SOMETIMES THING ARE NOT AS THEY APPEAR

It would seem that blogspot.com's only function on the internet is to give bitter ex's and others with an axe to grind, a forum to commit libel for revenge.

I have a friend who was libeled in a similar way by at least one of his ex wives. The worst part about blogspot is that the one committing the libel can register the site with the name of the person the are libeling in the URL. In essence they take ownership of what should rightfully be the other person's blog (should that person choose to create a blogspot account).

Even if the one defending their character can prove that they are who they say they are, they can't get the content removed or get ownership of the URL transfered to themselves.

Anyone that has an ex spouse, a jilted former lover, a spiteful ex friend, business partner, or family member, would be wise to create multiple blogspot accounts, with all permutations of their name (johndoe, jdoe, johnd, johnadoe etc.) in order to prevent the same being done to them by someone else.

Google is WELL aware that blogspot is commonly used to spread lies about people, but will only remove what has been proven to be inflammatory. We all know that it is impossible to prove anything in a game of "he said, she said."

How google can get away with allowing people to register sites under someone else's name, expressly for the purpose of libeling them, knowing that it puts the burden of proof on the person who is trying to clear their name, is beyond me. A class action lawsuit against Google by all of those who have been libeled by blogspot users, crimes in which google is in part responsible for, to the tune of about $5 Billion, ought to put a stop to it.

Regardless if Joe Schmauss is guilty of everything the blogmaker has accused him of or not, is irrelevant. Google's practices with regard to blogspot being a vehicle of illegal intentions are inexcusable, and they need to be brought to task for it.

At the very least if the person committing the libel was required to register their libelious blog under their own name and not the name of the person they were libeling, it would be clear who was responsible for the statements, and would distance google from the accusations, and remove some of the anonymity that those committing the libel currently have to hide behind.

If Jane Doe wants to use the internet to libel her ex, at least she would have to do it at janedoe.blogspot and not johndoe.blogspot so that people regarding the accusations could associate the proper bias to it.

If the person blogging under joeschmaus's name had to put his or hers at the top of the page, they would probably be less likely to go public with accusations they weren't positive were truth. It would make them think twice about what they post online and what they bring with them to the courtroom in a civil suit against the guy. If the documents they have prove their claims, that is where those documents belong, in a courtroom, not on a blog whose parent corporation aids them in hiding their accountability.

jlarsen