“DrDaleArcher” Twitter Spammer and Lying Conman?

A little while ago, I received a follow from “DrDaleArcher”, who it seems by his follow/followers ratio is using a classic Twitter spamming technique. Specifically, he  appears to be running some type of auto-follow script to try and gain followers himself.  I’ve seen this a lot on Twitter, but I’ve never seen it done by someone who is claiming to be a psychiatrist.  A nice touch, in addition, is the direct message spam he sends out en masse, commenting on profiles he hasn’t actually read.  Note to any patients of “Dr. Dale Archer”, if he is practicing (which I doubt): When your psychiatrist starts outright lying and spamming on the internet, it’s time to consider other options.

“Dr. Dale Archer” claims he specializes in “chemical imbalances of the brain”, however strangely when I took him up on his supposed offer to answer questions, he quickly unfollowed me and declined a response.  The question was regarding his method of diagnosing these chemical imbalances he specializes in.  It seems asking “Dr. Dale” what scientific tests he uses to declare someone bipolar strikes a nerve with him.  I might have expected more from a man who supposedly has his own Fox-affiliated TV show, but expecting professionalism from a liar and a spammer, would be wishful thinking, indeed.

I’m glad you think I have an “interesting profile”, Mr. Archer.  I find yours interesting, as well. I even decided to check to see if you are licensed in Louisiana where you claim to have established a clinic, but sadly there is no record of you either with the medical board or the AMA. I also tried New York, and obtained similar results, although it is listed as your location on Twitter. Then I tried to find you in Virginia, since that’s where your website is registered under the name of  “Dr. D, Inc.”, but yet again… No trace of you. Perhaps you can share your license number, if you in fact have one? If you do not, can you clarify in what capacity you are a “clinical psychiatrist”?

I wonder why “Dr. Dale” is so vague about his current standing and in what state he supposedly practices in. His website, Askdrd.com states he is offering “free online mental health advice”.  This is quite curious, as it is illegal to offer medical advice without a license in the state of the person you are providing it to. Maybe “Dr. Dale” is has one of those special internet psychiatry licenses, though…  Hey, I’m waiting “Dr. Dale”.  Which state medical board should I contact to check the status of your license and file a complaint regarding your solicitation and offering of medical advice online? Perhaps “Fox” can point me in the right direction, but strangely I can find no reference to “Dr. Dale” on any Fox website, either.

Maybe I’m “doing it wrong” when it comes to Google, so if “Dr. Dale” would like to clarify this situation, I’d be happy to hear it.  I’m also interested in hearing from readers who have any information on Dale Archer or can point me towards some links that verify his claims, or exempt him from the law when it comes to offering medical advice online.

If you’re a Twitter user who is annoyed at DrDaleArcher‘s spam, feel free to report him as you would any other spammer. Deceptive direct message spam is even more disgraceful coming from someone who makes a pretense at integrity, and is soliciting people to share personal information with him for his own benefit, under false pretenses.

If you have received “mental health advice” from Dale Archer, please contact your local state medical board and inquire if he is licensed to practice medicine in your state or authorized to dispense advice in the capacity of a psychiatrist. Don’t let yourself be taken advantage of. Report this man to the proper authorities for further investigation, if you believe he has crossed-the-line.

I’m not exactly sure who “Dr. Dale Archer” is, but I certainly am getting the impression he is not what he purports to be. Feel free to email me any information you have, or post below.

Update: It’s also interesting to note that the domain name askdrd.com is registered to “Dr. D, Inc”, in Virginia. I was unable to find further information on this company Is “Dr. D” a person or a corporation, for the purpose of providing “mental health advice”?

Dr. Phil Under Fire Again For Sexual Abuse

In what seems to be becoming somewhat of a pattern, Dr. Phillip McGraw is once again being accused of sexual abuse by a patient. Mainstream media is just beginning to report the latest case, partially due to the lawsuit which was filed, alleging sexual molestation. The specific claims, which you can find here, along with several links, are rather bizarre.

It seems that Dr. Phil’s idea of “treatment” may include forcing a female patient (if we can call her a patient, since Phillip McGraw no longer has a license to practice medicine) to remain in a room with a naked man, and then having her breasts groped. Psychiatry seems to be the profession most prone to such abuses and perversity.  Many times psychiatric abuse goes unreported due to the private environment, imbalance of “credibility”, and patient trust. CCHR reports that over 10% of psychiatrists openly admit to sexually abusing their patients.  I wonder what percentage of psychiatrists admit to lying on surveys they use to self-report?

Dr. Phil was previously accused of sexual misconduct by Sara Morrison. “Not a single day has gone by when I haven’t been affected by what Phil McGraw did to me. He profoundly affected the course of my life,” she said. Dr. Phil’s latest accuser is Shirley Dieu. Her lawsuit comes not long afterward both McGraw and his wife were sued for fraud by former employees, Deborah Flattery and Brynja McGrady.

This is certainly an explosive story, and I suspect there are many more details in that lawsuit which the mainstream media, in typical fashion, will not touch. If anyone out there has more information, please comment below. Also feel free to comment to share your thoughts on this.  I’ve obtained a copy of the suit courtesy of Fox, and I will be reviewing it as time permits.

For more information on Psychiatric abuses see The Citizens Commission On Human Rights (CCHR).

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Soldier’s Little Girl Wants Her Daddy Back

Precious Paige wants her daddy home. Image by: Abby Bennethum

NBC Philadelphia reports on the little girl who didn’t want to let her father go back to war.

“A family photo that shows a little girl beside her father and his fellow soldiers in uniform as they prepare to go to war has resonated well beyond the tight knit Bennethum clan.

Four-year-old Paige Bennethum really, really didn’t want her daddy to go to Iraq. So much so, that when Army Reservist Staff Sgt. Brett Bennethum lined up in formation at his deployment this July, she couldn’t let go.

No one had the heart to pull her away”

This little girl is not alone, and yet her story has put an iconic image to the painful goodbyes that are one of the costs of the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This truly is a heartbreaking story.  I think we can all feel a sense of solidarity with young Paige Bennethum, no matter our views on the war. I hope her father does make it back safely, and I hope for the safety of the fathers of little girls just like Paige in Iraq and Afghanistan. The insanity of war, will continue to make victims of the most innocent of us, until we stop participating in it’s madness.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

“You Did The Right Thing”

The principal shook my hand to assure me.”You did the right thing,” he said. Somehow I wasn’t convinced, but I accepted it, and tried to put it out of my mind.  I walked down the hall, back to class.  I was 13, I think, and wondering if I was going to see that little boy again.  I never did.  I was his “reading buddy”, and I had set into motion with only a few words, his removal from the school.

I was always good at reading, and one of the few children in my class who had a strong aptitude for it.  At the time I was reading mostly fantasy. Tolkien was a bit of a challenge, but I got through the Hobbit and then, later, the Lord of the Rings.  I was excited about the prospect of using my reading skills to help another person, and so when we were first told about this “reading buddy” program our class would be doing, I was supportive. We were all going to be paired up with children just learning basic reading skill, and were going to assist them to be more competent.  Sure, it doesn’t take much skill to help a child read a book that only has a handful of words on each page, but anything that involved reading was a happy prospect for me.  You see reading comprehension and vocabulary was singularly the area I most excelled. It was a welcomed diversion from dreaded mathematics and geography.

The first time I met my new little friend, I was remarkably comfortable.  It was really the first time I had had any extended interaction with a younger kid, since the school practiced a form of segregation during recess, and because older kids just don’t talk to younger kids.  I had no siblings growing up, although, I did very much want a brother when I, myself, was very young.  I was impressed with how well he handled the material, and I mostly just provided encouragement.

He was a pretty outgoing little guy, after a while, and he lived on the same street that I did.  The odd time, we’d end up walking back together from school and talking.  I can’t recall much of anything that we talked about, really…  I don’t recall much of anything of him at all. And I can’t say what his exact words were when he told me about how his father touches him.

I was surprised and yet somehow remained nonchalant as I asked him questions to try and clarify what exactly he was talking about.  I don’t even remember those, but I remember saying good bye to him.  I turned back to watch as he walked along the street, now only a few houses down from his own. I walked on home, in my mind a sort of conflict was developing.  I didn’t really know what to do.  “Could I just be misunderstanding somehow?  Could it be nothing? He didn’t seem scared, or traumatized or anything except a normal little kid.  Maybe it was nothing,” my mind ran through the possibilities and tried to rationalize. I let him walk back home…  A decision which may or may not have been prudent.

I didn’t ask for anyone’ advice that afternoon.  The next day, at school, I had decided in “better safe than sorry” fashion, to go speak to the principal.  I told him what was said to me, and his face grew increasingly grave as I spoke. “You did the right thing,” he told me.  Was I convinced? Maybe not 100%, but I wanted to believe I was doing good. I wondered why it had to be me that would be put into that position. Later that day, I saw the principal talking to the child in his office, right as the police walked through the front door.  How I just happened to be there at that moment, is another mystery, and yet I did. That was the last time I saw the boy. I was assigned to another child as their “reading buddy”, and the program was ended shortly later.

I didn’t really know what was going to happen to him, and I can’t say at what point I began to feel the weight of the decision I had made. My mother, upon my telling her the story, once I had gotten back home that day, was not explicitly supportive. Rather than reassuring me, she mentioned the consequences of the event, and the possibility I had over-reacted.  How much of the uncertainty that followed was a result of that, I’ll never know.

Him and I developed a relationship, even if it was a superficial one.  He looked up to me, and he trusted me.  I didn’t make the decision to phone the police, but I did make the decision to tell the principal.  I can only imagine that the principal himself spoke to the boy afterward, and felt certain by what he was told, that crimes were taking place.  The idea the entire event could have been some misunderstanding is absolutely horrifying, but it’s not a valid argument for silence.

It was so many years ago now.  I can’t remember his name, or even his face really….  I can’t help but wonder what became of him, and if his life truly was improved by the choice I made.  I wonder if he felt betrayed, sitting in the office (a place nearly completely associated with bad behavior), and being questioned. Wherever he is, I hope he is well, and that I did do the right thing, like I was told.  I think there’s a strange compulsion we sometimes have to deny the reality of something too terrible or burdensome to accept. It would have been easier to just rationalize what I was told, and forget about it…  And, in fact, I have forgotten it. Yet between quickly casting it from my mind, I repeated those words to the principal, and so transferred that burden onto him.  I’m not sure then, why I still feel the entire chain of events rested solely on my own actions.

Did I do the right thing?  I hope so… I hope so…  But isn’t it a strange thing to hope for?  I still want to believe that maybe it was just a misunderstanding, but it not being one is the only possible way I can feel vindicated for turning his life upside down.  It was a burden that seemed to great at the time, and perhaps remains one today.

Child Psychiatrist Is A Child Rapist, Keeps License

Dallas News reports that Dr. William Olmsted pleaded no-contest to charges of child molestation, and is still able to practice as a psychiatrist:

Editorial: Sex offender should not hold medical license

04:57 PM CDT on Monday, September 14, 2009

Few yardsticks in life are better than the headline test. Try it on this one: “Sex offender keeps license to practice psychiatry.”

It gets worse, as in: “Doctor’s offense involved a 10-year-old neighbor.”

To say that something is out of whack in state law is an understatement. The case involves Dr. William Olmsted, a child psychiatrist who pleaded no contest to a molestation charge in Dallas County but was able to skate past the State Medical Board with his license intact, albeit with restrictions.

Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, has vowed to look into the matter, and we’re encouraged that he will. Those who have a state license to treat people at their most vulnerable must be beyond reproach. Those listed on the state’s sex-offender registry could not fit into that category.

State law should be tightened up so future Olmsted-like cases don’t fall between the cracks of separate state codes governing criminal, licensing and administrative law. By the time the State Medical Board got the Olmsted matter, it was six years old and involved a sentence of deferred adjudication – probation, essentially.

The age of the case and absence of a guilty verdict did not permit the board to immediately suspend Olmsted’s license. Pursuing revocation could have involved proceedings lasting as long as two years before a separate state hearing agency, and all the while the doctor could have continued to practice as a child psychiatrist.

The deal cut with Olmsted involves treatment and a fine, but it let him keep his medical license with the restriction that he treats only adult males in group or institutional settings. The fact that he has any kind of professional license at all leaves us aghast, but not nearly to the level as the psychiatrist’s victim and her family.

Changes in state law might seek to insert deferred adjudication as a license-suspension trigger, or cases involving sex offenses may need to be expedited through the hearing process. We’ll watch Carona’s conclusions with interest as he looks for ways to bring sense to the licensing process.

The spirit of his inquiry ought to be driven by the determination to hold state-licensed physicians to the highest standard in Texas.

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-sex_15edi.State.Edition1.2a7a795.html

An earlier press released from the Citizens Commission On Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group, includes this dramatic statement:

“A 1998 review of U.S. medical board actions against 761 physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses found that while psychiatrists and child psychiatrists account for only 6% of physicians in the country, they comprised 28% of perpetrators disciplined for sex-related offenses.”

Question for readers:

Do you believe a psychiatrist already convicted of sexual abuse should be allowed to retain their license and continue to practice?

Also see Child Psychiatrist Is A Child Rapist, Keeps License on Open Salon for more comments.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The Cult Of Wikipedia

From the internet debut of the anti-Scientology group “Anonymous”, Wikipedia became one of several “cyber battlegrounds”, and perhaps the most significant. With the unprecedented announcement by Wikipedia that IP addresses used by The Church of Scientology would be banned, “Anonymous” has found itself virtually uncontested in it’s campaign of internet vandalism. It wasted little time in filling all Scientology-related articles with the same handful of spurious claims, in many cases not even bothering to falsify citations as usual.

Wikipedia is perhaps one of the most insidious creations to come about online, due to the perception among many of it’s users that it is a legitimate encyclopedic source, and relies on “user submitted content”. The reality is, as any college or university student can attest to, Wikipedia is not recognized as a valid information source academically. Unfortunately, those that most rely upon Wikipedia for “facts”, have little experience with formal education, and subsequently do not seem to be aware of this.

Wikipedia is not run on user submitted content. It’s a closed and controlled forum, where information is designed to have an appearance of openness, solely for the purpose of creating the illusion that it is not micro-managed by administrators. Wikipedia itself has shed any last vestige of impartiality or neutrality, with it’s ban on Scientology staff members. There is little doubt that Wikipedia does on a larger scale, what private micro-managed web forums due on a smaller scale, it manipulates public opinion by creating an appearance of a consensus. To that end, users and information that clash with the agendas of it’s controllers, are eliminated.

Though there are numerous examples of Wikipedia’s clear bias and lack of credibility, the Scientology issue has brought greater attention and scrutiny to the shell game that is being played. Just a cursory overview of Scientology articles, demonstrates a clear and malicious intent on Wikipedia to allow libelous false claims to receive publicity and protection.  Though Wikipedia seems to believe third party content protections may void it from responsibility for the fabrications it hosts, it’s ban of the Church of Scientology may complicate that defense, should legal action eventually be taken.

That Wikipedia itself fits many of the “warning signs” of a cult listed by Anti-Scientologist and convicted felon Rick Ross, whose personal web site appears regularly as a valid source in Wikipedia entries, is perhaps ironic. Upon reading the article by Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D., et al, titled Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance, I’m wondering if “fitting” is a better term.

If you’d like to see just one example of Wikipedia’s hatchet job on Scientology, and decide for yourself if it lives up to Wikipedia’s supposed standards, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology:_A_History_of_Man. You’ll quickly find yourself wondering what sort of entry supposedly focused on the book it is named after, managed to not cite that book once the entire way through. If that wasn’t enough, the speculation on supposed aliens and uncited (fake) quotations, as well as external links pointing to anti-Scientology websites and books, completely unrelated to “A History of Man”, show what type of content Wikipedia wants to “protect” from Scientologist editors.

No matter your opinion on The Church of Scientology, Wikipedia’s “arbitration committee” working hand in hand with those with a clear anti-Scientology bias to ensure that users of it’s site receive distorted, inaccurate, and patently false data about Scientology, sends a message. That message is certainly not characterized by any notion of “preserving integrity”. While some who, lacking even a basic education, have simply accepted and regurgitated the ridiculous claims made against Scientologists by “Anonymous”, Wikipedia has now handed them a platform to spread their venom uncontested under the pretense of encyclopedic knowledge.

This is just the latest reason that Wikipedia deserves the scorn it receives from the real academic community, whom it plays at being an extension of, or complimentary to. And this is a scorn that is only building with time, as even media has been caught up in Wikipedia’s circus of lies. Several lazy  journalists, relying on Wikipedia to provide content for the articles they were paid to write, ended up in the crossfire, when that information proved false. Even Wikipedia itself has been forced to address the mounting criticisms against it, in what is a surprisingly thorough impeachment of itself.

Also see Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism

And while we’re on the subject of “digital maoism”, how could I resist posting this (not exactly related) video from YouTube?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “On the Occasion of the First Annivers…“, posted with vodpod

Juror Physically Attacked, Threatened For Position On Merck Trial

NYDailyNews.com reports that holdout juror, Theresa Ciccone, was intimidated, threatened with violence and had a chair thrown at her, in an attempt to force her into a change of position on the case. Upon recounting the illegal tactics used by jurors set upon finding the pharmaceutical giant innocent of the charges brought against it by Shirley Boles, the judge declared a mistrial. Ms. Boles, a retired deputy sheriff, brought the suit after alleging her experience with Fosamax led to her jaw deteriorating.

Ciccone, who has a degree in science, claims jurors had their minds made up from the beginning of the trial, and refused to evaluate the evidence provided. In one case a juror went so far as to literally sit on documents to obstruct others from having access to them during deliberation.

This irrational and criminal behavior further illustrates society’s rabid acceptance of, and dependency on, pharmaceutical drugs, despite their potential harmful effects. Merck certainly seems to have gotten a trial by it’s “peers”, if the criminally violent, pro-drug rabble who found their way into the jury are any indication.  Once again we see that a jury is only as good as it’s worst member, and in this case that dubious distinction is difficult to reward.

Having earlier lost a bid to suppress more such cases from going to court, Merck is facing a growing torrent of lawsuits over the dangers of it’s “osteoporosis treatment” drug.

For more information on pharmaceutical abuses see The Citizens Commission On Human Rights (CCHR).

Did Psychiatry “Treat” Phillip Garrido, Alleged Kidnapper/Rapist?

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Phillip Garrido, who is still making headline news over the alleged kidnapping and rape of an 11 year old girl who remained confined in his backyard for 18 years, may have been on prescription medications and under the care of a psychiatrist the entire time.

Mainstream media has bent over backwards to ignore this stunning revelation that appears in documents released by the FBI.  The documents are a part of what the media is referring to as the “manifesto“, and is titled “Origin of Schizophrenia Revealed”.

In what Garrido has called his “book”, he reveals his ability to explain and reproduce sounds telepathically, gives an overview of his Christian beliefs, and claims his kidnapping and sexual abuse of a child eventually led him to heightened spirituality and a more intimate relationship with his wife, upon repenting of his sins. Mainstream media quickly milked the documents for all they were worth, with a single exception.

Aside from a brief, incomplete and rather spun mention by CBS, no news organization has revealed what is perhaps one of the strangest elements of the case.  Phillip Garrido appears to have been under psychiatric care during the entire 18 years of Jaycee Dugard’s horrific ordeal. The document released to media upon request by the FBI, states “Concerning Phillip Garrido’s state of mind: Mr. Garrido has been under the care of a psychiatrist for the past 18 years for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). If a reference is needed I will supply a release form upon request and you may contact him yourself.” The name of the psychiatrist has either been redacted by the FBI or was not in the document to begin with, though credentials are listed therein.

While many bloggers and journalists are hung up on the apparent religious angle of the story, speaking of Garrido’s founding of “God’s Desire Church”, the unsettling possibility that Garrido is the latest Frankenstein to come from a psychiatrist’s “treatment” of “mental illness”, is being ignored or downplayed. It will be interesting to see what else we learn, since it appears that Garrido is more than eager to share his thoughts, and his history.  As you can see from the above video, Garrido is certainly no stranger to psychiatry, or drug use, and it leaves one speculating on just what role those may have played in his actions, if any.

If nothing else, it certainly does give one pause to find out that Garrido’s kidnapping of young Jaycee may have coincided with a prescription for stimulants.

For more information on Psychiatric abuses see The Citizens Commission On Human Rights (CCHR).

Vodpod videos no longer available.

8th “Anniversary of Sepember 11th”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

8 years ago today, what came to be understood as one of the most significant moments in American history took place.  A country that had grown complacent in the notion it was an ivory tower, learned that tower was made of glass.  Who can blame people for believing Fortress America was invincible?  Afterall, this was the only nation on the planet to use nuclear weapons in war, and twice at that.  And that seemed to work out pretty well…  Didn’t it?  A little rationalization here, and a little remorse there, and the world kept turning, the taxes kept being paid, and the votes kept being cast.

The fact that America had been in a relatively perpetual state of war up to September 11th was not really recognized.  For most Americans, it truly seemed a random occurrence.  It was without cause, without explanation, without justification.  It was a time of destruction, not introspection.  It was the day everything seemed to change.  There might always have been some lingering fears in America…  Fear of flu, fear of killer bees, fear of medical expenses, fear of police.  On that day, the old fears were forgotten, and the new fear became a sort of state of mind.  The realization of our vulnerability and mortality came crashing down upon us, while we watched those towers falling on repeat, each time feeling the unreality of the situation gradually solidify into a new truth.

Sure, cars were statistically more dangerous than terrorists, but somehow that was little consolation.  We wouldn’t have gotten on a plane in those following weeks if Disney bribed us with free tickets. Even the “Magic Kingdom”, was seemingly more like an impending death trap than a vacation spot.  We were conscious…  Conscious of danger being everywhere, but some places more than others.  We were suspicious of everyone, but some people in particular.  I remember seeing a woman in the mall wearing a berka, and despite my best efforts, feeling she was about to explode at any moment…  I wanted to be away from her, and I wanted to be near her at the same time…  To show that I wasn’t one of “those people”.  I was on a plane on September 10th, 2001.  One day before 9/11.  I have not been on a plane since…  And whenever someone I love travels on one, part of me prepares for the inevitable.  Yes, eight years later, I am still a hostage to some of that fear.

No matter your politics, or your religion, or your ethnicity, you could not be unshaken by the events of September 11th.  In fact, I think the world was moved, not just the U.S., and not just North America. It seemed like before September 11th, the question of terrorism hitting home for America was one of “if”, not “when”.  Now one can’t help but feel the clock is counting down…  And I suspect I am not the only one that sees the date on 9/11, and wonders if today will be the day we are reminded once again.

Terrorism is an issue that now effects all of us.  As disturbing that reality is to handle, it is also an opportunity.  We can now see more than ever, the insanity of war, and the terrible terrible nature of violence on and hatred of our fellow man.  We are a family on this planet, and we need to unite with the majority, who are good and sane individuals. The cycle of vengeance needs to stop before it consumes us.  A nation will never put an end to war, only the individual can do such a thing. Connect with humanity on those terms, and we can avoid the terrible generalizations that have led to justification for the most tragic events of our history.

There Is No Such Thing As “Anonymous” Online

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Although a groundbreaking decision was handed down in a U.S. court last month, few people online seem to be able to grasp the ramifications.  As professional gossiper and internet sniper Rosemary Port has discovered, hiding behind an “anonymous” user name provides no protection from libel.  Ms. Port was unceremoniously unmasked by Google due to a court decision in favor of protecting the reputations of individuals from internet cowards and liars.  Having zero claim to fame on her own merits, Ms. Port hoped to develop a following among like-minded reputation wreckers by defaming the character of Liskula Cohen, calling her a “ho” and a “skank” on her obscure anonymous blog.

Ms. Port appears rather unrepentant, and is claiming to be in touch with her own attorneys (insert laughter here), while threatening to sue Google for releasing her identity per court order.  How this lawyer is still practicing is a question for another article. Port is finding her own moral character and personal attractiveness coming under scrutiny, now that her proverbial ski-mask has been removed.  While some say this is likely a situation of “the pot calling the kettle black”, I think judgment should be reserved until more details are forthcoming, and you better believe they will be.  I’m sure Ms. Port has a few skeletons in her closet that will be quite likely to emerge given her elevated media profile.  It might not have been quite what she hoped for, but if it was publicity she wanted, she’s been somewhat successful.

Despite most people being in favor of not allowing the internet to be a “libel free zone” where “anons” are free to roam the grassy knoll, sniping at whoever they please without recourse, Ms. Port does have a fan club of sorts. 4chan, Anonymous, and Encylopedia Dramatica, rallied to her defense. They are a loosely-organized group of “satirists” who promote child pornography, racism, violence, drugs, and other illegal pursuits. They’ve gone on a little campaign of their own, proclaiming they “govern the internet”, and twisting a case over libel into one of free speech.

An encyclopedic entry posted on ED in defense of Ms. Port’s right to online defamation of character, states about Liskula Cohen, “Not only is Liskula a skank, she’s a miscegenating kike bitch. Like any other Jewish slut, Liskula Cohen LOVES niggers.” At first glance this might seem too vile and disgusting to represent the mainstream views of Ms. Port’s supporters, but upon further investigation it becomes fairly clear that the champions of an internet without the most basic form of accountability and regulation, are absolutely the bottom feeders online.  There’s a reason that they are so vocal about their supposed “right” to slander and libel with impunity while remaining anonymous on the net. Like a group of IRL misfits and cast-aways, they believe that internet is their escape from responsibility and accountability for their words and actions. These really are the people who ruin things for the rest of us, and cause a need for more laws and regulations, but that is currently the only method society acknowledges to restrain their destructive impulses.

The bottom line is this, despite the apparent culture of anonymity and unaccountability that exists online, you can and will be identified and prosecuted if you libel or slander someone who is prepared to assert their rights.  The internet is not a rule free zone.  It never has been. These malcontents need to face the reality that the net isn’t a virtual “get away” from the supposed harsh and oppressive nature of a civilized society, where people can’t be assaulted for “lulz”.  The internet is an extension of civilized society, not an escape from it.  This case simply reaffirms what should have always been obvious from the beginning, if you break the law, no matter the medium, you are still accountable for your crimes.