Sex Baiting Prank on Craigslist Affects Hundreds

Recently, a blogger named Simon Owens ran a social experiment on Craigslist. He wandered into the “Casual Encounters” section of the personal ads where countless men and women were soliticing for no-strings-attached sex and wondered, Is it really that easy? As a test, he composed several ads with different permutations of assumed identity and sexual orientation: straight/bi men/women looking for the opposite/same sex. He then posted it to New York, Chicago, and Houston, and tallied the results.

Overwhelmingly and instantly, the ads from the fake women looking for male partners were inundated with responses, sometimes several per minute. All the other ads received lukewarm responses, at best. These results weren’t surprising, but some of the observations were… Many of these men used their real names and included personally identifiable information, including work email addresses and home phone numbers. Several admitted they were married and cheating on their spouses. Many included photos, often nude.

His first conclusion was very reasonable: “If a really malicious person wanted to get on craigslist and ruin a lot of people’s lives, he easily could.”

Jason Fortuny’s Craigslist Experiment

On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: “Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?”

He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit ad (warning: not safe for work) in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in. Like Simon’s experiment, the response was immediate. He wrote, “178 responses, with 145 photos of men in various states of undress. Responses include full e-mail addresses (both personal and business addresses), names, and in some cases IM screen names and telephone numbers.”

In a staggering move, he then published every single response, unedited and uncensored, with all photos and personal information to Encyclopedia Dramatica (kinda like Wikipedia for web fads and Internet drama). Read the responses (warning: sexually explicit material).

Instantly, commenters on the LiveJournal thread started identifying the men. Dissenters emailed the guys to let them know they were scammed. Several of them were married, which has led to what will likely be the first of many separations. One couple in an open marriage begged that their information be removed, as their religious family and friends weren’t aware of their lifestyle. Another spotted a fellow Microsoft employee, based on their e-mail address. And it’s really just the beginning, since the major search engines haven’t indexed these pages yet. After that, who knows? Divorces, firings, lawsuits, and the assorted hell that come from having your personal sex life listed as the first search result for your name.

Possibly the strangest thing about this sex baiting prank is that the man behind it is unabashedly open about his own identity. A graphic artist in Kirkland, Washington, Jason has repeatedly posted his contact information, including home phone, address, and photos. He’s already received one threat of physical violence. Is he oblivious to the danger, or does he just not care? Since his stated interest is “pushing people’s buttons,” I’m guessing the latter. (See update: Jason’s been removing contact information from his sites, so some of these links are now broken.)

Legality and Privacy

But was any law actually broken? Fortuny obviously misrepresented himself under false pretenses, which is itself possibly actionable, but the privacy implications beyond that are very interesting. Does emailing someone your personal information act as an implicit waiver of your right to privacy? I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, no.

If taken to court, he’s at risk of two primary civil claims. “Intentional infliction of emotional distress,” while notoriously hard to prove in court, is certainly easier here based on his own writings. The second, more relevant claim, is “public disclosure of private facts.” This Findlaw article on the Washingtonienne scandal sums it up nicely:

The disclosure must be public. The facts must be private. The plaintiff must be identified. The publication must be “highly offensive.” And there must be an “absence of legitimate concern to the public” with respect to the publication.

It certainly seems like this clearly fits the criteria for a tort claim, but I’d love to hear some legal interpretation from the law bloggers out there. Does volunteering your information in a private context somehow invalidate your privacy rights? I don’t think so. (For more information, see the EFF’s Bloggers’ FAQ on Privacy.)

I contacted Anil Dash, VP of LiveJournal’s parent company Six Apart, to see how he felt about the breaking drama. He was clearly disturbed by it, but after contacting LJ’s support staff, realized there wasn’t much they could do. If they find abusive information, they act quickly to remove it, but in this case, all the identifiable information is on a third-party site. “There are always people who aren’t going to be productive members of a community. We try to be consistent in honoring requests if an individual’s personal info is being posted without their permission,” said Anil. “The hard part, of course, is that nobody can control every site on the web, so there’s always somewhere else for a person to go if they really want to be malicious or destructive..”

I haven’t contacted Craigslist, but it’s clear that as this story develops, it will inevitably have a profound impact on the community. A friend put it simply: “Adults are stupid on the Internet.” More likely, their expectations of privacy just haven’t been fundamentally challenged yet. They send naked photos of themselves to strangers because it helps get them noticed by the women they’re emailing, and it’s never backfired on them.

On a final note, this is just getting started. Sex baiting is so simple and so effective, I thought immediately that others would be inspired to do the same thing. And yesterday morning, a commenter confirmed that the first copycat prank is already complete in Craigslist Portland. 94 replies so far, with 60 photos. It won’t be the last.

September 10: Jason Fortuny modified his homepage to remove all references to his professional life: portfolio, resume, and references to past clients are all gone. (Compare to the older versions on the Internet Archive.) It also looks like he’s been scrubbing his personal contact information from his Livejournal comments and homepage. For example, this link from my post originally went to a comment with his contact information, but it’s been removed entirely. (Strangely, he didn’t remove his home address and phone number from this entry.) Also, Encyclopedia Dramatica has been down intermittently all day, presumably because of the traffic.

September 11: Jason Fortuny’s web server is now down entirely, possibly because of today’s Slashdot coverage. (One commenter claims to live in the same apartment building as Fortuny.) Other recent notable media mentions: BBC News, and Wired’s Ryan Singel has coverage and a response to commenters. The New York Times article is slated for tomorrow was written, but ultimately rejected for publication.

Update, Part 2: Jason Fortuny sent an email to Tucker Max for advice (himself Internet-famous for posting his sexual exploits online). In the email, Jason notes that he’s been flooded with thousands of phone calls and has since changed his phone number. In a followup post to that message board, he states clearly he wants to capitalize on the controversy: “Let’s milk this. All the way… There must be a way to combine this. Into money. Money is important. Money is good.” He’s planning on setting up a dedicated website for his exploits, either on his site or on the domain registered by Tucker Max.

He also distances himself from Encyclopedia Dramatica, claiming that they scraped his Livejournal and that he has little control over the site, but is “working to get the personally identifiably information redacted.” (This doesn’t make sense, since he claims to have editing rights on the protected page.) For more information, read the complete set of his posts and his friend Wendy Miller.

Update 3: My site’s been down for the last hour, but it was completely unrelated to this entry or the recent Slashdotting. EV1 Servers, my usually reliable web host, had an hour of downtime affecting hundreds of thousands of websites.

Update 4: The Associated Press just published an article, which will be syndicated in newspapers everywhere tomorrow. Some good quotes from Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster, Kurt Opsahl from the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the ubiquitous Jonathan Zittrain.

Also, a couple more interesting comments from the Slashdot thread from people who claim to know Fortuny in real life. The first from someone who went to high school with him, and the second from an anonymous former friend.

September 12: For unknown reasons, the entire thread from the Tucker Max message board was removed along with Jason Fortuny’s username. Fortunately, Yahoo cached the thread. Fortuny’s most interest post is quoted below, in case the cache disappears. Fortuny writes:

This is some next level shit. I keep hearing Janet Jackson’s “Black Cat” lyrics in my head over and over.

1. Let’s milk this. All the way. When I’m in my element, there’s no limit to the shit I can stir up, so there’s more material to be had. I like entertaining. I like good attention. I’ve always wanted to have a late night talk show. Letterman is my fucking hero. Stupid people drive me insane and make me very animated. There must be a way to combine this. Into money. Money is important. Money is good.

2. I removed the posts from my website,, after the 1st day because I couldn’t handle the traffic. The good people at Encyclopedia Dramatica (friends of mine) scraped the content, and turned it into a formal wiki. While I have editing rights, I am not a staff member of, nor do I have any control over ED. They are a very separate entity. I am working to get the personally identifiably information redacted. Hopefully they’ll be nice, but I suspect I’ll have to buy some pixel ads or some such shit.

3. Let’s go for I’m not sure how this functions compared to, my regular site that everyone is linking to. (Note: is also my business site that had a non-professional tacked on. I have since pulled the business element and put my shitty ass non-professional stuff front & center, because I detest the idea of admitting internet defeat with a blank site.)

4. I have no head for business in this arena. Sure, I can tell you all about the best ways to handle eCommerce and customer service standards, how to build a solid web server, and (LOL) privacy, but the notoriety business is new. I require the help of Rudius Media. Let’s get that rolling.

5. The lawsuits may or may not happen. I have e-lawyers arguing all over the place both sides of the issue. CL’s tos clause 3. CONTENT could be interpreted that there’s no expectation of privacy, depending on how intelligently you argue the case. Since I’m apparently a sociopath, I could argue this pretty well. But I’m not a lawyer. Is there any lawyer in Washington who wouldn’t laugh this out of his court?

6. Now that I’m going to be a big star, here’s a naked picture of me with solar flares coming out of my ass (nsfwahd):

Have I missed anything?

It’s also worth noting that Fortuny has been noticeably quiet over the past couple days. He’s posted a couple Livejournal comments, but no new entries since Sunday afternoon. Also, MSNBC covered this on air today (here’s the video).

September 13: My good friend Lou posted an exhaustive and very personal profile of Fortuny based on his online writings. Highly recommended reading, and gives quite a bit of insight into his possible motivations.

September 14: Jason’s been laying low for days. A llocal news station actually interviewed one of the guys, whose embarrassment seems to be trumped by two minutes of on-air fame. Unless there’s a lawsuit or a lynching, I think I’m pretty much done with this story.

September 18: Lou Cabron breaks the story of a copycat scammer named Michael Crook, who has posted multiple ads to various Craigslist cities. Unlike Fortuny’s ad, this one was pretty mild, without graphic photos or a fetish angle. Michael is now posting the responses to a new site called, often researching the identities of each respondent.

September 24: Jason Fortuny responds in an informal 29-minute video interview. Lou Cabron from 10 Zen Monkeys wrote up an excellent summary of the interesting parts to save you the trouble of watching it. Despite all the threats, according to Fortuny, he hasn’t received a lawsuit, or even a cease-and-desist letter.

August 5, 2008: Two years later, and shortly after his New York Times interview, Jason Fortuny was sued for his Craigslist experiment.

April 18, 2009: Jason Fortuny lost his court case and was ordered to pay $74k to the anonymous plaintiff.


    I’m surprised he hasn’t been assaulted/vandalized/burglarized yet. And should anything unfortunate happen to him, wouldn’t it be difficult to deduce the perpretrator? The list of suspects is so very long.

    Secondly, it’d be so easy to defame someone else’s character by using this technique. Respond with an adversary’s personal info to suspicious online personals or newsgroups and you’d be setting them up pretty harshly. Then again, the naivete of such things rests with us readers too…none of the above has been factchecked by anyone we trust.

    Oh my lord. Two outcomes of this that are interesting:

    1) A lot of men have pictures of their wangs.

    2) People still haven’t learned about the dangers of the internet.

    I know I shouldn’t be amused by this, but I can’t help it. Some people really need to be protected from themselves.

    What’s funny about this is that Fortuny’s own data is suspect for the same reason his ad is: there’s no way to tell that the data he’s gathered is real or not. It would be very easy for someone to have sent a very steamy email from one Andy Baio with a few fairly simple bits of personal information, and suddenly you’re in the middle of it.

    Credibility is funny like that, innit.

    Granted, I doubt this would happen in this kind of situation, where noone else was in on the joke. But one can never really be sure.

    Holy jumpin’! This has badness all over it.

    I will not be surprised if *something* happens to Fortuny. Men get incredibly irrational when things start going badly for them.

    “Adults are stupid on the Internet.” may be right, but I’m not convinced the kids are all that smart, either.

    I have been tracking this case. So far, RFJason has kept the situation in control. I bet none of them emails to Jason had the std broiler plate dislaimer on it..,

    “This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege…blah blah blah .. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. [insert] blah blah] ”

    So those are the only respondants that can sue Jason for breech of privacy !!

    As the person who conducted the original craigslist experiment, I’m saddened to see that someone did what I predicted and posted the emails. What if someone was really just into that lifestyle? Should he be punished by having nude pictures of himself publicly posted on the internet?

    Craigslist needs to address this problem, because it’s a growing concern. Last night, I stumbled upon another similar experiment where a person posted pictures and emails of people who had replied to a fake (non-sex) ad. All the men were professionals and very eloquent in their responses, and they did not deserve to have their shit plastered all over the internet.

    Anyone care to guess how long it takes for someone to hunt down Jason and kills him? At least the list of suspects is widely known and it shouldn’t hard to find the murderer.

    Well, for the people who were ‘exposed’, at least it wasn’t for something illegal. But it is something you don’t want to get caught doing while at work or say, while the wife is asleep.

    The potential causes of action do not involve one’s right to privacy. The constiutional right to privacy involves the right to keep the state out of your personal affairs. The listed actions are torts, civil wrongs. Thus it is wrong to intentionally harm another by disclosure of private facts. The tort involves violation of privacy, but not a violation of one’s right to privacy.

    As for people being exposed for something that was not illegal, adultery is illegal in several U.S. states.

    This brings up an interesting point–how does one reliably prove their identity over the internet? I imagine that any victim who wants to identify himself would need to send in pictures of government-issued ID so that Jason could call somewhere to verify. Even then, Jason would be likely to just say that they’ve manipulated the system somehow. What I imagine works best is if a victim somehow had a chain of trust to Jason… but that’s really reaching.

    Rob W: It’s illegal, in the same way that in Denver it is against the law to loan your vacuum cleaner to your next door neighbor. It’s a blue law, one which is not inforced.

    This guy’s just a dick, probably a right wing-nut with the same sexual predilections as the people he’s exposing, but who’s too timid to act on them.

    If you don’t want “your shit” posted all over the internet, then don’t email it to people that you don’t know.


    Isn’t Fortuny’s experiment similar to what NBC is doing in their Dateline ‘Predator’ series.

    Baiting guys and then exposing them.

    This is fascinating and scary all at once. While Mr. Who is correct — if you don’t want your shit posted on the internet, don’t share it — that’s a rather simplistic approach. People want and need to exchange information. There has to be some degree of trust in order for this social contract to work. How much trust, though? Obviously, most of us wouldn’t extend our trust to this degree, but then most of us haven’t been using Craigslist personals. Perhaps there’s a tacit code of trust that has developed. Stunts like this will certainly destroy the utility of Craigslist personals for those who use them. And this has the potential to damamge interaction in other unrelated arenas as well. Will people be as likely to share personal stories in comments at weblogs, for instance, if they suspect that weblog owner might take that information and broadcast it to a wider audience.

    The internet is a very public place, and people need to realize that anything they share is in danger of being shared widely. However, in order for the net to be truly useful, mutual respect needs to be the order of the day.

    Thanks for posting this Andy. I’ll be thinking about it all weekend now…

    oh man, that’s just great! married men trying to cheat on their wives get exposed for the scumbags they are. hahahahaha! eat shit and die, you philandering assholes, i hope your spouse gets your house and you never get to see your kids again.

    Simon:”Craigslist needs to address this problem” why would craiglist want to do that ?? IMO,The very “eloquent professional” who respond should be going to a head shrink. That is, if they have issues with the pics and response being exposed !!

    Peter:”It’s illegal,” ?? could you cite section title pls ? I could digg deeper to see which states uphold the law.

    I want someone to do something like this but with myspace. The more people who learn what a disease myspace is, the better.

    Here’s a scary thought: it’s not unthinkable that some of the now publicly posted replies were spoofed, ie somebody was trying to mess with an ex or something and used their info in replies to weird ads.

    Thanks to ZabaSearch and a photo from Google, anyone could reply to an ad with someone else’s real name and contact info. This kind of “experiment” has little real use or value; the “it was a psychology experiment” explanation is an old troller’s excuse and it’s surprising people still fall for it.

    Anyone familiar with this guy on LJ will attest to the fact he was doing this for drama, anyway. There’s a chance he’s in real trouble. Someone whose cover has already been blown by his “experiment” will realize they have nothing to lose by taking him to court. If we’re lucky, the media won’t latch onto the whole incident as being another example of how evil the ‘net is and how the government has to step in.

    didn’t we already know men’s brains are behind their zippers. hell, just have the word “sex” in the title and you could end up the number 2 link on reddit.

    What astounds me by the comments to this post is the amount of people wanting to “wager” on when Jason is going to be injured or maimed by this “innocent” men. These men sent messages to what they assumed was a submissive woman. They could have used anon emails or servers. They chose to use their work email addresses or family photos. They chose to use the language they did to address the situation to show what big bad ass mother fuckers they were and how they were going to beat that pussy down.

    Now that they’ve been called out on the matter, they are pissed off and want to beat someone up? Please. Did you even read what they wrote in response to this online ad? Or did you simply go into this defense mode for these poor defenseless men who did no wrong the minute you saw their information posted on the internet?

    Would you be siding with this group of men if they had a mob ready to go kill a woman who had posted the same information she’d collected from the same men? They are talking about hurting a human being and you are for this; you are laughing and joking about it. You are placing wagers on it because it’s a man and only because it’s a man. You do this only because it’s a man. Would your opinion of this group of innocents change if they were talking about fucking some girl up?

    OH WAIT – you forget a woman helped collect this info. She did but it’s in Jason’s LJ so that’s what matters.

    Way to be fucking oblivious, sexist, and completely moronic.

    Would you be siding with this group of men if they had a mob ready to go kill a woman who had posted the same information she’d collected from the same men?

    Yes. It is hypocritical to side with the woman just because she’s a woman.

    Would your opinion of this group of innocents change if they were talking about fucking some girl up?

    Nope, not at all. It is hypocritical to side with the woman just because she’s a woman.

    This person has posted others’ personal information with malicious intent (let’s count public humiliation as “malicious intent). That’s sociopathic behavior, no matter if it’s done by a man, woman, child, or geriatric. If the person had done this by putting up a poster in the town square, I would be surprised if victims just let it slide. Misanthropic behavior is what it is, and if we choose to punish a man for doing it, we should equally choose to punish a woman for doing the same thing. Consistency is king.

    So the moral of the story is if you don’t want your friends and neighbors to know the size of your penis or have your bondage fetish on the nightly news, or even your wife to know your a cheating scumbag then don’t send incriminating photos to a complete stranger.

    Yeah, that seems pretty easy to follow.

    Common sense for teh win!

    what a turd. what kind of life could lead to the belief that doing what he did is at all amusing? how very sad that someone would do this.

    Hiya, as one of the ‘guys’ who responded to the post, let me tell you something I know. I know that it is OK for me to respond to someone’s post looking for a specific “Fatasy”. There is nothing wrong with the lifstyle, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult. That consent does not extend to someone like Jason, who is neither a female, nor interested in bdsm. Or, as far as I can tell, an adult. As only a child would think this was going to be a good idea. I agree with most of the people’s responses to this, with exception of the people that seem incapable of seeing that there are many different ways that people live their lives. As for the posts from people wondering about when he’ll be the late Jason Fortuny, I began wondering that myself almost immediatly. I started to think of all the different ways you can hurt a person without killing them. I’m past it now, just like when the Trade Center Towers came down, I immediatly wanted to turn the entire middle east into a fucking parking lot, but I’m over it now, too. However, just like the 911 case, not everybody is able to let things go like that. He didn’t any real harm to me, as I am in the lifestlye and the people that I wouldn’t want knowing about me being such, don’t really use the internet as much as it takes to find such crap. I did find it silly of him to not at least try and hide his identity. I mean, he has his own website, whith his phone umber on it! And, you can send him a text message right to his cell phone from there. I suggest people tell HIM exactly what they think. A lot of them would please me. Here’s the link – Jason Fortuny Oh, and incedentally, my wife thinks what he did was horrible, too. When I showed it to her, as I wouldn’t someone else doing that, she put her hand to her mouth and said, “Oh, those poor, stupid men.” To which I responded, “Why, I resemble that remark.”

    how funny would it be if Fark get ahold of this. lol

    not funny at all, given fark’s history.

    What this shows is that we don’t need to worry about the Orwellian Big Brother any more — the internet has created a situation in which we need to worry about all of the Little Brothers out there instead. Who needs an all-powerful dictator to make your life a living hell when one idiot behind a screen can do so. We have collectively become Big Brother.

    In the immortal words of Walt Kelly’s Pogo : “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

    What was done may be considered malicious, but it also should act as an invaluable lesson that will not be forgotten by those involved. Lives may be ruined, but if they were living a lie in any way, shape, or form this could also be their release, push them, or their spouse/partner to end a decietful(sp) relationship.

    I do not think this was done with altruistic intent and likely with malicious intent, so I can not support it, but we can not forget that it could also be a catalyst for those involved to profoundly change their lives for the better.

    Just my quick take.

    Just to set the record straight on the Right of Privacy issue. This occurred in Washington State and RCW 9.73 applies. This statute has criminal and civil penalties for publicly disclosing private communication. Pain and Suffering is explicitly included in the statute.

    Snikerlicious posted:

    “oh man, that’s just great! married men trying to cheat on their wives get exposed for the scumbags they are. hahahahaha! eat shit and die, you philandering assholes, i hope your spouse gets your house and you never get to see your kids again.

    posted by Snickerlicious on September 8, 2006 09:01 AM”

    Do you hope for the first man who kills themselves because of this too? Where do you stop?

    The authors of an email are the copyright holders. The takers of a photograph are the copyright holders. (usually). were I involved one of my most immediate reactions would be a DMCA takedown notice to the poster and their upstream host and connectivity (though the last is bogus, since there are no takedowns via connectivity, really).

    This _might_ work if the public poster wasn’t determined. It wouldn’t if he was, though he’d have to get moving fast to get others mirroring it before the court that’s the immediate next step delivers him the urgent cease and desist communication and subjects him to contempt proceedings.

    It’s too late in this case. Your own entry just raised the pofile to the point where mirroring is effectively certain. Looks as though he’s going to have a significant bill for damages heading his way.

    I think the pictures of all the guys with their dogs were really sweet. the pierced/bondaged penises, not so much.

    what I find most interesting about all of this is that Jason (the poster of said dog and penis pictures) appears to be just as naive as the men who shared their d&p pix. it’s like he’s begging to get the crap kicked out of him.

    or maybe he really is the b&d slave he pretended to be.

    the one thing nobody seems to be concerned about is that so many seemingly normal men get pleasure from hurting women. Granted, she said she liked it, and that’s disturbing enough. But, game or no game, someone who enjoys hurting women is a sick fucking psychopath.

    And if you feel sorry for these poor men who got outed, I wonder about you.

    “IMO,The very “eloquent professional” who respond should be going to a head shrink. That is, if they have issues with the pics and response being exposed !!”

    Well, the case I was referring to didn’t involve a sex ad, as I said. It was a legitimate personal ad looking for a relationship. Millions of people use the internet to find relationships, why do they need a head shrink?

    Even if it had been a sex ad, these people still deserve their privacy. From the very beginning of my bloggasm experiment, one of the first rules that I set for myself was to respect a person’s privacy. This LJ guy really overstepped the line, and every time someone criticizes him, he has some casual, flip remark. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if something came of this.

    Hey Victim — most peeps dont care about the other persons lifestyle , you make you bed of roses and you sleep in it.

    If You like bdsm and are foolish enough to get conned.. then you are stupid. Period. Stop behaving like a wimp and stoping whinning nd start learning !!

    There is nothing wrong with what two consenting adults choose to do in their own time. There are rules and conventions for this kind of thing, and those who spout off about how their lifestyle is “sick” are flying their ignorance high.

    The LJ guy wasn’t looking for research: he was looking to publicly humiliate people who fit his deviancy filter. Real researchers would have at least taken steps to anonymize the marks and provide for ways for people to identify themselves and get their pictures removed. The LJ guy was rarin’ for a public tarring and feathering, and that’s what he did.

    I just hope he’s prepared for what’s coming back to him. I, for one, will be telling my friends and family in his area to not contract him for any computer services. If he’s so eager to humiliate people on the internet who he doesn’t even know, how can my friends and family be guaranteed that he won’t be as malicious to them if they happen to have a kink that LJ guy doesn’t approve of?

    While this Jason might be a bit of an asshole, I have absolutely no sympathy for the so-called victims. While their lifestyle is their own business, if they are stupid enough to send their personal details to some random email address they need to learn to accept the consequences.

    Regardless of what the law says, the “victims” have effectively made this information public so “tough-shit” to them.

    The problem is that people seem to be trolling the girl that was found out to have a cheating husband instead of the husband. They were not out to “study” the behavior. They were out to make people cry, hurt families and get as much joy out of it as they can. I know they because they have and are doing that. Now Jason might say he didn’t do any of it but he’s the reason it’s happening. I feel bad for everyone who didn’t send an email but is married or in a relationship with that person. Just freakin lay off the girls…. it’s HIS family not hers.

    [quote]Regardless of what the law says, the “victims” have effectively made this information public so “tough-shit” to them.[/quote]

    Regardless of what the law says?

    True, sending personally identifying information about yourself is not the swiftest thing in in the world to do. However, craigslist, as many other venues, whether on the internet or not, is a transaction venue. There is at least an implicit agreement that your information used to conduct that transaction – buying a used bicycle, or agreeing to a bdsm session – there is an implicit agreement that the information NOT be made public.

    I could post an ad on craigslist for a used bicycle, and then post all the phone numbers of the people that respond and you would think that is okay?

    How about this food for thought. Next time you hand your credit card to a waiter in a restaurant, you agree that he or she collect and post the information online? Actually, that isn’t a question – you already stated that “if they are stupid enough to send their personal details … they need to learn to accept the consequences.” What’s the difference between a random waiter and a random email address?

    As far as the law goes, the post about torts covers this effectively. Jason probably didn’t break any laws, though “pretexting” is against the law in some localities. He is however, responsible for disclosing private information.

    If I were him, I would be afraid for my life. What he did was not only juvenile and malicious, it was just plain stupid. He has seriously placed himself in a great deal of danger.

    I do not envy Jason the karmic debt incurred here. Best of luck to him, I guess, in his future million incarnations as fat guy’s ass hairs.

    How about this food for thought. Next time you hand your credit card to a waiter in a restaurant, you agree that he or she collect and post the information online?

    I understand the risk involved when I hand my credit card to a waiter but I am willing to trade that risk for the convenience. If said waiter posts my CC number in a public place and it gets used, I will simply cancel the card and move on with my life not whine like a baby about the unfairness of the incident.

    That’s called “being an adult” and accepting the consequences of your actions.

    “posted by Kelly Meacham on September 8, 2006 08:58 AM

    oh man, that’s just great! married men trying to cheat on their wives get exposed for the scumbags they are. hahahahaha! eat shit and die, you philandering assholes, i hope your spouse gets your house and you never get to see your kids again.”

    Insolent female. Wanting kids to never see dad again. Grow up silly little girl. Would you advocate a female being banned for life for one mistake? Typical anti-male venom.

    Then, maybe some females should learn to treat their men better. I have seen so many “American Princesses” treat their men like dogs is it any wonder that some males stray?

    ^– Yeah, labeling men who want to cheat on their wives, specifically men who are sexually aroused by the act of humiliating, beating, and torturing women as “assholes” and “scumbags” is anti-male venom. But saying that it’s the fault of women for this isn’t anti-female at all, no. Women who won’t let their husbands humiliate, beat, and torture them during sex are “treating them like dogs.” So sad. 🙁

    Have to agree with oboy here, the sympathy here for these guys is damn creepy. Somehow, I can’t feel bad about light emotional suffering from guys who find the suffering of human beings erotic.

    I’m not sure what would be worse…finding out that my husband is dressing up in women’s panties and getting ass-fucked by some strange guy or giving me HIV that he contracted from said ass-fucker.

    Who’s life is really being ruined (or saved) by exposing such truths?

    As a woman an human being I am appalled that this Jason guy felt the need to screw with others lives in this way! He deserves a long lonely miserable life in hell. Men & woman both cheat, this is NO way to to treat fellow mankind, and for a cheap thrill.

    Jason, you are the lowest form of life/waste!

    This is obviously a divisive issue, and there were some really great comments early on. But this is rapidly turning into a huge flamewar, so I’m closing comments.

    If you have any news, updates, or useful information about this subject, please email or instant message me and I’ll post it. My info’s on the left-hand sidebar. Thanks!

Comments are closed.