Escort obtained judgment for libel & defamation from post made on review board

This has not made the papers (Not sure if it will) but it is news for our industry.

It shows again why negative reviews that can be considered slanderous should stay off the sites.

This statement (Below) was part of a settlement agreement when Valerie charged a review board and one of the boards members "Mark Charles Robins" (Known as John Q. on the site where this took place) for libel and defamation (Slander).

"Fun Valerie has obtained judgment in Toronto, Ontario on January 28, 2010 against Mark Charles Robins ("Mark") of Ontario for libel and defamation for postings he has posed on an "escort review" board. Mark has apologized."

It goes to show that if you slander someone on the internet and your actions damage the persons business they can still successfully take you to court!

I was wondering if there were any details concerning her cause of action that included the specific "board" not just the individual who posted the review? Did she sue the "board" as well as it was them that published the review? Just curious and thanks kindly for this as I aways find these things interesting Mod as I studied defamatory libel a number of years back in a law course I took for personal interest. Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Spike

The SP in question has always (to the best of my recollection) objected to reviews of any sort. Other boards requested that the membership not review this SP for the very reason noted in the posted article.

The Mods would pull any reviews or even any reference to her. As a result, she was sometimes referred to by other names (sometimes derogatory) - anything but her SP name. This seemed to by-pass the NRP for this SP. As long as the reviewer referred to her by a different name...well, you get the idea.

Valerie did not want to name the board. Her email to me was very specific about this.

"I would prefer not to name the review board which I sued."

It would be pretty hard to hold the site accountable for this.

Valerie also said

"The court was very fair about my job. Basically the court gave me the same rights as any other Canadian. The court did not treat me any differently because I work as an escort."

The SP in question has always (to the best of my recollection) objected to reviews of any sort. Other boards requested that the membership not review this SP for the very reason noted in the posted article.

 

The Mods would pull any reviews or even any reference to her. As a result, she was sometimes referred to by other names (sometimes derogatory) - anything but her SP name. This seemed to by-pass the NRP for this SP. As long as the reviewer referred to her by a different name...well, you get the idea.

If someone is on the DNR list you should respect their wishes and not discuss them (Fake name or not). If the site allowed this to go on the site could be held responsible. The members who try to circumvent the DNR list should be removed from the site. (They would be removed here on cerb for this).

Thanks kindly for that Mod. From what I can remember from the course I took the "publisher" may have been the board along with the author so likely the board could have been held liable or partly so as well. A firm do not review policy will go a long way to mitigate damages, but it could still be a pain in the neck for any board because getting involved in any law suit exposes people to the public and to the courts like it or not. Cerb is most laudible in having a firm DNR policy that is respected by all.

Valerie did not want to name the board. Her email to me was very specific about this.

 

 

 

It would be pretty hard to hold the site accountable for this.

 

Valerie also said

The beauty of Cerb that it is a recommendation board and not a review board. It is governed or moderated in a fashion, that only positive things are expressed and allowed.

I can most certainly understand why anyone would not want a negative review but to not want a positive recommendation eludes me. This is the best board for providers to be on and participate.

It would have been interesting to see the context of the review, as I have to wonder about what could of been so slanderous and that it could amount to legal action.

Also is Mark Charles Robbins his real name? Fun Valerie is definitely an alias.

I don't think the board could be held responsible if they remove it when asked by the person being slandered. The person being slandered may need to have a cease and desist letter drawn up as well and sent to the site owner.

A good example of this for instance is google's blogger. It is FULL of slanderous blog posts and they only act when the blogs are flagged and even then it's like pulling teeth to get them to look at it and act on it and it usually takes a cease and desist order issued to them for them to even notice.

If they knowingly allowed this to continue they could be held accountable so once a cease and desist is issued they would not take any chances and they would pull the blog I am sure... but chances are if they comply with the cease and desist notice they would be fine and the boards liability would end.

Also the courts would need to issue a subpoena to the owner of the board for the release of the IP address of the original poster and his/her information such as email address. Once they got the IP address they would need to Subpoena the ISP to find out who the person was and maybe even Subpoena the email company to release info (Companies such as gmail block the IP and it requires a Subpoena to acquire that info). So it's a lot of work to find out who the slanderous person is.

Also is Mark Charles Robbins his real name? Fun Valerie is definitely an alias.

Yes, this is his real name. Part of the settlement was that this statement that included his REAL name be posted publicly on any escort related board that she wanted to post it to. She asked me for permission to post it and since Valerie is on the DNR list she is not permitted to have an account on here (That is just the rules we have here). so I posted it to let everyone know.

She did say if anyone had questions they could email her.

Thanks for that Mod as this is most interesting and informative. Best to be proactive in all this for sure.

Regards,

Spike

I don't think the board could be held responsible if they remove it when asked by the person being slandered. The person being slandered may need to have a cease and desist letter drawn up as well and sent to the site owner.

 

A good example of this for instance is google's blogger. It is FULL of slanderous blog posts and they only act when the blogs are flagged and even then it's like pulling teeth to get them to look at it and act on it and it usually takes a cease and desist order issued to them for them to even notice.

 

If they knowingly allowed this to continue they could be held accountable so once a cease and desist is issued they would not take any chances and they would pull the blog I am sure... but chances are if they comply with the cease and desist notice they would be fine and the boards liability would end.

 

Also the courts would need to issue a subpoena to the owner of the board for the release of the IP address of the original poster and his/her information such as email address. Once they got the IP address they would need to Subpoena the ISP to find out who the person was and maybe even Subpoena the email company to release info (Companies such as gmail block the IP and it requires a Subpoena to acquire that info). So it's a lot of work to find out who the slanderous person is.

Looks like MCR has gotten a taste of his own medicine. :sm185:

What goes around..........

http://www.spoc.ca/undesirable.html (find him about middle of page)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article804380.ece

Well the fact that she is on DNR list I think the judge made an error to let her have this posted on sites that she does not want her name on

This to me is doulbe standard you dont want reviews but can use these sites to promote your case typical Canadian Justice

Well the fact that she is on DNR list I think the judge made an error to let her have this posted on sites that she does not want her name on

 

This to me is doulbe standard you dont want reviews but can use these sites to promote your case typical Canadian Justice

I think it is entirely appropriate that a person whose reputation has been libeled, and has proven the libel in a court of law, is allowed to publish that judgement in the same place where the libelous material was published. The whole purpose of a libel action is to rebut the defamatory material! A person whose reputation is attacked in the light of day should (and does!) have the right to defend themselves in the light of day.

(It is somewhat distressing to note that John Q was a actually a mod on the board in question, not just some garden-variety member.)

I don't think FunValerie is putting his name on public review boards but on SP warning boards. There are several that are SP only that we check when we are preparing to meet new guests. If a guest has been a problem to another provider then we take that into consideration when deciding to set up an appointment. I appreciate knowing in advance if a guest has the potential to be a problem. We list all known contact info, alias and names to aid other SPs. Guests who are chronic time wasters, meaning they book and don't show, may be a health threat, show signs of substance abuse or mental instability or may be physically violent could be listed there. The lists are not a guarantee but they help. SPs think long and hard before putting someones name out there. This guy obviously was up to something.

 

cat

It sounds like this guy decided to take a cheap shot and strike the SP where they are most vulnerable (hell, where we're all vulnerable). To try and go public and do a number on someone's business, identity, reputation is really low - I think he got what he deserved.

But, in a way, the damage is done. From the sounds of it, Mod was contacted by Valerie so that this info could be posted on this board (a semi-public forum) either as a warning to others not to cross paths with Valerie or as an object lesson in stupidity. Whatever. While I don't think the guys here sympathize much with Mark, I do believe guys will be wary of doing business with the SP - not because she's being judged to be a bad person, but because of the litigation itself. Risk by association. Don't get me wrong, the guy shot himself in the parts and got his comeupance. Nasty business all around.:roll:

Valerie asked me if I would post it as she is not permitted to post on cerb if she is on the DNR list.

I felt this was good information for everyone here as the reason for posting this has really nothing to do with Valerie. The reason is so everyone can see that if a person slanders a SP online (For whatever reason) they can sue you for it. When it goes to court you could end up with your real name published, forced to pay restitution and court costs of the SP.

Now, the reason Valerie was on the DNR list here was in large part due to be scared of this guy Mark doing even more damage to her business - she just got so fed up she asked to be on the DNR list on all the sites. This Mark guy was going around to every discussion board he could find - posting bad things about her (and getting the trolls who love this type of stuff to join him).

Maybe Valerie will reconsider being on the DNR lists not that this person has been dealt with but I would not blame her if she stayed on them.

My hat is off to her for perusing this and taking the guy to court and defending her right to be treated equally in our justice system. The guy obviously thought that since she was an escort the law would not treat her as a equal and that was just not the case!

One of the members PM'd me and asked the following....

I am very confused reading the libel and defamation thread on Fun Valerie. How could this work?. I mean if she goes to court with her case (legitimate or not I don't know) she is actually confessing that she works as escort which gets her into trouble (and the same with Mark as client).

This is what most people in Canada think and it is NOT TRUE. Being a sex-worker in canada (escort/prostitute/courtesan/etc...) IS LEGAL! Being a client of a sex-worker is also LEGAL... as long as the lady is of legal age (18+) and is not working in a brothel (Common bawdy house) or soliciting you for sex in public she is working legally in Canada as a professional sex worker. For that reason sex workers can take these types of cases to court but if they do the newspapers could print stories about them (Using the ladies REAL names and most of them are afraid of this).

Valerie's real name was not published here - it's a big security risk to the ladies to post such things.

I salute you Mod, and Valarie.

Will make some think twice.

(Consider Sticky status for this thread)

There are a few things that appear to be going on here that it is probably worth trying to clarify. First, if she sued for libel and slander, she has to prove that the poster stated something to be a fact, that the poster knew it was not a fact, and that she was damaged by that. It would have nothing to do with a DNR policy. No one can simply announce to the world, "dont review me" and then sue people who dont comply. If that were true, every crappy provder of services (no implication intended) of any sort would make such an announcement and could never be held to account for their services.

On the other hand, Valerie can say, "if you want to have a visit with me, you have to agree not to review me." If the client goes ahead with the appointment and posts a review, she would have a complaint for breach of contract, not libel and slander.

At least in the US (and assuming prostitution was legal in the same manner as it is in the US), she would have a very hard time suing the board unless the board knew the fact to also not be true. She could try to prove it by sending a note to the board, and demanding they remove the post, which would certainly be a wise idea for the board to do. Most courts (at least in the US) have found publishers of material, which is everyone from newspapers to message boards, cant be held liable for libel unless, again, they know the information to be untrue.

I fully support a right of an SP to have such a policy, and this board's efforts to enforce the policy, but I just wanted to clarify that I dont think libel and slander has anything to do with a DNR policy.

.... First, if she sued for libel and slander, she has to prove that the poster stated something to be a fact, that the poster knew it was not a fact, and that she was damaged by that ....

If I'm looking at the right document (Ontario Libel and Slander Act), damage does not have to be shown:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html

WrinkledInTime, thanks for the clarification ... In the US I believe you generally have to show damages, which I know is irrelevant here, but I am a US lawyer ... sorry for the confusion. Just trying to advance the discussion.

But, on the other hand, unless there are actual damages, or some other form of damages available under Canadian law, what's the point? I guess she can get an injunction or some sort requiring the board to remove the comment and prohibiting the poster from making other libellous statements. I understand part of the issue here is probably that Valerie does not want to let the poster get away with libel and to make an example of him, and good for her in that regard.

This thread is not promoting Valerie, it's informing the rest of us that we now have a way of protecting ourselves. It's also a warning to trolls out there who use the threat of a bad review to extort price reductions and free services from SPs. They are out there, I have met several in person. There are members of CERB who are singing a very different tune when they are on other boards with different user ids. If this thread reaches only one of them it was worth it.

The dilemma is that our work is unlike any other. We bare the most intimate parts of ourselves daily and we are human. We have bad days, it's unavoidable. Instead of being able to retreat into a cubical and make busy avoiding the world we have to go out into it and pretend everything is glorious. I remember having to go to work the same day I lost my children in court. Why? To put a roof over my head because the lawyers had eaten every cent of my savings. Another time I buried a very close friend at noon and had to be on shift at 5pm. Why? My agency had a no show=termination policy. If I didn't show up I had no job and I was still paying off the lawyers. We have no sick days to take or personal days. There is no 50-50 pension plan waiting for us. If we are hurt in an accident or at work, there is no safety net. No disability checks arrive by direct deposit. We are 100% out there, on our own.

 

Our reputation is all we have!

So if someone had a less than desirable experience, that's unfortunate and I'm genuinely sorry. It's not unheard of and certainly no threat to ones well being. If you have a problem with a provider you have two options. Either approach her directly, explain your concerns and see if she will rectify the situation, or move on and see what else is out there. But the first thing I would gently suggest is to look long and hard in the mirror and know exactly what it was that left you feeling the way you did. Dissatisfaction emanates from within and permeates everything.

I have many clients who know Valerie and are quite fond of her with no complaints. One mans treasure is another mans garbage, and there isn't a woman out there that isn't attractive to someone out there. SPs deserve to be able to make a living at their chosen profession without fearing someone with a personal vendetta will try to undermine her ability to support herself. Valerie took the necessary steps to protect herself by registering as a DNR, he chose to ignore it. I realize there are two sides to every story and he may have felt he had the right to do what he did, but SPs are not able to defend themselves on other boards so she took the only steps she could to secure her livelihood. He took the risk and now his name is out there.

 

If someone writes a bad review about me without contacting me first, giving me a chance to rectify the situation I will definitely consider doing the same thing now that I know it's doable.

 

cat

Cat - a very moving and eloquent argument. There are facets of a providers life that I didn't quite appreciate - and I thank you for expanding your views on a clearly sensitive subject.

I don't think a violation of a DNR policy has a connection to the SPs ability to sue for liable or slander. This point re-visits the earlier discussion on law and what represents an actionable case.

In this instance, while Mark was not a client, Valerie and he had a contractual relationship. Ultimately the relationship went sour and was terminated due to breach of contact. Valerie asked for restitution and Mark chose to do harm in return. I think that's known as a detrimental relationship in law.

Next, Mark made statements in a public forum which he knew to be untrue because (at least with the disclosure so far) he did not experience an SP/client relationship with Valerie. Therefore any statements he may have made with respect to an SP/client relationship are considered tainted...untrue, non-editorial and slanderous in that context. There was malicious intent.

The test for slander does not have to prove or account that financial harm was done - however, that is probably arguable in this case. There are other criteria. It would be interesting to see how the judgment was worded.

WrinkledInTime, thanks for the clarification ... In the US I believe you generally have to show damages, which I know is irrelevant here, but I am a US lawyer ... sorry for the confusion. Just trying to advance the discussion.

 

But, on the other hand, unless there are actual damages, or some other form of damages available under Canadian law, what's the point? I guess she can get an injunction or some sort requiring the board to remove the comment and prohibiting the poster from making other libellous statements. I understand part of the issue here is probably that Valerie does not want to let the poster get away with libel and to make an example of him, and good for her in that regard.

For those who are interested, a more detailed explanation of defamation law in Ontario. The issue regarding demonstrating damages is a little convoluted. The context relates to charities, but much of the explanation and commentary is applicable generally.

http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2007/chylb125.htm