Ugh

[textualdeviance]

What a horrid little prick.

For the record, I don't feel all that bad about the guys who were cheating, but everyone else? Deserves privacy.

I hope someone sues him, because this IS a textbook case of invasion of privacy:

1. Everyone he outed was a private figure.

2. The activities the people in question participate in/fantasize about are LEGAL (in most locales), but still cause undue negative opinions in the community. Private sexual practice is not a protected category, so these people can actually lose their jobs.

3. The personal information was transmitted via private messaging, not posted in a publicly-accessible place. The responders had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their communications.

This information is in no way in the public interest, as it would be for, say, a Family Values politician caught trolling online for twinks.

I'm not surprised the little fuckhead seems to think he's an objectivist. He's a classic model of the lame Beavises attracted to that philosophy (and its political cousin, libertarianism)--pathetic loser lashing out at people because he thinks that makes him powerful. He disdains rules and regard for others because he assumes that giving a shit about others' pain makes him weak.

Truly strong people don't feel the need to attack the weak, nor do they feel the need to ignore others' suffering. It is only those who are afraid, and who fear losing power (or money--same thing in this culture) who think they have to treat other people like shit to avoid becoming a victim themselves.

And I have no doubt that this guy, should he get sued, will bitch and whine about it the whole way, claiming he has some sort of "right" to be a dick, and that privacy laws are just "the gestapo" or whatever faux fascist symbolism he wants to point at. Pull the curtain, and all these guys always show themselves for the scared little boys they really are. The motivation for bullying--which is what this is--is the same for 4th graders as it is for presidents.

Comments

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

I always kind of want to send these people pics of naked underage folks. Because then if they publish them they're Fucked.

This guy is reprehensible, and also stupid. I hope he gets what's coming to him.

WHOIS info for this weeping pustule.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=rfjason.com

RFJason
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA 98033
United States of America

Registrar: DomainPeople Inc.

Domain Name: rfjason.com
Created on .............Wed Oct 18 23:23:23 2000
Expires on .............Thu Oct 19 02:45:15 2006
Record last updated on .Sun Jun 26 16:38:53 2005

Administrative Contact:
RFJason
Jason Fortuny
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA
98033, US
(425)5765417
(425)5765417
*******@Hotmail.com

Technical Contact:
RFJason
Jason Fortuny
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA
98033, US
(425)5765417
(425)5765417
*******@Hotmail.com

Domain servers in listed order:
ns0.xname.org 195.20.105.149
ns1.xname.org

(rfjason.com)

Re: WHOIS info for this weeping pustule.

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

Have a map. Please, share and enjoy; the link will carry the address and pushpin with it.

Find Jason Fortuny

[foxykc.livejournal.com]

That's a major wow. I cannot see how a moron like that can get away from with all of this.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

And who precisely among those affected here are supposed to be sexual predators?

The men looking for consensual SM encounters? The wives of some of those men who were looking for consensual SM encounters? The guy who put up the fake ad? The woman in the pic he posted who probably never even knew it was getting used? This guy's female accomplice?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, so I'm trying not to overreact. But I've heard several people now say that these guys got what they deserved because they admitted to enjoying being sexually dominant with a consensual submissive. Is this your point? I disagree with you if it is, but I can go into more detail once I know where you actually stand.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Concurring with pixxelpuss here.

There is nothing predatory about consensual sexual contact (or fantasies about it.)

There's a big difference between hunting down and forcing oneself on an unwilling or unable to consent person and seeking out contact with a willing, consenting person.

As I say, I don't feel quite so bad about the guys who were caught cheating, but there were plenty of them who weren't--who were single or had open relationships--who had every right to expect that responding to a personal ad via a private message would be a secure way to contact a willing partner.

I personally don't get the hooking up with strangers thing--sex without at least knowing someone is boring and a little pathetic, if you ask me--but people do have a right to do it, and a right to not lose their jobs for doing so.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

I figured. I didn't think you'd hold that kind of opinion. :)

[falcongirl.livejournal.com]

If he'd been in MN, he'd be whistling. The internet is not considered a private media, but public. Information sent via the internet, via email/chat, is not considered private or protected.

I'm glad the state this fuckhead is in has a different law.
-T

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

What logic are they using for that? E-mail/secure chat should be considered like a phone conversation--although hacking/wiretapping is possible, there is an expectation of privacy, and violating that without the consent of all parties to the communication should require a warrant.

[falcongirl.livejournal.com]

iirc, it has something to do with relinquishing information, or the rights to it. When an email is sent, the recipient has the right to publish anything in that email or text log of an online chat medium with no recourse to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The only reason I know this is because one of my friends went into her husband's email and printed off his online smut-chat/emails and used it against him in court. He was deemed to have no reasonable expectation of privacy even though it was HIS account that she /did/ hack to get into.

She also published all that information online - who he was, who he was hooking up with, copies of what was said. He tried to sue her, several of the women tried to sue her, and two judges ruled against them on those grounds.

-T

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Hm. That doesn't seem quite right. I know some states allow for the consent of a single party to a communication (rather than both/all parties involved) but it seems wrong that a third party could do that legally without a warrant.

I assume this just applies to online communication? Because I don't know of any state where warrantless recording of a private phone or in-person conversation by a third party is legal.