The case, which is due for a hearing in an Ohio court today, is
said to be the first of its kind.
According to Law.com, Medina County resident George Gillespie
sued Mike Marlowe of Alabama and Bob Charpentier of Oregon after
the two men began teasing him online.
Reports suggest that the teasing then ventured out of the chat
room and into the real world, with Marlowe travelling from Alabama
to Ohio in order to disrupt Gillespie’s mail service by handing a
change-of-address form into a post office.
Other reports suggest that Gillespie was himself indulging in a
little “banter” in the chat room, making fun of Charpentier’s
girlfriend, and posting a picture of Charpentier’s home online.
"This guy is just a character, and his BS finally caught up with
him," Charpentier told the Akron Beacon Journal. "This lawsuit is
just another form of harassment."
"I'm so flabbergasted with this because this has been blown out
of proportion," Marlowe told Law.com. "We just made fun of the
guy."
AOL has not commented on the action, other than to point out
that it has a code of conduct governing the behaviour of members,
and that this is strictly enforced.
Commentators are sceptical as to the likely success of the
action.
In the US, ISPs such as AOL are generally immune from liability
under a provision in the Communications Decency Act which grants
immunity from suit to those who provide material on the internet
that was written by others. While most of the Communications
Decency Act has been struck down as unconstitutional, this
provision survives.
It is also very difficult to show that postings online have
caused harm.
Most of the US cases in this area relate to defamation actions.
In one recent case the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a lower
court ruling that a council official, suing over remarks posted
online by an unknown blogger, could force the blogger’s ISP to
reveal his identity. The official first had to prove that the
remarks were capable of a defamatory meaning – which he failed to
do, according to Chief Justice Myron Steele.
“Blogs and chat rooms tend to be vehicles for the expression of
opinions; by their very nature, they are not a source of facts or
data upon which a reasonable person would rely,” wrote the Chief
Justice. He added that plaintiffs harmed by a blog have an instant
remedy available: blogging themselves.
