Is Don'tDateHimGirl.com Fair To Men?

Some people have been saying that a Web site called Don'tDateHimGirl.com was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Now it has.

The site enables women to post warnings to other women about men they've dated, but now one of those men is suing three women involved with the site, charging defamation of character.

Todd Hollis and his lawyer got into a spirited discussion with the site's creator, Tasha Joseph, and her attorney, on The Early ShowThursday. Co-anchor Hannah Storm moderated the lively debate.

Hollis, 38, a Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer, told Storm, "The postings (he's suing over) relate to my mental health, my relationships with other women, and the (allegation) that I'm a nefarious person. One reference made even commented to me having herpes.

"Who would want to have a discussion with an anonymous, you know, individual, on a global platform, about their mental health or any sexual diseases that they might have?

"(These were) anonymous postings that Ms. Joseph allows to happen. What person would want to discuss that?"

Joseph explained that, "Every guy who is posted on Don'tDateHimGirl.com has the opportunity to send in a rebuttal, and it goes there with his profile. For instance, if John Smith is on the site, you can see what a woman who dated him has to say about him, but you can see what John Smith has to say for himself."

Men's rebuttals, she noted, said, are posted within 48 hours.

Hollis said, "We sent Ms. Joseph a letter pleading with her to remove (the postings) from the Web site, and she basically thumbed her nose at us and said she wasn't."

Joseph countered by saying, "I want to clarify the point about the postings being anonymous. … A woman has to create a membership with our Web site and create a user name. When she does that, she fills out a contact information sheet that gives her phone number, her e-mail address, her name, and also the IP address of the computer where the posting is being made, so we know who they are."

But, pressed Storm, why not take the comments off the site?"Because," responded Joseph, "we do this automatically. It's automatic postings, so the women who create these postings have the ability to also remove them from the site if they so choose." But, she added, the site itself can't.

Hollis' lawyer, Jack Orie, told Storm Hollis is suing Joseph and two of the women who they found out had posted the comments about Hollis.

"We're suing Tasha for defamation because she defamed Todd," Orie asserted. "There is a Commutations Decency Act that she is trying to (use) as a defense. We've had it reviewed by four communications attorneys who agree that our suit is very meritorious and will probably succeed on the merits. The other two people we've sued, we've had investigators going throughout the country tracking down Tasha's background, her family's background, and who was making these postings. And (two of the women who posted the remarks) came forward. And one of them said, 'It was just a joke.' "

Hollis is seeks damages of more than $25,000, an amount he and Orie think Joseph would feel.

Joseph's attorney, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, says her client isn't liable here "because Tasha is an Internet services provider, (which means) she has a forum on the Internet for people to have discussions. She's not responsible for what people post any more than somebody who owns a restaurant, coffee shop or bar would be responsible for the things that are said in their restaurant, coffee shop or bar."

Hollis took issue with that: "If she were truly a coffee shop, one, the coffee shop owner wouldn't be listening to the conversation, they would be removed from it. Ms. Joseph is actually asking these women, encouraging them to send in malicious and defamatory information. How can Ms. Joseph allow the defamer to remove the posting, but not give the person who is the subject of that defaming material the opportunity to remove the posting? It's just ridiculous."

When Joseph interjected, Hollis shot back with, "Excuse me, Ms. Joseph. You don't need to respond to that!"

Storm stopped them both, proclaiming, "Wait a second. Why don't you let her respond?"

But Rodriguez-Taseff did instead, saying, "Basically, what we are trying to protect here is the ability of people to post things on the Internet, whether it be about consumer goods, about people they have dated, without the person who has created the forum, who creates the meeting ground, who allows people to use the Internet site, being sued. You can't have lawsuits against these Internet services providers because if you do, then you're basically chilling speech, and you're not just hurting these women, you're also hurting any consumer and anyone who wants to be able to freely discuss issues on the Internet."

When Storm asked what protections there are against defamation on the site, against someone offering false or slanderous comments about another person, Rodriguez-Taseff replied, "The same protections that exist in the real world, which is Mr. Hollis can sue the people who made the postings he believes defamed him."

Hollis was having none of it, saying, "First of all, those postings are anonymous, so how can you identify who they are unless you have the resources to identify those people? Secondly, if it's a free marketplace and a discussion of ideas, why is the response and the rebuttal 48 hours after you so-called write into this anonymous e-mail?"