I did a little research on cyberstalkers.

According to common stalker profiles, cyberstalkers tend to be socially immature loners, and they do not possess the interpersonal skills needed to maintain friendships and relationships. Many are found to have mental health issues and suffer from delusions. In addition, cyberstalkers often have not had, or have had very few, sexual relationships in their lifetime.

Because a lot of time must be spent on a computer to cyberstalk (and to create videos from what is googled, perhaps?), it is not hard to see why cyberstalkers are socially isolated, socially inept, often unmarried, and without real-world friendships. Anyone who must resort to anonymous postings and threats to right real or imagined wrongs is lacking in social maturity. Mature individuals are equipped with the social tools necessary to handle disputes one-on-one or face-to-face.

There are ways other than website bannings and account terminations to deal with cyberstalkers.

Cyberstalking is a federal offense. Not only will the FBI investigate cyberstalking and cyber threats, state police have computer crime units that will assist in the tracing and tracking of computer harassers. Cyberstalking is usually prosecuted under state stalking laws. Being convicted of cyberstalking can result in jail time up to 8 years and $250,000 in fines.

Q.

Sorry, I rarely go here and didn't see your reply until today.

I thank you for your apology and accept it readily... though reluctantly. I don't know why my post vanished so quickly, but I am very encouraged that you saw it.

You shouldn't have been goaded, by me, in this regard.

You and I have gotten off on the wrong foot, and I take full responsibility for that.

Thank you for your gracious replay and I hope it is the beginning of not only a better interaction and better combined help to the outsiders, but, perhaps, the beginning of a friendship as well.

Even if you are not willing to go that far, I am still thankful we cleared the air.

Jeff

Cyjeff, if you were truly curious about Louisiana's criminal defamation statute, you can research criminal defamation law in the United States and Garrison v. Louisiana in particular (if you have not done so already).

In Garrison, Justice Brennan said, "Changing mores and the virtual disappearance of criminal libel prosecutions lend support to the observation that...under modern conditions...it can hardly be urged that the maintenance of peace requires a criminal prosecution for private defamation."

In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Garrison, most states repealed their criminal defamation statutes or struck down the laws as unconstitutional. In those states where criminal defamation statutes still exist (17 states), they are rarely used and only Kansas has a statute that, to date, has survived constitutional challenge. You may be interested in reading about the criminal defamation actions currently being pursued in Minnesota and Colorado.

As for damages being awarded when injury is presumed, you can check out Louisiana's rulings on defamation per se. Louisiana recognizes injury to reputation that results simply from the character of the words spoken, even when pecuniary losses are impossible to demonstrate. When words impute the commission of a crime, they can be considered defamatory per se, reputational injury is presumed (there is no need to show malice or falsity), and the assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court. It is hard to deny reputational injury has occurred when reputational injury is presumed in some cases under Louisiana law.

Although your "apology" post appeared only briefly, I did have a chance to read it, and I appreciated your words. I apologize in return for being less-than-pleasant when you make errors. We all make them, and a simple correction is all that is needed. Attacks on character are beneath us both.