Men’s Rights Activist Buys Domain Names To Target And Punish Women

MRA Jack Barnes has bought the domain names of several women he’s targeted for stalking and harassment. In an effort to terrorize Clementine Ford, Kerri Sackville, and Traci Spicer, Barnes has bought and the rest.

When I first heard about this, I thought it was similar to the actions of a male batterer who wants to continue to intimidate and stalk an ex. This is how personal this latest round of online terrorism seems to me. Also, during the hangout (below) Barnes and Elam were saying things to the effect of ‘if these women don’t keep their mouths shut online, we’ll publish the sites and make them live.’ That’s a threat.

His goal is to punish these women for being women who speak online about women’s rights. His intention is to have his sites, filled with hateful, misogynist articles, to come up first in a Google search. Barnes and Elam hope that these women suffer job loss and other opportunities.

In a hangout, they describe exactly what they’ve done and why they’ve done it.

I don’t know what the laws are around purchasing a domain name in anothers name and filling it with online misogyny with the express purpose of harming them. I can’t imagine this is legal to do but on the other hand, internet laws are still developing. If the women object to this, I can’t imagine any court turning them down.

Barnes and Elam are prepared for that. James Huff, who was also in the hangout, mentioned that he knows the law will intervene and that it’s a good thing because they’ll get the names of the people who support these women. Huff is the MRA responsible for finding the dox of several women on radfemhub and dropping them to the world in the Agent Orange Files.

Barnes has published I checked and the site is live. I will not link it as it’s a record of Barnes stalking her Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. In fact, she just unpublished her Facebook page.

I have archived the site in case he takes it down. I have also downloaded the video of the hangout where he admits what he’s done along with his threats.

Remember, the men’s rights movement is totally about men’s rights and not about terrorizing women.


11 thoughts on “Men’s Rights Activist Buys Domain Names To Target And Punish Women

  1. Yes, men’s rights to terrorize women. The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather, one and the same.

    I am skeptical that the law will intervene, despite what that male know-it-all cited above thinks. Internet law is, as it is explained by men frequently, several steps behind in defining e-crime and not really a priority. Amazingly, when men want something, like hate, I mean *free* speech protection laws and policies, it is done lickety split, but when it comes to women’s basic rights to safety, we are expected to wait patiently while the glaciers that are policy and law processes make their way into the current millennium.

  2. I am, also, skeptical that any law that might exist could be used in defense of the victims. Such laws are always written to benefit men and criminals, just as one of the dudebros says, if I understand it correctly, they plan to flush out their prey by forcing them into a legal action, which would necessarily state their personal and otherwise private information.

    Laws are made by men and made for the benefit of men – and criminals, of course, most of whom are, also, men.

  3. This is some very basic information about impersonation. It can result in a civil suit or criminal prosecution. The first two are general information from the US, the third from England. A statement from an an impersonator that he wants to harm the reputation, career, etc of another is evidence of malicious intent. It may not be necessary to prove malice but having the perp admitting malice on, say, youtube, would possibly be relevant to damages. The laws vary depending on the state where the action is brought in the US.


    Libel law is somewhat similar, but impersonation is when you try to pass yourself off as someone else.

    A dotcom site has a server, and servers have terms of service. Offending sites are taken down.

    Being subjected to a “common scheme” is relevant to the strategy that the group of persons harmed can sue together, saving legal costs and strengthening each individual case.

    I have not watched the video or gone to the site, but I thought it might be good to look at the general legal framework.

    Is this what Jack Barnes claimed he would do to hurt feminists a week or so ago? His threats should be preserved.

    AVFM continues busily digging itself into the hole of defunctness.Their Alexa rating has fallen below being in the top 100,000 sites in the world so they won’t even be rated any more.

    Little kids play malicious tricks to get negative attention. Grown men often remain immature and needy for their mothers. But the rules for grown ups may result in more than scoldings or spankings.

    • From what I gather, Barnes is from the USA and the women he’s stalking are from Australia. I’m sure in some law somewhere he can’t get away with this. Their goal is for the site to come up first in searches on her name. I just searched her name on and it wasn’t listed on the first 4 pages. The first crappy article by AVFM came up on the 4th page.

      • That brings up the question of venue, where a civil suit is filed. The victim can usually file where they reside. If the deft is in another country, he’d have to hire a lawyer from the plaintiff’s country and I’d think go there. That would be very very expensive. The two countries need to have a full faith and credit agreement to cooperate onserving the deft etc , which shouldn’t be a problem between the US and Australia.

        If the deft doesn’t show up in court to defend himself the plaintiff can still get a default judgment so long as she has served the deft and presents sufficient evidence. As to whether a site that has formed a limited corporation has any protection for the individuals involved, the court would consider if the deft was an officer and whether the act was outside the corporate charter. Few corporate charters include malicious impersonation. So the individuals involved would be alleged to be liable as such.

        All this is hypothetical and general of course.

        If it was me I’d sit back and let some damage be done. I’d enjoy watching the hole being dug. As long as a false site is up the damage continues so you can go after the defts whenever you feel like it. Hypothetically. Not meant to apply to any particular fact situation.

      • It’s true. They always know just what they can get away with. With the white man, it is especially true. He made the law and he knows its boundaries and limitations better than anyone. White males are the worst enemies to have because of this.

      • Furthermore, this is why it is futile to fight them – it’s what they want. They know they will win. Women need to think of ways to go on the offensive. Don’t play the chess match where they move in some way and expect you to move in defense.

  4. According to the service agreement of the registrar:

    (xiii) You will not disseminate illegal, hateful, harmful, violent, racially or ethnically intolerant, abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory, harassing, malicious, protected material, or content that otherwise violates the intellectual property rights of others

    Sending an abuse complaint seems like the best option at this point, especially if done by several people.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s