Suing Facebook Aliases

The soap opera that is Liberty Humane Society in New Jersey marches on:

In the latest development over the no-kill saga surrounding Liberty Humane Society, the Jersey City animal shelter has filed a lawsuit over comments on a Facebook fan page.

Good luck with that.

The suit is filed against former volunteers […]; Facebook aliases “John Wolf,” “Alex Lazur” and “Biff Schwartz” and John and Jane Doe site moderators/administrators; and Jane Does 1-99.


The defendants could not immediately be reached for comment.

I can’t understand it.  I would have thought Jane Doe 68 would be eager to talk to the paper.  And I know for certain Jane Doe 89 is waiting by the phone!

The complainants aim to “restore the good reputation of the Liberty Humane Society” with the lawsuit.

Honestly, a leetle more energy expended saving pets and a tad less effort monitoring Biff’s Facebook activities would likely go a long way in that regard.  Just sayin’.

5 thoughts on “Suing Facebook Aliases

  1. I have been posting there a couple weeks, I wonder if I am a Jane Doe.

    I posted on Liberty’s Facebook page after the lawsuit:

    “The best way to stop being called animal killers is to stop killing animals.”

    What is truly fascinating is the primary critic is not a target of the suit.

  2. Why do you think that is?

    Because we’re the only one they are afraid of. And actually our attorneys think the lawsuit is procedurally flawed since our posts are included in their diatribe, they know who we are yet they didn’t not name us in the suit.

    Shrug. It reads like it was written by a fifth grader anyway, so maybe this is just a mistake.

    Welcome John Doe #10.

  3. I’ll be interested in seeing just how far this suit goes. I’m betting not very far.

    The best way to combat ‘false claims’ is to show the world how great the shelter really is… I wonder why they’re deciding to try and silence people rather than proving them wrong? =P

  4. What is interesting is comparing what is being alleged in the press versus what is alleged in the lawsuit.

    The press reports: death threats by phone, phone calls at all hours, scared families, the shelter closing its wellness clinc to protect staff during a vigil.

    The lawsuit contains (from what I could find, and I am not a lawyer but have been involved in lawsuits): facebook postings and details of one specific visit to the shelter by people demanding to know the welfare of some animals.

    Why would bad actions be left out of the suit?

    The facebook postings cited in the lawsuit include these two comments, which are paraphrased: 1-all lawyers lie, and 2-don’t give money to kill shelters, give to no kill.

    As a regular person, my impression is the lawsuit is meant to scare people, and frankly I think it would work if a few key people did not get involved.

    I still do not know what happened but this lawsuit seems to me exactly the sort of tactic written about in Redemption.

Leave a Reply