DONTDATEHIMGIRL.COM - UPDATED

There is an article in this week's People Magazine about a website called don'tdatehimgirl.com.  Apparently, it is a forum where women can publicly post information about ex-boyfriends who have behaved badly towards them.  The women name names and the information is available to anyone in the world who happens upon the site.  A Philadelphia attorney named Todd Hollis is suing because he was described on the site as a slob and as an STD-ridden player and cheater. The owner of the site claims that the 1996 Communications Decency Act exempts webmasters from responsibility for displaying others' comments.

Of course I have no idea whether the on-line statements about Hollis are true or not . But I have to say that I am highly uneasy at the notion of people being able to trash their exes by name on a public forum accessible by millions of people.  As you all know, I am highly skeptical of the woman-scorned argument when it comes to rape allegations, because bringing and sustaining a rape charge is an awfully complex and grueling process that simply would not be worthwhile for mere revenge or particularly easy to pull off.  But trashing your ex and perhaps exaggerating or fabricating crap about him or her?  A cinch.  People do it in gripe-fests with their pals and buddies all the time, and it's just as easy to do on-line -- just use a keyboard to vent your frustrations and then press submit.

The difference on-line of course is that the comment is broadcast to the world at large where virtually anyone can find it and read it. And guess what -- if I were a potential date or employer googling "Todd Hollis," the fourth hit is a dontdatehimgirl.com profile from a commenter claiming that Hollis gave her herpes (and it would probably be the first hit except that stories about Hollis's suit are now higher on the list).  Another problem with the site is that the comments are posted anonymously, which makes it all the easier and more tempting for someone to exaggerate or fabricate.   

On the other hand, I kind of like the idea of another site called HollabackNYC where women subject to street harassment post pictures of their harassers that they snapped on the street as a means of shaming them and perhaps as evidence for the police.  Other tales of harassment are posted on the site without naming the harassers (for obvious reasons since the harassers' names are generally unknown to the posters).  This strikes me as a positive way for victims of street harassment disconcert their harassers and turn the shame right back on them.  Also, there is really no motive to make up a story about a random guy on the street, nor are you going to find someone on the site by googling their name (as the harassers are identified only by image not by name).  I suppose it's possible for a disgruntled ex to post a picture of a boyfriend and make up a story -- but that seems a lot less natural and more convoluted than the direct kind of griping on a site like dontdatehimgirl.com.   

As a lazy (and tired) feminist, I have not researched whether the Communications Decency Act defense is correct.  Nor am I sure how I think the law should treat alleged defamation on sites like either dontdatehimgirl.com or HollabackNYC.  (I will say that while I disapprove of dontdatehimgirl.com, I am relieved as a blog host to learn that I might not be liable for defamatory comments in my comments threads; there have been a couple of comments over the last few months that have given me pause in terms of defamation, although these comments have mainly concerned public figures.)

By the way, I really don't see this story as gender-based.  This kind of defamation could easily occur on a male-run site as well.  I am unamused at the suggestion in Justin Levine's post at The Southern California Law Blog that:

Hopefully we men-folk will use the forces of free markets and an open Internet to build a similar site (www.dumptheskankywhore.com anyone?). 

Um, while surely meant in jest, I am never excited to see the epithet "skanky whore," not to mention that it is hardly equivalent to "dontdatehimgirl," not to mention that the notion of taking revenge on the women in your life for the sins of other random women is crappy (and creepy).  Women are distinguishable from one another you know.  (Nonetheless Justin's post has some interesting info. including a comment in the comments thread by someone purporting to be Todd Hollis.)

UPDATE:  I started writing this post before I read Justin's post, but he confirms the Communications Decency Act defense.  Again lazy and tired, I haven't followed his links but I assume he is correct and as noted, I can see good reason for the webmaster exemption, even while it is disturbing to think about a site like dontdatehimgirl.com.  Moral of the story:  don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially if it is by some random anonymous commenter. 

Comments

[Moi]

I read that skanky whore thing at the So. Cal. Law Blog and wasn't thrilled by the gist of that comment either. I generally enjoy that blog, but that post rubbed me the wrong way.

Loved the Hollabeck site. Interesting stuff--and it's great that it gives the harassed women a sense of empowerment and control over the situation.

[Mermade]

Happy, I am shocked at who is listed on there. I'll leave it at that...

[Mermade]

I am even more shocked about what they said, because I know it's all fabrication.

[Mermade]

Okay, now I regret posting those comments. It was impulsive... I read your blog, went to the site, freaked out and then commented. You can delete my comments if you'd like.

[Mermade]

Okay, now that I've had a little more time to think about it and have cooled down, I feel ready to post a more intelligent comment. I am pretty embarrassed about the first two. My anger and outrage got the best of me and I didn’t think about the ramifications of what I was posting. I apologize.

I don’t like this site in the least for many reasons. One, it does not acknowledge that these “cheaters” may have changed their ways. It is also seems to be a site that thrives on trashing people, not helping girls stay away from “cheaters.” To me, those stories were more of a way of expressing rage at those boys than compassion for the girls. Perhaps a website that invited girls to share their stories of being cheated and hurt – while keeping the identity of the guys a secret – would be more beneficial and healing for those sharing their stories. And of course, there is no way to prove whether or not anything on dontdatehimgirl.com is even in the least bit accurate. I don’t doubt that some of them are true – some may be partially false and partially true. But there is no way of knowing for sure either way, and thus the site looses credibility.

Honestly, if you’re suspicious enough to search for a guy on a website like this, it’s probably a good indication that he’s not a trustworthy guy in the first place. I searched dozens of names – any guy’s name I could think of – and got a few appalling hits. I did that not because I suspected any of them to be cheaters. Rather, I did it because I’ve never seen anything like this and that was my first reaction.

[mythago]

This kind of defamation could easily occur on a male-run site as well.

What ever happened to that site that encouraged men to post pictures and descriptions of the women they'd had sex with (not with the women's consent, either)? Perhaps Justin can salvage his wounded pride there.

Otherwise--yeesh. It'd be one thing if this were a 'bitch about your ex' forum where everyone obscured the details, but accusing people by name is vile.

[The Happy Feminist]

Mermade-- I didn't think there was anything wrong with any of your comments. Actually, I think it's interesting and useful to know that you actually know some people listed on the site. So I am not going to delete anything you wrote unless you want me to.

[will]

Good post. I wonder what makes people say "Wow, that would be a good idea!!"

There is far too much potential for abuse on that website. Its sole function is to provide a venue to say bad things about someone else, whether true or not.

[Mermade]

Thanks, Happy!

[Tara]

I agree I agree BUT...

Anonymizing men to protect them from reputations they have duly earned is obnoxious to me. Maybe it's impossible to set this up to ensure some basic level of objectivity\trustworthiness, and then yeah, maybe it would be better if it didn't exist at all. But I wish it were possible to make it work...