I was going to stay out of commenting on the stunt pulled by a guy posing as a woman in a Craigslist ad and then publishing all the responses on his satire website including a picture of a Microsoft contractor literally with his you-know-what hanging. These people looking for some rough sex with a bogus kinky woman were treated to a cruel version of Candid Camera.

Though it might be ethically bankrupt behavior, it might not have been libelous, since to sue sucessfully for libel the information being alleged must be false and cause financial damage:

Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant. …

But keep in mind I’m no attorney and resting on a collection of legal definitions in Google would likely be ill-advised by a janitor cleaning an attorney’s office. I wouldn’t be doing the happy dance if I was Jason Fortuny.

Craigslist Chief Executive Jim Buckmaster told the AP in an e-mail that Fortuny’s actions violated the site’s policies. He noted that the ad in question was removed several times, only to be reposted.

“Publishing private e-mails is something that decent people don’t generally do without very good reason,” Buckmaster said.

Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Craigslist would be protected under federal law exempting service providers from liability for what their users do. Fortuny’s liability under Washington state law, he said, rests on whether the disclosures are of legitimate concern to the public.

Apparently Mr. Fortuny didn’t get the clue when the ad was taken down and kept reposting it, allegedly.

I wonder if this new type of self publicity started with activities like that guy publishing the phone call trying to cancel AOL? In some states that would be against the law since two party consent is required for taping any phone calls. At least in the AOL case there were enough people who had gone through the same thing, you could stick up for the guy who posted the phone call, but this case? I doubt there are any people reading this — the participants of this publicity stunt aside — that have answered a personals ad that turned out to be phony and had their serious response ridiculed in public.

Some people are absolute freaks looking for their 15 minutes of fame (William Hung anyone?), which should make the rest of us even more gunshy about any sensationalistic, salicious experiments. Especially if it’s something clearly generated to hit the Digg front page.

Now Valleywag is reporting (and I say that somewhat with tongue in cheek) that the shoe is on the other foot and information about the guy who pulled the stunt is becoming public, including things that allegedly happened to him as a child. Man, I really didn’t need to know those details.

I don’t know about others, probably because I’ve not been in the singles online dating scene, but sites like Craigslist with personal ads immediately make me wonder: is this bogus? Why did the person placing this ad use this site? Is this what Craigslist is best used for? What kind of people look for this type of sex in a public ad on Craigslist? Maybe I’m just too out of it to appreciate the new dating scene, but this seems very scary to me.

I mean, if one were really looking for sex, would Craigslist be the best place to get some? Why wouldn’t the person try answering ads on a niche dating site like Adult Friendfinder where the member information was behind a pass protected gateway and people know in advance that most everybody else is looking for sex partners?

And if you are going to answer an ad like that on a site like that, then by all means don’t answer with pictures of yourself naked in a public forum and use a business email address! Aren’t naked pictures like second or third base in cybersex online? Seems to me like let’s exchange pics comes after at least one private conversation. Maybe a couple conversations, yes/no?

Or is this normal for Craigslist sex ads? Just so it’s clear, these are not rhetorical questions, I don’t frequent Craigslist very often. In fact, you can probably count the number of times I’ve visted Craigslist on your fingers including the visit to take the screenshot above. It’s a site that I keep thinking I should learn more about (maybe not?), but haven’t taken the time. What is worth doing there besides answering fake sex ads? Is Craigslist a good alternative to eBay? That’s what I’ve read but don’t know this from firsthand experience.

Back to the dating sites questions. Some have claimed that numerous dating sites have been preloaded with bogus profiles, so how trustworthy can these sites be? It’s ad answerer beware. Trusting strangers online shouldn’t happen immediately, but rather over time through a sequence of actions, not just words. When it comes to giving up personal information, people should be even more cautious. And if you are married like that Microsoft contractor, what on earth are you doing putting up pictures of yourself naked on Craigslist? I hope for his sake that was with his wife’s permission. Don’t laugh, because that’s cool behavior in some marriages.

Are there any personal details that others won’t try to make some sort of public embarassment? Recently, there was a politically motivated tape leaked of Governor Arnold The Terminator in California where he referred to one of his assistants as “hot.”

Lessons learned
What I took away from this Craigslist stunt was that in the current day, some misguided souls will go to even greater depths to make themselves and their website famous for 15 minutes. That includes violating others privacy, taking unethical and sometimes, possibly even illegal actions for a brief taste of fame. Be careful out here. Don’t give away personal information to strangers. And there are few worse strangers than those online.

This isn’t saying you can’t trust anybody online and should be completely paranoid. Rather you should rely on actions as much as and maybe more than words to figure out how to separate the good from the bad.

Did this post make you go hmm?

 Loading ...

• Background checks for online dating being proposed in Michigan
• Top 10 personals / dating sites in March 2005
• Friendster newsletter emails pictures of minors to adults, why?
• Married? It’s True.com you shouldn’t visit!
• Online dating site granted a patent
• Cupid arrow not as dead on with online matchmaking