discover that consequences happen, that not everyone in society is a tolerant ethical individual

  • by kahei ( 466208 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:02AM (#24480149) Homepage

    1) Don't send your personal contact information to strangers on the internet, especially not in answer to a sex ad on Craigslist, especially not attached to a picture of your erect penis, because doing so is very likely to cause you all manner of trouble. If you do such a thing you are a twit.

    2) If you are in a situation in which your life would be ruined if you were known to be into BDSM, *don't make it known that you're into BDSM*! If you do, you're a twit!

    2) If you demonstrate that someone is a twit, they are more likely to get cross and sue you than to stop being a twit.

    Sure, the guy was kind of a jerk and the whole thing is desperately unfunny like most trolls. But that doesn't mean he should be punished because there are so many twits about.

    • ...I mean three! I mean three lessons! Oh.... argh.

    • by GogglesPisano ( 199483 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:21AM (#24480413)

      3) If you're going to violate the DMCA, you should join the Air Force first. []

    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:54AM (#24480989) Homepage

      Yeah, personally, I've tried to live my life by a basic rule: If I would be too ashamed to handle everyone in the world knowing what I'm doing, then don't do it. It kinda mostly works most of the time, and has kept me out of a lot of possible trouble. The main problem is that people sometimes don't think I'm too much fun.

      Now, that's not to say that I don't do anything that would shame myself. It's just that it's a level of shame that I can handle. Like let's say I were interested in BDSM, I would look at it as having two choices on what to do about that. Either I don't engage in it because I wouldn't want to carry around that level of shame, -or- I would have to learn to embrace that it was part of who I was sufficiently that, if for some reason I had to explain it to my mother, I could handle it. That's not to say I would try to get so comfortable about it that I would seek out a conversation with my mother, but I would try to figure out what those impulses were in me, and exercise them in ways that I wouldn't have to feel overly ashamed of.

      The basic way that I see it is that shame is instructive. Shame is your psyche's way of telling you that you think there's something wrong with your behavior. So if you're ashamed, you should engage your psyche in a sort of discussion, and try to discover whether there really is something wrong with your behavior. If there is something wrong, then strongly consider *not doing it*. If there isn't something wrong, then try not to be so ashamed. It's not really quite that simple, but it's a lot simpler than most people seem to think.

      So yeah, overall, I agree with you (I think). If your life will be ruined by trolling for BDSM sex with strangers on Craigslist, then maybe you should consider not doing that.

  • Wait a second... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hyppy ( 74366 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:27AM (#24480479)
    Sorry for the double-top post, but...

    How is this ANY different than Chris Hansen on Dateline NBC in "To Catch a Predator." Other than the "bait" not pretending to be 17, what's the difference?
    • by rantingkitten ( 938138 ) <(kitten) (at) (> on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @12:39PM (#24481875) Homepage
      "To Catch A Predator" is also rather stupid, but the difference is that in one, the person intends to meet someone for an illegal purpose (sex with a minor) and in the other, the person intends to meet someone for a completely legal purpose (sex with a consenting adult).

      The other, less important difference is in the attitude. Most people would argue that "To Catch A Predator" accomplishes something at least partially useful, and for better or worse, what "most people" think is usually what's important in law. But this guy pulls his stunts for the sole purpose of being a jackass and humiliating people so he can have "lulz" with his fellow blogtards. It's only after he gets in trouble that he begins his furtive explanations and backpeddling about how it was all really for the common good, an argument I don't think anyone takes seriously.
      • by phorm ( 591458 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @01:01PM (#24482319) Journal

        One is an attempt to appeal to a sense of "mob justice" through humiliation, and the other is just some jerk on Craigslist.

        ... oh, wait a second.

        To be fair though, I don't have too many issues with "to catch a predator" except for that fact that's it's been made into a public spectacle. Catching internet pervs trying to have sex with kids (and a number of them in a position to easil do so, such as teachers etc) isn't a bad thing in my book, however making it into a public event brings back memories of gladiators VS lions in old roman coliseums, sick entertainment for the masses.

  • Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Frankie70 ( 803801 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @11:33AM (#24480585)

    I didn't know so many men sent naked pictures while replying to a personal ad.

  • by jameskojiro ( 705701 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @12:22PM (#24481493) Journal

    Cheap Laptop paid for by Cash at Pawn Shop....Check

    Wireless Network Card paid for by Cash ..... Check

    Ubuntu running on it ...... Check

    Free or Leeched Wi-Fi Network Connection Far away from own house.... Check

    Open Yahoo Fake E-mail account .... Check

    Post on Craig's List ...... Check

    Humiliate crazy sex0red up person on net who doesn't realize the Golden Rule of the Internet .....Check

    Getting away with it..... Priceless

    Oh BTW,

    Golden Rule of the Internet: The Whole damn net is buyer beware and while sexy babes may hang out on the internet you will almost never run across on, instead it will be some trucker getting his kicks.

  • Oh boo hoo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rantingkitten ( 938138 ) <(kitten) (at) (> on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @12:29PM (#24481669) Homepage
    Does anyone feel the least bit sorry for him? This is a guy who goes on record with the NY Times about how he tries to be a professional jackass. As if that weren't retarded enough, his jackassery relies on the notion that he's anonymous, so he announces his name to the world. Big surprise, some of the people he's pissed off finally did something about it.

    People like this are completely useless, and all his high-and-mighty rhetoric about "messages" and "trust" reads like the inane drivel a ninth-grader would scrawl in his Mead notebook after getting shoved by the bullies in gym class. Dressing your bullshit up in high-school "philosophy" doesn't make you any less of an asshole, but it sure does make you look more stupid.

    In the end, nothing he does, including his Craigslist stunt, is about "messages" or "public service". If that's all his goal was -- to show that there's a lot of people out there into this sort of thing and willing to cheat on their spouses -- he could've erased or blurred the names and other personal information of the people who responded. But he left it all intact, showing that his goal was really to "lulz" and humiliate people to whom he feels superior.

    It's all about how he feels superior to the target and wants to get attention. Well, he got attention. Good work.

    Also, did anyone read his hand-wringing, whiny letter to the judge in this case? His tearful sobbing about how he doesn't have the money is quite hilarious, but there's also this gem:

    I've been asked over and over, "Jason, why did you do it?" To be honest, it was a small act that quickly spun out of control. It's not like I woke up that morning and said, "hey, I think I'll start a controversy today and get my face in the news."

    Great argument there, champ. Even if you buy it, which I don't, at best it shows that he's an unhinged idiot willing to do anything he wants and is incapable of considering the consequences, which is hardly an argument in his favor.

    Or this:

    I'm sure many people out there believe I'm guilty of something, and that I should be punished somehow, and they may be right. But not like this. Don't punish me at the expense of the rights of the greater community.

    Yeah, Jason, you're a real hero to the "community".

    What a pissant.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @12:38PM (#24481871)

    If you look through the court documents, the plaintiffs had quite some difficulty serving Jason Fortuny. They finally had to resort to emailing him, which isn't normally proper service. However, Fortuny took the emailed complaint and posted a story about being sued. That showed that he knew about the complaint, which gave the plaintiff ammunition in requesting that the court accept the emails as adequate service of process.

    Fortuny's subsequent letter was not well received by the court:

    Jason Fortuny ("Fortuny") sent a letter to the court, and also to counsel for the plaintiff, explaining his position in regard to this case. The court cannot entertain letters. All communications with the court must be by motion or formal pleading, properly filed and served. Although Fortuny states that he does not have the resources for legal proceedings in another state or for a lawyer, that is not a valid basis upon which to seek dismissal of the case. However, the court construes the letter as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and directs the plaintiff to respond accordingly. The Clerk shall file the letter in the court's electronic docket as a motion.

    The court recommends that Fortuny file a pro se appearance form with the Clerk. If he does not, he will not receive notice of documents filed in the case or upcoming court dates. He can obtain the necessary information about filing an appearance from the Clerk of the Court or from the pro se help desk. In the interim, the Clerk is direct to mail a copy of this order to Fortuny ...

    Jason Fortuny is well on his way to losing this case through a default judgment. At they very least, he could have gotten a half-hour of legal advice for only $35 if he had tried looking for a lawyer []. A half-hour of advice would have been enough to help him avoid making some serious mistakes from the get-go.

  • Prior History..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IHC Navistar ( 967161 ) on Tuesday August 05, 2008 @03:19PM (#24484689)

    Jason Fortuny is a Greifer. Plain and simple. All anybody would need to do to show that the whole scheme he concoted was out of pure maliciousness, and not the "benevolent social experiment on privacy" that he claims it was, is to let the court research Fortuny's prior antics. The defense really doesn't need to do much with creating a case, since Fortuny's prior history of sociopathic antics has dug his own grave for him.

    Anybody with half a brain would immediately notice that he not only has been disowned by his own mother for his 'greifing', but he has a pathologicas and sociopathic lust for harassing people for the sheer joy (yes, I say joy) of causing others emotional distress and harm.

    These shitwits are the modern manifestation of "Sensationalistic Journalism", but they are anything but journalists.....

    Maybe Fortuny's prior history will finally catch up with him and knock enough sense into him so he finally realizes that just because he has a small penis doesn't mean he has to act like it and make everybody else's life miserable in the process.

The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky