And now, from the "If You Can't Say Anything Nice, Post It All Over The Internet" files and Yahoo! News...

Sudiegirl sez: Wow...this sure as hell beats writing someone's name on the bathroom wall, doesn't it?

Man sues Web site for allowing women to post comments that he's a 'cheater,' has herpes
By Lisa Sweetingham, Court TV
Fri Jul 7, 6:09 PM ET
(Court TV) -

Liars and cheaters beware. (Maybe that should be on a sign or something? Or a t-shirt? Ooh...I smell a new Rancho Sudiegirl cottage industry!)

Victims of love used to gather the shards of a broken heart, cry on a friend's shoulder and quietly file the episode away as a character-building experience. (Either that or burn down their house. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.)

Today, scorned lovers post anonymous diatribes on dating-advice Web sites. They name names, divulge graphic details of disappointing sexual encounters, and warn future potential victims about the charming cads who wade in the shallow end of the dating pool. (Hmmm...that should be interesting indeed. Kind of like a consumer advocacy group...)

But one alleged cheater says his reputation has been so harmed by the posts on a site called DontDateHimGirl.com that he's suing the owner - and he's hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her and her site's anonymous posters. (You know, if money were no object, I'd think about being a P.I. I mean, I'd be able to handle stakeouts as long as I've got a comfy seat, and I love to snoop. Maybe I should expand my horizons?)

Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney Todd Hollis says his ordeal began when he got a concerned call from his mother, who is a minister. She wanted to know if he had a sexually transmitted disease. A friend pointed her to Hollis' photo and profile on DontDateHimGirl.com. (Oh boy...of all the things in the world you don't want your mom to see. Sigh...)

"It was terrible," Hollis told Courttvnews.com. (I'll bet his ass is SO grounded.)

Hollis, 38, discovered four anonymous posts about him on the site's "alleged cheater" database.

"Dark and handsome, ladies, he looks like a chocolate dream until you get to know him," one person wrote. The accusations from alleged former girlfriends ran the gamut from "Todd Hollis gave me herpes," and "heard he was gay," to "he wears dirty clothes," "complains about paying child support" and "he got hook-ups in every zip code." (Lovely. I made a mistake regarding posting personal stuff re: an ex-boyfriend on the 'Net, and some psycho chick harassed me by e-mail about it because I was dumb enough to post his name on the notice. It was really immature and I learned my lesson but good. The fact that they're doing it anonymously is not exactly a selling point either. All it does is make you wonder who is saying it. Eew...)

Hollis says he called the owner of the site, Tasha Joseph, but she refused to take down the posts.

"I pleaded with her that the information was incorrect, and that the reference could personally hurt my business and my family," Hollis said. "She snubbed her nose at me and refused to do so."

"That's a lie," Joseph told Courttvnews.com. "He never did that, he never contacted me, and he clearly knows that. He went straight to the media." (Well, "contact" is a relative term, isn't it? "Contact" means different things to different people. To some people, "contact" simply constitutes calling someone or e-mailing someone. Of course, in this day and age, if you call and nobody's there to talk to you for real, you leave a message. To other people, contact is sticky paper that comes in a roll, and you paper shelves with it.)

Joseph, 33, said she first heard Hollis' name from a reporter at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Hollis filed a defamation suit against the Web site owner on June 29. (As he should.)

He also claims to have hired a private eye to investigate Joseph, her family, and the anonymous posters, whom he believes knowingly and maliciously published false and defamatory statements about him. (Hmmm...knowingly AND maliciously, huh?)

"It just goes to show you the lengths he will go to intimidate me," Joseph says. "He's hired someone to follow my 65-year-old parents, who have nothing to do at all with this." (Uh...that is a trifle weird.)

Hollis says that as an attorney, he is taking every action to be prepared for a trial. Just as his character has been attacked on Joseph's site, he says, he intends to investigate information that could shed light on Joseph's character. (Uh...is that necessary? I mean, if this site is a business venture for her as opposed to a personal site, I'm not sure how the character flaws would enter in. If any lawyers out there are reading, let me know what you think, please!)

"That's just what you do," Hollis says. "I certainly didn't go into this with the intention of researching Tasha Joseph's past." (Uh...yeah...)

Hollis is seeking $350,000 in damages and alleges seven counts of defamation by Joseph; the Cavelle Company, which owns the site's domain name; Carolyn Lattimore and Alescia Roskov, two of the alleged posters; and five unidentified women whom he hopes to unmask in the discovery process. (What dramatic language - "unmask" the five unidentified women. Sounds like one of those cheesy porn films from the '70's.)

Hollis says he has never met Lattimore. Roskov, he claims, is a woman he casually dated about three years ago. (Well, apparently, "casual" also means different things to different people.)

Joseph says she will vigorously fight the suit and protect the anonymity of the registered users who post on her site. (Notice, it's not just fighting the suit, but VIGOROUSLY fighting the suit. I'm not sure if that includes a "Rocky-esque" scene of Ms. Joseph running up and down the stairs with her arms held up in victory as an orchestra blares "Gonna Fly Now" in the background.)

"I think it's a meritless case," she said. "We're protected by the Communications Decency Act. It's pretty clear to me, but obviously it's not so clear to Mr. Hollis."

More specifically, Joseph is protected under Section 230 of the 1996 Act, which guards online service providers from being sued for the actions of others. (OK, that answers my question.)

"Section 230 means you don't blame the soapbox for what the speaker says ," according to Rebecca Jeschke, spokesperson for the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It protects publishers or people who host Web forums for liability. ... The writers are the ones who are responsible for their speech." (Aha! A ray of light pierces the fog...)

Hollis would have to prove he's been defamed by the posters, Jeschke says, or that private facts have been exposed about him. (In short, he needs to provide doctor's records, wear dirty clothes and start dating every woman within a fifty mile radius?)

The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, and the EFF has been involved in several recent cases that upheld the rights of anonymous message board posters.

"People have a right to slam their ex-boyfriends," Jeschke says. "The question is: When does it cross the line? When it crosses the line is when they can be unmasked." (How is that done, though?)

Joseph, a former Miami Herald columnist, says that this is the first time her six-month-old site has been sued.

"It's utterly ridiculous," she says. "And I will not be intimated or bullied." (How about ganged up on? Threatened? I got a thesaurus, I could go on for DAYS...)

To set the record straight, Hollis confirmed that he is not currently in a relationship; he has, at times, dated more than one woman at a time; he does not have herpes; he does not wear dirty clothes; and while it's possible he may have complained about paying child support, his payments are always current. (Well, it seems to me he'd have to have doctor's records showing he doesn't have herpes, nor has he ever had it. Also, he could get records from the clerk of court/child support recovery/other authorities that handle this kind of thing to prove the whole child support thing. As far as dating more than one woman at a time, show me ONE person in this country that hasn't done that. ONE. I've juggled boyfriends in my day, but none of them were serious. It was totally casual. However, it's not a good idea when you have a bad memory. Otherwise you call someone the wrong name and all hell breaks loose.)

His lawsuit notes that he is a "well-known and highly respected" attorney, who has "an excellent reputation for honesty and integrity in both his business and personal affairs," and that his earning capacity has been impaired by Joseph's conduct. (OK...it's got to be pretty bad if a CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY's earning capacity is affected because some anonymous bimbos wrote nasty things about him on a website. Come on! If he's a criminal defense attorney, it's not like his clients really have a choice in the matter. If he's the only one that has enough room in his caseload, then by Christ, they don't have many more options. Somethin' smells fishy, and it ain't my tuna salad.)

Hollis has suffered, according to the suit, "embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress, which may be permanent in nature," because of Joseph's refusal to remove the allegedly defamatory statements. (Well, I guess I can see that. However, how can one prove that these three things may be permanent? I mean, medication can take the edge off of emotional distress, and so can therapy. As far as embarrassment and humiliation, aren't they basically the same thing? Or is one worse than the other. So therapy could easily take care of any leftover angst that the meds don't cover. And as everyone knows, psychotropic drugs can be fun...and also kill your sex drive so you suffer no further incrimination.)

DontDateHimGirl.com is promoted as "a new cost-effective weapon in the war on cheating men!" (Provided, of course, that you have access to a computer with internet capabilities. Or your mom does. Or your best friend. Or your mom's best friend's sister's cousin. The possibilities are ENDLESS. And here's another "relative" term..."cost". Are we talking monetary, emotional, physical, societal, or what? And really, how can you be sure that these anonymous sources are accurate? They could be lying...just out to destroy someone. I've had those urges, and I'm sure all the readers that stop by have had them too. It's too risky. Hand me a rap sheet, a credit card report, some doctor's records, and a notarized statement or two and I'm a happy puppy.)

The site claims an average of 600,000 hits per day, with a database of "thousands of cheating men - with more being added each day!" (Uh-huh. Y'all keep trying to impress me...)

The sassy, girl-power-centric site offers articles such as "Four Simple Ways to Meet a Great Guy!" ("Tip #1 . Smile and wave") (Oh GOD...how insipid is this? I smile and wave, and all the homeless alcoholics in the DC metro area are at my feet. Maybe it's my cologne?), an "Ask Your Girl" column, where Joseph gives advice on questions like, "How do I boost my self-esteem after a break-up?" (OK...here's Sudiegirl's answer - "Make sure you make friends with his mom so she's pissed at him for dumping you.") and a way for men to "Post Your Side of the Story!" (Uh - huh. As my mom and dad always said, "The truth always lies somewhere in the middle." Maybe this dude did have herpes, but if the old girlfriend gave it to him, then he'd have a reason to be pissed.)

Hollis says he did not care to tell his side. (Oh - now he just shot himself in the foot with an elephant gun.)

"The rebuttal process is equally ridiculous," he said. "It's done through e-mail and you have to e-mail Ms. Joseph. It's very difficult to rebut information when you have no references as to who the poster is." (That shouldn't matter if you're innocent, though, right? I mean, you could phrase it in such a way so as you're stating facts without hyperbole. Just like Jack Webb on "Dragnet". If you start naming names, it gets too confusing.)

Joseph says rebuttals are not done by e-mail, but that anyone can post comments, which are automatically attached to the profile and not vetted by her in any way.

Hollis still wants Joseph held accountable.

"It is absolutely reprehensible for someone to be able to come up with false, malicious and defamatory information about someone with the intent of destroying their character, and be able to do so with impunity and anonymity," he says. (But Ms. Joseph didn't come up with it, she just facilitated it, right?)

But the Web site is just one of several virtual snitching posts for the lovelorn.

WomanSavers.com ("Where Nice Guys Finish First!"), allows registered users to grouse ad nauseam and to rate Mr. Wrong on a scale of 1-10 in such areas as sex, smarts, and commitment issues. (Today's selection is from Madison, WI. Not bad looking, but apparently he's made some women very very angry.)

At PlayersAndPsychos.com, men moan about "psychos" and women wax pathetic about "players." (I have to say, I like their slogan the best: "Where players get played and psychos get spayed." Classic - sheer poetry!)

These sites require registration and adherence to standard terms of use, including the understanding that posters are solely responsible for what they write, that the site does not control the content or guarantee the accuracy. (So in other words, "Take this stuff with a grain of salt, y'all!" is the message I'm getting, right?)

Users also agree not to post defamatory material or statements that would violate another person's rights. (Who defines "defamatory", though? Are there guidelines, like, "Yes, you should call her a ho-bag, but you should not accuse her of shooting up a school-bus full of third-graders on her way to work"?)

Some say Hollis should laugh it off and walk away. (More like "Limp away and lick your wounds.")

His suit has already brought thousands more viewers to the negative posts. (Well, at least the stats are winning in this situation...)

"The fact that more attention is drawn to my name as a result of my lawsuit is an unfortunate necessity as a result of doing what I believe is morally correct," Hollis says. "I believe it's a necessity in order to prevent other men from being victims. Todd Hollis is just one person in the entire scheme of this elaborate nonsense that Ms. Joseph has created." (Yeah, but Todd Hollis is the only one making noise. Maybe it'd be better if you put together a class-action lawsuit?)

But Joseph says she will not take down the posts. And she does not feel a moral responsibility to police the free exchange of information by the site's users. (That's a tough call. I can see her side, but by the same token, I don't like the word "lawsuit" if it relates to me and someone taking me to the cleaners. I don't know what I would do in her case.)

"I think we're all grown-ups here," Joseph says. "People need to govern their own actions." (Yeah, including the anonymous masked posters. That sounds so diabolical...)

Sudiegirl's final opinion?

Well...I'm all for freedom o' speech. However, with freedom comes responsibility. I'm not sure what to think on this, but I learned from my own experience that if you are angry at someone, you're better off living well - it is the best revenge.

PS: I received an anonymous comment from someone listing a very real phone number with instructions to tell everyone something derogatory. That comment has since been deleted, and I hate to tell you, but I won't do it. Go to one of the websites listed above and do it yourself. OK? I'm just commenting on the weirdness - I'm not taking sides.