The appeals court didn’t say when it would issue a ruling. Grindr’s attorneys said it was “magical and implausible” that Herrick was tracked after leaving the app. “There are too many unanswered questions in this case,” Ekeland argued in a Manhattan courtroom packed with curious law students and supporters of Herrick. In court Monday, Tor Ekeland, one of Herrick’s lawyers, also questioned whether Grindr had continued to track Herrick’s location even after Herrick quit using the app. But under Section 230, she ruled, a dating app like Grindr couldn’t be sued because one of its users harassed someone through the platform. “I don’t find what Grindr did to be acceptable,” US District Court Judge Valerie E. Very little, according to the judge who ruled in Grindr’s favor in 2017. “But the question is, what’s the responsibility of Grindr?” “The whole thing is horrible,” said Judge Dennis Jacobs, one of three judges hearing Herrick’s appeal. He has pleaded not guilty and is being held on a $500,000 bond. J.C.’s next hearing was scheduled for Thursday. 23, 2017, and has been charged with stalking, criminal impersonation, making a false police report, and disobeying a court order.
Grindr screenshots free#
The case represents a stark division between lawyers sounding an alarm over domestic abusers increasingly using smartphones and online services to track and harass their partners, and digital rights groups who fear the erosion of free speech online. But a growing coalition of consumer protection groups and advocates for victims of intimate partner violence say Section 230 gives companies an incentive to turn a blind eye to abuse. It’s the law that protects Twitter from being sued for controversial tweets, and guards against Yelp being taken to court over negative restaurant reviews by users. At the heart of the dispute is how much protection a 1996 law - Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - gives a website or app against liability for atrocious acts committed on its platform by users.
On Monday, they took their case before the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, whose decision could have far-reaching consequences on what apps and social media companies must do to combat harassment on their platforms. Now Herrick’s lawyers are arguing that the judge got it wrong. Grindr argued that under federal law, it didn’t have to help Herrick, and in February 2017, a federal judge agreed. Eventually, Herrick took Grindr to court in an attempt to force it to do something to stop the nightmare. Herrick, his friends, and lawyers submitted 100 complaints to Grindr asking it to block J.C., but they received no response.
Grindr screenshots torrent#
failed to stop the torrent of harassment. Protective orders and police reports against J.C. “It’s just like a constant Groundhog Day, but in the most horrible way you can imagine. “It was a horror film,” Herrick told BuzzFeed News in an interview. directed these men to his apartment or workplace, creating a world of chaos for him on a daily basis. began stalking Herrick and created fake profiles on Grindr impersonating Herrick and using screen names like “Raw Pig Bottom” and “Gang Bang Now!” The profiles falsely claimed Herrick was HIV-positive, interested in unprotected sex and bondage, and that he was “Looking for a group of hung tops to come over and destroy my ass.” Through Grindr, Herrick says J.C. Soon after, according to court filings, J.C.
Herrick had deactivated his account and deleted the Grindr app from his phone in late 2015 when he’d started dating a man referred to in court documents as J.C., whom he’d met on the app.
0 kommentar(er)
