you are not really anonymous on topix

you are not really anonymous on topix

Posted in the Richmond Forum

now who is it

Richmond, KY

#1 Dec 20, 2012
check it out...http://abcnews.gocom/Tec hnology/aheadofthecu...

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#2 Dec 20, 2012
Best link ever.

Richmond, KY

#3 Dec 20, 2012
when I hover over your name it displays your "name", address and phone number

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#4 Dec 20, 2012
yup wrote:
when I hover over your name it displays your "name", address and phone number
Please call, I'm lonely.

not accurate

Langley, KY

#5 Dec 20, 2012
the link does not work at all...
jug head

Harrodsburg, KY

#6 Dec 21, 2012
well tell me how can one company and 300 plus internet privider and 200,000 millions computer and how many illegal mex and other foreigner work for them to spy on the america lower class ppl and what kind of money do they make ,,,, YOU ARE FULL OF MONLARKEY THE WAY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAYS IT ....
Here ya go

Tucker, GA

#7 Dec 21, 2012
Steven Jones is an opinionated guy.

And when he reads something online that strikes a particular nerve, chances are he'll speak up.

So, when the 54-year-old from Texarkana, Texas, came across an article about a couple in neighboring Clarksville who were charged with sexual assault, he decided to throw in his own two cents.

Using the screen name "Wounded," Jones posted one of thousands of anonymous comments about the case. Others went further, linking the couple to perverted sex acts, drugs and other crimes.

Big mistake.

Earlier this month, Jones, a disabled truck driver, logged on to learn that the Clarksville couple, cleared of the charges, had turned around to file a lawsuit of their own -- against 178 anonymous commenters, including Jones, who they claim posted defamatory comments on the Web forum .

Now that a Texas judge has ordered Topix to release identifying information for the posters by March 6, Jones, who revealed himself to , is preparing to meet the couple in person -- in court.

Small Town Gossip Mill Explodes Online

Early last year, Mark and Rhonda Lesher, along with a man who works on their ranch, were accused of sexual assault by a woman in their small northeast Texas community.

But before they had even been indicted on the charges, a steady stream of attacks on the Web forum started to flow.

The Leshers and their accuser live in the rural Texas town of Clarksville, population 3,500. Because talk of the trial -- online, at the local Dairy Queen and behind closed doors -- had set off such a stir, it was moved to a county a few hours away.

In January, a jury found the couple and their ranch hand not guilty on all charges.

But since reports of the rape allegations had begun to surface last year, the "conversation," rife with snarling anonymous commentary, exploded online.

More than 25,000 comments, on about 70 threads related to the trial, now live on Topix message boards for anyone with a search engine to see.

Rhonda runs a successful day spa. Mark's a prominent attorney. But if you Google "Mark and Rhonda Lesher," brace yourself for a storm of smut.

"Child molesters." "Rapists." "Drug dealers." "Herpes infested." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The couple feels vindicated by the jury's verdict. But "not guilty" means nothing to the Internet, where dirty laundry lasts forever, especially if it isn't true.
Here ya go

Tucker, GA

#8 Dec 21, 2012
'Nine Months of Torture'

"The one thing we have is our reputation and credibility," Mark Lesher told . "From the time I was indicted in April, my business fell off to just almost zero. It really just went to zero. I mean who's going to hire someone accused of rape?

"But it's not just the indictment itself," Lesher said.

The comments, which have no basis in fact, Lesher said, accuse the couple of murder, encouraging pedophilia, drug abuse and other "horrendous" crimes that materially attack their characters.

"The people who have hid behind the anonymity of the Internet need to be held accountable and brought to justice," Lesher said.

The 62-year-old lawyer said that he and his wife, 49, have been active members of the Clarksville community for years, recently lobbying to make the town's Main Street a historic landmark.

But "these nine months of torture" have taken their toll.

"My wife said she's lost her joy," Lesher said. "She held her head up high, but it's hard. When things get repeated over and over and over again, people say it's got to be true."

Targeting the 178 Posters
In their 365-page lawsuit, the Leshers name the 178 pseudonyms that posted the most defamatory messages. But because of the way Topix is set up, they believe it's entirely possible that far fewer than 178 people were actually responsible for the posts.

Anyone can post on Topix without giving up any personal information. That makes it very easy for commenters to impersonate one another or for one to adopt several names.

Commenter's named "lou," "Hellcat," "ilbedipt" and "Awareness" appear to be among the most prolific and vicious. But the same person could potentially be behind all the pseudonyms, or several people could be behind each.

The Leshers and others familiar with their initial trial say several of the Topix posters seemed privy to information that could only have been known by the accuser, her husband and law enforcement in Red River County. Before the Leshers were even arrested and before they were formally charged, the Leshers said people on seemed to already know what was happening.
Here ya go

Tucker, GA

#9 Dec 21, 2012
State of Texas vs. Lesher, McCarver

In early 2008, Shannon Coyel, 38, accused the Leshers and McCarver of sexual assault after the Leshers had tried to help her divorce her husband, Jerry Coyel, 62, and gain custody of her 14-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son from a previous marriage.

Mark Lesher said he tried to help Shannon Coyel retain legal counsel to pursue her divorce and file a complaint against a local judge whom she said was close to Jerry Coyel and had awarded him temporary sole custody of her daughter, despite at least one report of child abuse.

According to the 2007 complaint filed with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Shannon Coyel claimed that her husband "is very wealthy, but he is also very possessive, demanding and a sexual pervert." In the same document, she also said that Jerry had abused her daughter.

In 2007 court proceedings to determine who should gain custody of the children, Jerry Coyel denied mistreating his stepdaughter.

When contacted the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to determine the status of the complaint, a spokeswoman for the agency could say only that it had taken no public action against the judge. She also said that as of Dec. 31, 2008, the judge had become a senior judge and was no longer active in district court.

But when Shannon and Jerry Coyel decided to reconcile later that year, she retracted her abuse charges against Jerry and turned against the Leshers.

In her testimony in January, she said that the Leshers had given her pills that "just made [her] crazy." She admitted to calling Child Protective Services in Oklahoma and Texas to report the abuse charges against her husband but said she did it because the Leshers had drugged her.

Who Dunnit?

Through her husband, Jerry Coyel, Shannon Coyel declined to speak to .

But Jerry Coyel spoke to on several occasions. When asked if he knew who was behind the posts on Topix, he said he had "no idea." Coyel said he was "computer illiterate," had only been able to obtain access to the site with the help of his daughter and never commented on anything on the site.

Later, however, Coyel backtracked. He acknowledged that he might have posted on Topix but emphasized that he used his name and did not post anything derogatory about the Leshers.

"I believe I'd gone on there one time. I'm not positive about it," he said. "It's a freedom of speech blog."

But although Coyel said he himself had not posted negative comments on Topix, he acknowledged recognizing at least one of the posters.

According to the Leshers' lawsuit, a poster who identified himself as "Budweiser" made several disparaging comments about the couple on Topix.

On one occasion, he wrote: "I personally talked to D.J. An 11 year old boy and he tole me about the dope you gave his mother and the perverted stuff you wanted him to say."

On another, he posted: "When the gloves come off you will be the first to know ... Me and Pick got a present for you that will lite up your perverted life …"

Although Coyel said he had not seen Budweiser in years, and denied knowing his real name, he said that the two were acquaintances and he'd known him for years.

"He's a junkyard dog. He's a super nice guy, but he'll do anything if somebody pisses him off. He'll do anything. He's crazy," Coyel said.

He said that if the Leshers' lawsuit confirmed that the poster was indeed Budweiser, he wasn't worried. The one who should be worried, Coyel said, is Mark Lesher.
Here ya go

Tucker, GA

#10 Dec 21, 2012
Piercing the 'Veil of Anonymity'

For those who frequent the threads of online forums and comfortably post comments behind the shield of anonymity, the Leshers' suit might sound surprising, or even alarming. But their lawyer, William Demond, told that their actions are not unprecedented.

"This is not unusual as far as to pierce the veil of anonymity," the Austin-based attorney said. "There are certainly cases out there [although] nothing on this scale. Nothing quite this large."

Last year, lawyers for two female Yale Law School students unmasked anonymous posters who libeled the women on the college and graduate school admissions Web forum .

But in a 2005 case, a Delaware court ruled against unveiling a blogger who had been slapped with a defamation lawsuit by a local councilman.

There's no standardized procedure, Demond said, but if a court finds that anonymous comments meet the definition of defamation, it can instruct a Web site to turn over any relevant information it has about the posters.

Following the Trail of Digital Breadcrumbs

Topix initially indicated that it would likely cooperate with the Tarrant County judge who ordered the Web site to disclose identifying information. But on Thursday the company filed a motion to quash the subpoena with the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California.

"We are not averse to a reasonable solution," Chris Tolles, CEO of Topix, told . But he said the request was "over broad and burdensome."

Tolles said the company takes privacy rights seriously and was a bit troubled by the large number of names included in the lawsuit and the implications it could have for its business.

"We have a business to run and that does give people the right to speak anonymously," he said.

However, if the Leshers' lawyer submitted a request that targeted fewer posters, he said Topix might be willing to comply.

At a hearing on March 27, a judge will rule on the company's motion.

But even assuming Topix turns over its information, identifying online commenters is not a simple task. Unless the commenters registered with Topix, which most did not do, Tolles said all the company would be able to reveal about each person is his or her IP (Internet protocol) address, or the unique number assigned to each computer.

Once the couple has the IP addresses, it would still have to go to the Internet service providers (ISPs) to identify the actual users. Assuming Topix releases the IP addresses in March, it could still be months before the ISPs turn over the information they have.

And, even then, the Leshers could find that the long trail of digital breadcrumbs leads them to library and coffee shop computers used by scores of people, instead of those in homes and offices used by an identifiable few.

'I've Got a Right to an Opinion'
But the Leshers, and other local residents familiar with the Topix threads, are convinced that if they get the chance to face their online opponents in court, they'll likely meet the people who pulled them into the courtroom in the first place, and their allies.

Most of the posters appear to be in no hurry to unmask themselves. But Jones, the truckdriver who posted under the name Wounded, said he's ready for the March 6 court date.

He said he used to be on Topix "every day, all day long." The comment that has made him a target in the Lesher's lawsuit is one of thousands of comments he has posted on a variety of subjects in the past couple of years.
Here ya go

Tucker, GA

#11 Dec 21, 2012
Compared to many of the other commenters on threads about the Leshers, Jones, again, seems to be one of the milder and less prolific.

But he confirmed that under the alias Wounded, he wrote: "Either way you aren't going to sway my opinion about the DRUGS and the LESHER's."

Jones, however, doesn't regret his comments and said he has a "right to [his] opinion."

Even though he's a target in the Lesher's lawsuit, he said he's actually prepared to stand with the couple against Topix.

The site removed him earlier this year when he started commenting about how the site itself isn't properly moderated and has allowed people to post that they are going to kill him or rape his wife and child, despite Web site guidelines that say such comments are not allowed. He also said his address and directions to his home have been posted to the site.

"They are very angry at me because of [my comments about] incompetent moderators," Jones told .

And he said he wouldn't be in this position if Topix had been doing its job.

"I just as soon see it fail. If they can't moderate it, they should pull the plug on it," he said.

The Law as an Accomplice

Legal experts, however, emphasized that the law protects Web sites like Topix. Even if the comments are considered defamatory by a court of law, Topix has no legal obligation to take the content down.

Defenders of the legal landscape argue that a change could stifle open discussion and free speech. But others maintain that in stories like this, regardless of who emerges, once the veil of anonymity is lifted, it is the law itself that is a co-conspirator.

"The law as it currently stands is an accomplice because it creates no incentive whatsoever for Web sites to review or police themselves from content that is potentially devastating to real people and real lives," Michael Fertik, a lawyer who specializes in online defamation, told .

Part of the problem, Fertik continued, is that laws that made sense at the birth of the Internet age have not matured. It takes years to redress online defamation problems under the present regime. But, in the meantime, libelous comments easily found through search engines can sideline both personal and professional lives.

Although privacy and free speech advocates worry that changes to the law could "chill" online speech, Fertik argued that "the law can easily catch up without destroying speech."

But until then?

"The law provides the red dye for the scarlet letter," Fertik said. "It provides the ink for the tattoo that people create on Web sites like this."
now who is it

Richmond, KY

#12 Dec 21, 2012
Thanks for posting that for me. I could not figure out how, but I had the address right just posted it wrong. Anyway now they will know.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#13 Dec 21, 2012
So you're not calling?


“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#14 Dec 21, 2012
You should update this really old story anyway.


At first, the couple tried to subpoena information surrounding almost 200 anonymous commenters on the site. But that discovery request was quashed, and eventually the search was narrowed down to a few key IP addresses, where most of the comments came from. It turned out that Lesher’s original accusers were the ones making statements the jury found to be defamatory:

An amended petition in the District Court of Tarrant County Texas in July 2009 had named six parties including Shannon Coyel, the couple’s accuser, her husband Gerald Coyel and his brother James Coyel. It also included the business Apache Truck & Van Parts in Kennedale, Texas, and two of its employees, Charlie and Pat Doescher. The Leshers allege the computers tied to the IP addresses were used by the Doeschers.

Last week’s verdict included judgments against the Coyels and Charlie Doesher. The jury ordered Jerry Coyel to pay Mark Lesher $5.1 million for mental anguish and loss of reputation. Shannon Coyel and Doesher must pay $1.7 million each, according to the jury’s verdict.

Jerry Coyel must pay Rhonda Lesher $3.168 million for mental anguish, loss of reputation and loss of her business, a hair salon and day spa she owned in Clarksville. Shannon Coyel and Doesher were ordered to pay Rhonda Lesher $1.056 million each.


But that got thrown out by a judge.


A Tarrant County judge has thrown out a jury's nearly $14 million Internet libel verdict in a case that garnered national attention and was called the largest such award involving online defamation.

With her ruling, state District Judge Dana Womack sided with the defendants who argued that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. The judgment, signed late last week, does not explain her reasoning. Womack declined through a court official to comment.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#15 Dec 21, 2012
The case originated after a woman employed by Mark and Rhonda Lesher accused them of sexually assaulting her. They were indicted but acquitted at trial.

The Leshers later sued, saying the woman and her husband, along with their employees, smeared them in blog postings to ruin the Leshers' reputations. The case took years to get to the jury. In April, a Tarrant County jury voted 10-2 to award the couple $13.78 million. Defendants Shannon and Gerald Coyel and Doescher, who worked for the Coyels, were ordered to pay varying amounts of the award.

In a motion filed last month, the defendants' attorneys argued that no evidence presented to the court tied them to the posts. A review "will show the IP address allegedly tied to Gerald and Shannon Coyel's home is nowhere to be found," the court document said. The motion also argued that no evidence supported an award of mental anguish for the Leshers, nor was there evidence that their reputations were injured and Rhonda Lesher's beauty salon lost profits.

Rhonda Lesher, who said she moved after the online posts wrecked her business, said Tuesday that the verdict's reversal was a "slap in the face." She said the couple plan to appeal.

Many of the blog posts were vile -- Lesher said there were more than 25,000 entries -- including that her customers engaged in sexual perversions and molestations, drug dealing and other criminal activity. Among the posts, one stated "...they got 'HERPIES' and 'AIDS'!" Another read, "These are the 'SLIMEST''LYING''PERVERTED''CH ILD MOLESTING''HELPLESS WOMAN RAPING''SCUM' I have ever heard of!"

Lesher said she and her husband had asked for $5 million in damages, but the jury went far beyond that. Though she still feels she has been vindicated, the judge's ruling "took my breath way."

"I just felt gut shot," she said. "Don't get me wrong, I had not spent any [of the award] money in my mind. I wasn't counting my chickens before the eggs hatched.... We have worked for four years and have spent as much as we've spent to get to bottom of it to get some vindication."

Lesher said the couple sold their ranch to pay for attorneys and have paid civil and criminal trial costs of more than $1 million. The couple still have a suit pending in Collin County against district attorney prosecutors for malicious prosecution, she said.

"The amount of torment and pain we have endured it's really hard to put into words," she said.

According to the lawsuit, Shannon Coyel, a former client of Mark Lesher, an attorney, accused the Leshers and one of their employees of sexually assaulting her. The criminal trial was moved to Collin County because of pre-trial publicity, and the jury acquitted all three in January 2009.

Coyel said the trial was "humiliating" and that she saw a counselor for more than two years to deal with her experiences, including the ordeal with the blog posts.

She said she copes through "My faith in God. I go to bed every night and I pray God takes my worries away," she said.

Media reports about the jury's verdict angered her, she said, because they came before the case was closed. Coyel said she was never worried about the money that she was supposed to pay -- roughly $2 million.

"They would never get a dime from me because I don't have a dime to give them," she said.

She also said that the blog posts disgusted her and that her husband barely uses a computer. "Just to even read [the posts], there's got to be something mentally wrong with you," she said.

The judge, she said, did an excellent job and followed the law in her ruling.

"This is how the judicial system is supposed to work," she said. "The judge ... could see through all the smoke and mirrors."

In her ruling, Womack orders the Leschers to pay the defendants' court costs.

That was June of this year.

Berea, KY

#16 Dec 21, 2012
That is why you only speak the truth or talk trash about people who can't read but that is half this county

United States

#17 Dec 21, 2012
Anyone that has the time to post these lengthy posts needs a job. I hate to think of the wasted time to put this on here for what little good it will do.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#18 Dec 21, 2012
Time wrote:
Anyone that has the time to post these lengthy posts needs a job. I hate to think of the wasted time to put this on here for what little good it will do.
ctrl+c and ctrl+v

Hard and time-consuming, for sure.
Here ya go

Tucker, GA

#19 Dec 22, 2012
Time wrote:
Anyone that has the time to post these lengthy posts needs a job. I hate to think of the wasted time to put this on here for what little good it will do.
Yes, copying and pasting several times was quite lengthy and time consuming. You opened this thread - you must have been slightly interested too?

United States

#20 Dec 22, 2012
and now I don't care

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 12 min President Don J T... 163,365
I Don't Know What The Future Holds, but 49 min KillerPopTart 72
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 41,201
Lake Reba Fish Dead 3 hr Benny 11
Yesterday's closing Saturday 4 hr Gotheart 1
Austin @ the blue moon 7 hr Edturd Cleanup 5
Kim. 8 hr David 4
Looking for a Job that Pays Considerably Better... (Mar '14) 9 hr Yawn 161

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages