cyjeff

Okay. You are totally 100% wrong about me being a (law) student. If you must be a critic and need to have your "nebulous" comments posted, think again. Buddy, you are not that smart. Don't waste my time and others by reading your remarks...If you want to help, just go ahead and help and answer the question. If not, just ignore it. Thanks..

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.

I'm so sorry to hear some creep is harassing you like this. You are a valued member of this, and other boards. It's too bad some people have nothing better to do than pull juvenile BS like this, isn't it?

Hey check out this new video about jeff, it's pretty funny he actually thought he knew who i was [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3TFPOLzrMU]YouTube - cyjeff funny[/url]

Gotta love when Mommy and Daddy let the kids onto the computer, eh Jeff?

Worry ye not.

T|-|i5 i5 4 m3554g3 70 3v3ry0|\|3 47 7|-|i5 f0rum. D0|\|'7 fu(k wi7|-| schmim64 0r I'11 fu(k wi7|-| u. T|-|i5 i|\|(1ud35 i|\|5u175, d3137i|\|g |-|i5 p0575 0r b4|\||\|i|\|g |-|im (cbg). A5 4 5|-|0w 0f g00d f4i7|-| I wi11 574r7 by p057i|\|g cyjeff'5 p3r50|\|41 i|\|f0rm47i0|\|.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyKFF2DLYlw]YouTube - cyjeff[/url] <-- cyjeff

hacker1182

"I look forward to the day you have a ****ing heart attack when starting a new job. Then I'll troll your thread without reading a damn thing like you did to mine."

What was this about?

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.

woohooo 1006 posts!! yeah, i need a new hobby too

I look forward to the day you have a ****ing heart attack when starting a new job. Then I'll troll your thread without reading a damn thing like you did to mine.