Douglas K. Handshoe, CPA: Blogger

Homophobic Cyber Bully & Blogger  Douglas K Handshoe, a Mississippi accountant

Douglas Kyle Handshoe, CPA
St. Stanislaus High School, Mississippi, (1982)
B.S. University of Southern Mississippi (1986) Thesis: "The drive to make comuters [i.e. computers] talk to each other : the micro-mainframe connection."

Mississippi-based blogger. Head of "The Slabbed Nation." Publisher of "Slabbed." Conspiracy theorist. Publisher of anti-gay hate speech. Member of the St. Stanislaus High School Alumni Association Board of Directors.

Found liable in 2012 for general, aggravated, and punitive damages for defamation against Trout Point Lodge, Vaughn Perret, and Charles Leary in record judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

As CBC Radio summed up:

GAY COUPLE DEFAMED

Duration: 00:07:03

Doug Handshoe has never met Charles Leary and his same-sex partner, Vaughn Perret. But he has plenty to say about them. And he continues to say it -- despite a Nova Scotia judge's order that he pay the two men four-hundred-and-twenty-five-thousand dollars. It's the largest defamation award in the province's history. Mr. Leary and Mr. Perret are an American couple who own and operate Trout Point Lodge, a wilderness retreat in southwest Nova Scotia. Mr. Handshoe is a blogger who lives in Mississippi. For two years now, he has been writing about the men -- who he consistently refers to as "the girls" -- on his blog, called Slabbed. But his comments go far beyond the repeated homophobic remarks he directs at them. He continues to allege their involvement in a criminal business scandal.

Mr. Handshoe knows a thing or two about criminal business scandals himself.

 

A selection from judicial decisions regarding Douglas Kyle Handshoe's Slabbed blog:

Trout Point Lodge, Ltd., Charles Leary, & Vaughn Perret v. Doug K. Handshoe, Dist. Court, SD Mississippi 1:12CV90, 2012

The time line is not entirely clear from the record, but it appears that after Plaintiffs demanded the retraction from the Times-Picayune, the “Slabbed” blog was taken offline by the Times-Picayune’s corporate parent, Advance Publications. Handshoe, apparently in reaction to his blog being taken offline, then began an internet campaign to damage Perret and Leary. Handshoe has published numerous entries on “Slabbed” about Plaintiffs, many of which may be characterized as derogatory, mean spirited, sexist and homophobic.

And:

For example, Handshoe has made a number of off-color sexual remarks about [Leary] and Perret, and has published several photo-shopped images of [Leary] and Perret in an apparent attempt to harass or embarrass them. Handshoe repeatedly refers to [Perret] and Leary, both of whom are male, as “the girls.”

From Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Louisiana Media Company, LLC  YAR 1 NSSC 110520, May 30, 2011.

First whether a prima facie case has been established?  In my view the words in the blogs would tend to lower Trout Point’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person and do refer to Trout Point.  The blogs are posted on a publicly-accessible website.  They were accessed freely by Charles Leary.  The most likely inference is that they were communicated to persons other than Trout Point.  As such, Trout Point has established a  prima facie case that they were published and were defamatory.

From the same decision:

The public interest in disclosure outweighs  the legitimate privacy interest and interests in freedom of expression.  Automattic’s policy is to generally provide  information it is directed to provide by  court order including international orders.  Examples include requests for information about anonymous bloggers sued for defamation.  In addition the privacy policy states: “If you are a blogger looking for a completely anonymous blogging service or if the fact that the above data could be revealed in court proceedings, et cetera bothers you, please do not use wordpress.com for your blogging.” When a blogger signs up he or she agrees to the host’s privacy policy.  Therefore there is a diminished expectation of privacy where, as in the case at hand, the anonymous blogger is posting  information that is prima facie defamatory. . . . Generally the public interest in not allowing individuals to distribute defamatory materials under the cloak of anonymity will outweigh the public interest in protecting such a person’s right to privacy  and freedom of expression. 

 Finally:

In the case at hand the content and tone of the blogs is aggressive.  There is no indication that the bloggers are fearful of the Plaintiff or of other targets of their comments.  There is no indication that their identity should be protected for safety reasons.  In addition in the case at hand, the blogs contain comments based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of the intended targets.  Those comments  are clearly meant to be derogatory and insulting.  I will not reproduce them here.  It is the type of expression that engenders harmful results such as discrimination and hatred.  It is not the type of free expression that deserves protection and  fostering. Considering these factors,  I am of the view that the public interest and disclosure outweighs the legitimate privacy interest and interests and freedom of  expression of the anonymous bloggers. 

From:  Trout Point Lodge Ltd. v. Handshoe, 2012 NSSC 245

[83]         Trout Point Lodge has been stated to have been funded by money illegally obtained through Mr. Broussard and through the dishonest actions of Mr. Leary and Mr. Perret in getting money from ACOA and other investors.  It has been said to be on the verge of bankruptcy.  These are things which would cause potential guests to decide not to come to Trout Point Lodge.  The defamation, in my view, has harmed the goodwill of the business and its business reputation.  It casts an unfavourable light on the business which has otherwise received extremely positive reviews in the Globe and Mail, the National Post, USA Today and the National Geographic Traveler, to mention just a few.  It has also been commended by well‑known publications such as Fodors Guide to Atlantic Canada and Forbes Traveler, to name a few.  It has also been recognized as a top ten finalist in the National Geographic Society's 2009 Geo‑tourism challenge.  Some of this information is included at Tab 5 of the evidence submitted at the hearing.

[84]         Mr. Leary points out in paragraph 8 of his affidavit:

8.         In addition to its membership in the prestigious hotel & restaurant association,  Relais and Chateaux, Trout Point has always maintained a 4 ½ star rating from Canada Select, is the only hotel in Atlantic Canada inspected and recommended by Conde Nast Johansens' guide and earned a five Green Key rating from the Hotel Association of Canada.

[85]         The defendant has persisted in his statements that Trout Point Lodge is somewhat connected to the Jefferson Parish corruption scandal and has benefitted financially from funds illegally obtained.  The defendant knows that the original story linking Mr. Broussard with Trout Point Lodge has been retracted and an apology published.  In the face of this, the defamatory comments continued.  Mr. Handshoe has refused to apologize or retract and, in fact, has republished the original statements and says they are true.

[86]         In addition, he has alleged that the business is on the verge of bankruptcy and has received funds in Canada improperly.  All this has been done through the Internet, which has the potential to reach untold numbers of potential guests of Trout Point Lodge throughout the world.  The defamation has gone on now for two years and there is no indication that the defendant intends to stop.  The defendant's conduct throughout has been to attempt to destroy the reputation of the business.

 And again:

[93]         Justice Cory in Hill considered the factors in that case which the Court believed made such an award by the jury in that case a reasonable one.  I conclude that the following factors in this case call for such an award here.  The original story was retracted by the Times Picayune in New Orleans; nevertheless, Mr. Handshoe continued to spread the defamation.  He then came up with additional statements concerning events in Nova Scotia, which defamed the defendants beyond the original defamation.  He commented on other business ventures of the plaintiffs and other legal matters in which they were involved, misrepresenting facts and attacking their reputations with statements that they were dishonest, fraudsters and liars.

[94]         The widespread defamatory comments continued to the date of this hearing in a medium well suited to spreading the defamatory comments far and wide to a vast number of Internet users.  Furthermore, there was conduct by the defendant in trying to stop the plaintiffs from continuing their against him.  He threatened to release dossiers of information he had about the plaintiffs and other unnamed people unless the action was discontinued.  All of this is outrageous conduct in the face of true facts about the plaintiffs.