A bloke (we assume, he could very well be a sissy) send the following complaint to our service provider:
A few months ago you were hosting illegal content that falsely claimed it is me. The content was created to harass, intimidate and blackmail me. The content has been removed. However, while the content has been removed, my name still shows up on your system. Any search of my name is still directed to your site. As you long as you also illegally use my name and harm my reputation, you are responsible. Please remove my name, “Keith Suileabhain” from your system and the link that appears below as it was intended to harass, intimidate and blackmail me. Failure to comply will result in you and your company being liable for damages and indicate that you are part of a criminal conspiracy. Using my name in such a fashion is considered Defamation of Character/Libel. This name is unique to me. No one else has such a name. Thank you for your help.
Illegal & Criminal Link:
To the Web Site Owner: I have already had someone prosecuted in Russia who thought they were anonymous and unreachable – remove my name and I will not pursue further action.
Please remove the above referenced page and link. If you need to, at least modify the link to remove my name and remove my name from the page.
Please note that the original content has been removed, but you are still using my name, which is causing harm to me.
If you prefer to license my name, it will be 10,000 Dollars/Euros per instance/per day from the date of first use.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
This one qualifies as the most delusional email we have ever received. $10,000/day – per instance – that’s a bargain. Let me just get $100000 worth:
I also wrote the following reply to Keith:
You are completely and utterly delusional!
1. You can NOT trademark a personal name – at least not worldwide
2. The link you refer to have not existed for at least 6 month since that was
when the domain “spankwiki.info” was shut down and redirected.
3. No, I don’t think I will pay you $10000/day.
4. The only thing causing harm to you is your behavior.
5. We are not in Russia nor have we got anything to do with Russia.
To which, Keith replied:
Actually, you apparently don’t understand what the word libel means. Or which laws cover revenge porn. Or which laws cover copyrights.
Well, apparently Keith did not get my point from the first email, so my next reply was:
I am perfectly familiar with the word libel and what it means – including the
fact that the meaning differs depending on country. I am also very familiar
with the copyright laws of various countries. Because of that knowledge I
1. Whatever material you send to me belong to me and I can do with it as I
please – including publishing it.
2. In order to be libel it must be written by me, so if I quote something you
wrote it can never be libel – per definition.
3. I can express my opinion about anything, so if I was say to express the
opinion – in public writing – that I think Keith Suileabhain is an absolute
ass, then that could never be libel.
So, if I was to make a web page, quoting your own writing to me and expressing
my opinion about that, there would be very little you could do about that from
a legal perspective.
In other words Keith, perhaps you should start treating people with a little
more respect. I did not create that video and I never hosted it – it was
hosted on XHamster and created by someone unknown to me. Yet, you act like a
complete jerkoff to me and that baffles me somewhat.
Update March 9, 2017:
Now, I would have expect Keith understanding my point in my last email, but apparently not. It took him a few weeks to cough up this one:
I apologize if you were offended by my request to remove links to material that was illegal, fake and utilized my name in an offensive and libelous manner. The title of the so-called video also is offensive and libelous. The link in question utilizes the name of the title, which infers an untruth about me in a libelous fashion. I asked for your help and used words such as please and thank you. In response to my request for help, you claimed that I am “completely and utterly delusional,” and a “complete jerkoff.”
Not satisfied with insulting me in emails, you publish a written pronouncement that refers to me as being delusional (which is same as stating that I am psychotic, mentally usable and should not be allowed in society) and questioning my sexuality in an unflattering, offensive and incorrect manner. The exact material that someone used to attempt to harass and blackmail me was used on at least one other person. The main difference between the two versions is a different person’s name was used in the other version. Furthermore, it is very clear that while the perpetrators claim it is the same person throughout the video, it is clearly not. It is two or even three different people.
International intellectual property protection law is a specialty of mine and I have won cases in four different countries – some of which is noted in my LinkedIn profile. Please remember, my goal is to remove all of the offensive material, not to pursue individuals who inadvertently republished or redistributed the material. I had previously asked all web sites to remove the material and to delete references to my name. The vast majority complied willingly with my request. More than 1,000 pages and/or links have been removed, leaving only about 50, a number of which are being removed this week. Those who have not complied after receiving multiple requests, and after I have conferred with their Web Hosting companies and various search engines to determine that the references and material in question are still live, have been receiving more demanding requests, including establishing a foundation for damages, such court action be required.
While the amounts requested seen unreasonable to you, a court has already awarded a publisher approximately $250,000 for the use of material that could be obtained for approximately $100. You state that “Whatever material you send to me belong(sic) to me and I can do with it as I please – including publishing it.” Actually, that is not true. For example, if I were to walk outside and take a photo, and then send it to you, I would still own the copyright to that photo. It is really a case as to whether I chose to pursue my property rights should you decide to publish it without my permission. Is it delusional that movie studios are now taking action against people using movie character costumes to perform at kid’s parties? That is exactly what they are doing now. Only recently have some of the porn companies started pursuing their property rights.
You express your knowledge of libel laws. You say you can quote anything or anybody or express your own opinion about anyone, publish the aforementioned and there is no recourse. I am a dual-national EU citizen that affords me certain protections; however I need not delve into those rights and protections at this point. Nor do I need to talk about jurisdictional matters based on where your server traffic is routed through. You live in Copenhagen and therefore are subject to Danish law, which is embodied in the Danish criminal code, or Staffeloven.
Not only is defamation a civil code violation, it remains a criminal offense in Denmark. The Straffeloven (Article 267) defines an Insult as injuring another’s honor through insulting words or actions, while Defamation is defined as spreading allegations of events or relations capable of harming a person’s esteem or reputation in society. The penalties of imprisonment range from four months to two years.
Exact text in the Danish Criminal Code:
§ 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder.
§ 267 a. (Ophævet)
§ 268. Er en sigtelse fremsat eller udbredt mod bedre vidende, eller har gerningsmanden savnet rimelig grund til at anse den for sand, straffes gerningsmanden for bagvaskelse, og den i § 267 nævnte straf kan da stige til fængsel i 2 år.
§ 269. En sigtelse er straffri, når dens sandhed bevises, såvel som når den, der i god tro fremsætter sigtelsen, har været forpligtet til at udtale sig eller har handlet til berettiget varetagelse af åbenbar almeninteresse eller af eget eller andres tarv.
Stk. 2. Straf kan bortfalde, når der oplyses omstændigheder, som gav føje til at anse sigtelsen for sand.
§ 270. Er sigtelsens fremsættelse ved sin form utilbørlig fornærmende, kan straf efter § 267 anvendes, selv om sandhedsbevis føres; det samme gælder, såfremt gerningsmanden ikke har haft rimelig anledning til at fremsætte fornærmelsen.
Stk. 2. Dersom den fornærmede alene nedlægger påstand om straf efter denne paragraf, tilstedes bevis for sigtelsens sandhed ikke ført, medmindre almene hensyn afgørende taler derfor.
Please remove the page you recently published that uses my name and insults and defames me according to the Danish criminal code.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
What the hell is wrong with this guy?
What makes this somewhat amusing is that the only one who have potentially committed a crime here is Keith Suileabhain. Notice the first quoted email, which was never send to us but to our service provider. In that email, Keith Suileabhain imforms our service provider that we have a “criminal and illegal link” even though the link didn’t exist at the time that email was send, nor was it ever illegal or criminal in the first place.
You Sir, is acting like a moron! Making legal threats to someone who have
done absolutely nothing wrong is moronic, as is, trying to get material
removed that was in fact removed at least 2 month prior to your initial
contact. Trying to license the use of your name at $10000/day is delusional.
You would have achieved your goal by a polite request rather than these
childish threats. And in light of this and the arrogant tone in this and your
previous emails, I can vividly understand why whoever created the original
video/post did so.
Your response is interesting. You claim I called you delusional, which I did
not. I made the statement that I found your email to be delusional –
specifically your absurd attempt to license your name. Even if I had, which I
have not, called you delusional, there is no way that is the same as stating
that your are psychotic. You may very well be psychotic, but being psychotic
is defined as denoting or suffering from a psychosis which is a medical
condition. Being delusional is defined as holding idiosyncratic beliefs or
impressions that are contradicted by reality – such as asking a page to be
taken down from a site that no longer exists or suggesting that I would ever
have to pay $10000 for the use of your name – per day.
As for the Danish laws you quoted, I am familiar enough with them and contrary
to you I can actually understand them and I am quite certain you do not know
what you wrote (I am not sure if I think that is moronic or delusional or
In conclusion, no – I don’t think I am inclined to remove that post, in fact I
think an amendment in in order.
Let’s see if that gets him off my back, but I somehow doubt it.