Man Faces Jail For Trashing Ex On Craigslist

FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A man accused of making unflattering online comments about his former lover and her attorney on Craigslist has been charged with two counts of criminal libel.

"It's not a charge you see a lot of," Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson said of the 1800s-era state law that can put people in jail for the content of their speech or writing.

Abrahamson charged J.P. Weichel, 40, of Loveland, in October over posts he allegedly made on Craigslist's "Rants and Rave" section.

The case began when a woman told Loveland police in December 2007 about postings made about her between November and December 2007. Court records show posts that suggested she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney and mentioned a visit from child services because of an injury to her child.

Police obtained search warrants for records from Web sites including Craigslist before identifying Weichel as the suspect. Weichel shares a child with the woman.

Weichel, confronted by detectives at his workplace in August, said he was "just venting," according to court records.

No phone listing could be found for Weichel, and his attorney, Michael Liggett of Fort Collins, didn't immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.

Libel is commonly seen as a civil case. Denver attorney Steve Zansberg, who specializes in First Amendment law, said prosecutors seeking criminal libel cases could have a "chilling" effect on free speech in Colorado, particularly over the Internet.

Abrahamson wasn't so sure. He said it is up to police departments to pursue cases.

Zansberg contends the law is outdated, is unclear about stating opinions and is written in such a way that dead people could be victims of criminal libel.

The statute allows prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Criminal libel carries a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.

___

Information from: Loveland Connection, http://lovelandconnection.com/

Comments

[leatherneck1971]

I think the quickest way to get this unconstitutional "criminal libel statutes" ruled as such unconstitutional is for a major media figure like Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Bill Oreilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh to be charged under these statutes, and then one will see major changes on these archaic statutes from a bygone era, as much as I despise the hate radio icons, as much as I wish them ill will, it would be funny to watch them defend themselves in such litigations, and watch them cry for the hated "ACLU" to come to their rescue, if nothing else it would be more entertainment which is all they really are anyway!

[SammyD]

you know them all. do u listen?

[MalloMel]

I don't listen, and I've heard of all of them and what they are about. He does have a point, though.

Well, I do have to admit that I listen to Rush once in a while. I like to keep updated on what the conservative nutballs are up to.

It's amazing that the right wing nutballs are ranting about the very things that Rush is throwing out there. I used to wonder how the nutballs come up with the cr#p that they do. Now I know.

[NoSillyName]

Oh, and yet the adult CyberBully in the teen suicide gets charged with two misdemeanors? That's justice for ya.

[Sparty1]

You took the words right out of my mouth. I know it's a different state, but couldn't the other prosecutors have looked deeper for a statute like this?

[chaos4700]

Admittedly, while the guy would be guilty of libel and should be charged as such, I have to agree with others that handling this in criminal court doesn't really seem appropriate. Also, what direct quotes from the law are present in the article do tend to show that it is easy to abuse. "Libel" is specifically supposed to protect against lies, but this law doesn't seem to make that distinction. "Exposing natural defects" sounds like a perfect excuse to throw this law at whistleblowers, for example.

[HutchBev]

The people of Fort Collins, CO should be banning together to shut this woman down for wasting their tax dollars and manpower.

[rjmiller]

That's what the internet is for.

[leatherneck1971]

Wow this ought to qualify all the right wing icons such as Ingraham, Oreilly, Hannity, Boortz, Savage for many criminal libel charges, for all their villification of so many people they would be incarcerated forever! I bet if just one of them was charged under this statute it would be ruled unconsitutional in a minute! But apparenlty only some poor slob in colorado gets the gift of this criminal libel charge when much more deserving icons of hate do it 24/7 on 104.1 FM radio, fox news!

[chaos4700]

Nope, sorry. You can libel and slander all you want on the public airwaves and the FCC won't bat an eye... you just can't show Janet Jackson's right boob. That'll cost you! Thank you Reagan deregulators.

[NYC07]

We're lucky it wasn't her left boob, showing that would have surely brought down the entire social fabric of the country, leading to wholesale panic in the streets and an end to civil order. LOL

[clamperken]

As repulsive or discusting the content of some peoples posts may be, it is nothing compared to the deafening silience that would result if our 1st amendment rights to free speech are trampled on. Civil courts are a fair and appropriate place to find recourse against those who would libel you. Libel and slander have no place in criminal court.

[DMSmith]

Interesting. I don't see anything here to suggest that truth or un-truth have anything to do with this.
That is odd in the extreme. If I tell the truth about someone and it tends to blacken their image am I guilty of a crime? What is blackening their image is their actions and the truth of it, not my mention of it.

[jbeach]

Civil court's the place for this, not criminal, IMHO. Looks like a state law that's in conflict with the Constitution, to me.

[deepfreezevideo]

Libel laws are extremely useful, especially when used as a tool to combat
the type of cyber-bullying found on CL Rants and Raves and similar forums.
I think I might make use of libel to deal with a select few Ranters myself !

[barrycourage]

Another one for The Supremes.

[stargazer13]

no free speech zones here move along

[Twinkie]

Why are you murricans so paranoid of lib.el laws? They do NOT have a "chilling" effect on free speech. They DO stop wild allegations like the ones made my McLie about Obama in the election campaign though.

[retrocozayshin]

Cuz there's nothing more American than picketing funerals y'all!

[SpaghettyIrish]

We have this thing in America called a constitution. It has an amendment (the very 1st one) that among other rights, guarantees free speech. Freedom of expression should be absolute, particularly if a crowded theater is on fire. Why are you where-ever-you're-froms content with being muzzled if you don't have the evidence in hand?