---

All politics is local. And local politics is personal, especially when it comes to posts on local Internet chat sites.

On a Mansfield online forum recently, a member of the board of selectmen was referred to as a "nut job."

Another post speculated on why a local politician was excluded from a well-known service organization and concluded it might be because of his relatives. The post went on to name the individuals and attach criminal and civil court verdicts against two of them.

Significantly, none of the cases involved the politician who was the target of the post.

During a hard-fought recall election in Rehoboth in February, local chat rooms filled up with hundreds of posts that included both factual information and inflammatory statements. Some alleged unethical or criminal acts on the part of present or former town officials. Two of the objects of those accusations - a former selectman and his police officer daughter - have taken initial steps toward suing six people for libel.

It's a jungle out there, says Martin Samson, a New York lawyer who advises clients on Internet law and defamation issues.

"Internet chat rooms and blogs have given voice to people who otherwise would find it very difficult to reach the public and expose heinous acts, and that's a good thing," Samson said. "On the other hand, you can also run off at the mouth without any self control. That's a bad thing."

In Mansfield, much of the blogging and chatting has centered on Town Manager John D'Agostino, the loser in a controversial whistleblower lawsuit that could eventually cost the town millions of dollars. But collateral targets have included D'Agostino's female companion, a local businesswoman; selectmen; political figures and local police.

Comments have ranged from criticism of town officials' hygiene to oblique references to "sweetheart deals" and thinly veiled implications of political corruption.

"It's reprehensible," said Selectwoman Sandra Levine, who has been criticized for, among other things, rubbing lotion on her hands during a selectmen's meeting. "It really speaks to the disappearance of shame."

But Levine, who has been a supporter of D'Agostino, can also dish it out. In an op-ed column in The Sun Chronicle later reprinted on a chat site, Levine equated the town manager's most prominent critics to "those with the longest police records."

That offends Pam Gagnon, a local political activist and vocal critic of D'Agostino, who called the letter shocking and unsubstantiated. But she also says blogs and political chat sites serve a vital purpose for citizens to vent grievances that otherwise would be ignored or edited by the media.

"Because there have been so many constraints by the media, the public is left with few options," said Gagnon, who said one media site shut down its local chat room and that letters to the editor she has submitted have had parts edited.

"Blogs fulfill a need for angry residents to vent their feelings," she said. While Gagnon did not say whether she personally contributes to blog or chatroom sites, she said such sites provide a self-contained remedy for those who feel they have been wronged.

All one has to do, she said, is to post one's own version of events in response. Failure to do so, she said, only reinforces the credibility of the original statement.

"If you don't give an answer," she said, "there's an assumption that it must be true."

Some who believe they have been abused online are choosing to do their talking in court.

Former Rehoboth Selectman John Krasnianski and his daughter, Police Officer Bree Krasnianski, are suing six anonymous authors for libel for comments they made on a local chat room.

Krasnianski, who was defeated by Christopher Morra in a 2006 selectman contest, and his daughter became fodder in the debate over a recall campaign against Morra. Many put their criticisms in writing on the Web.

Chatters charged, among other things, that Bree Krasnianski lied to get her job, crashed a Rehoboth police cruiser and had been driving drunk in a town vehicle, according to a libel suit filed in Taunton District Court.

One post alleged that John Krasnianski once "mooned" a woman at a New England Patriots game.

All of the statements are false and malicious, said David Sullivan, a lawyer for the Krasnianskis. Sullivan won a court order to obtain the identities of four of the six individuals from an Internet firm, a preliminary to a civil prosecution for libel. The order is currently being challenged by the anonymous defendants.

"These charges are not only untrue," Sullivan said. "They're also dangerous."

Since one of his clients is a serving police officer, Sullivan said, the likelihood exists that a suspect or traffic violator who knew of the charges could become defiant or even violent.

"It's possible that you could have a defendant saying, 'Aren't you that police officer who was caught drunk driving? Who are you to lecture me?'" Sullivan said.

John Dingee, a lawyer for the defendants, has filed an appeal of the order that would force Yahoo!, the Internet portal site, to divulge their identities. Dingee says it has not been demonstrated that the comments constitute libel, and that the First Amendment protects vigorous political debate.

"We don't believe that the plaintiffs have met the burden of piercing the First Amendment protections," Dingee said.

Morra said he, too, was attacked in numerous online posts during the recall.

"A lot of lies were written about me," said Morra, who added he is attempting to move on with his career as a public official.

Local politicians and their constituents aren't the only ones crying foul over cutting and often false comments on the Internet.

Recently, a backlash developed among university students and online advertisers over juicycampus.com, a lascivious version of the popular Facebook and MySpace social networking sites.

College students are encouraged not only to submit gossip on the site, but to comment on and rate their classmates based on promiscuity, sexual repertoire and other personal traits. Individuals are frequently mentioned by name, often accompanied by their e-mail addresses or MySpace sites.

The Web site, which has elicited howls of protest from victims, is being investigated by the New Jersey consumer affairs office for possible consumer fraud violations.

While such online gossip might appear extreme to most people, it's not hard to see why so many bloggers are so free with their unsolicited opinions. Most chat rooms require only that users register before being assigned an anonymous online moniker. Actual identities aren't revealed, unless the user decides otherwise.

Matt Zimmerman, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, compares the difference between posting on an Internet chat site and sending a letter to the editor with a motorist who feels uninhibited about flipping an obscene gesture from his car to the same person who behaves far differently maneuvering around shopping carts in a supermarket.

When a commentator doesn't have to identify himself or confront his victim directly, it's much easier to be direct.

"The Internet offers a greater perception of anonymity," he said.

But anonymity on the Web is more perception than reality, say Zimmerman and other Internet law experts. Those who comment freely, believing their identity is untraceable, are taking a chance if their utterances cross the threshold of libel.

"How anonymous is the Internet?" said Aaron Smith, a researcher with the Pew Internet and American Life Project. "Not very."

Even though a user may assume a fictitious screen name, he said, the Web site's server keeps a running record of the user's Internet service provider address. Anyone with a subpoena or the requisite Web savvy could probably unmask the author.

Although libel litigation on the Internet is still a relatively uncharted area, those who feel they have been defamed can apply for a court order forcing a chat room's host, such as AOL or Yahoo!, to furnish the actual names of offenders.

While some users might expect the host sites to defend them, experts say it's more likely their names will be turned over unless the defendants themselves mount a court challenge.

To get an order, plaintiffs generally must demonstrate that their case meets prima facie requirements of libel or defamation of character. Subpoenas seeking Internet records may be denied if a judge rules that the alleged offender was merely stating an opinion, engaging in hyperbole or that his or her statements were factual. The rules are more or less the same as those that govern libel in a pamphlet or newspaper or magazine article.

Other than filing suit, there are at least two other strategies open to those who believe they have been defamed on the Internet, said attorney Samson.

If the online reports are clearly untrue or defamatory, it sometimes helps to write a letter to the host pointing out the falsehoods and distortions and requesting that they be removed. While steering clear of threats, Samson says a lawyer's letter that's more than a friendly hello can often be highly persuasive.

Orchestrated campaigns against groups or individuals - sometimes accompanied by single-purpose Web sites rife with unsubstantiated claims - might require special action Samson says. Unable to get satisfaction, some targets of such crusades resort to setting up their own Web sites rebutting each charge point by point.

While chat rooms may seem impersonal to the users, objects of online taunts say electronic insults can be as stinging as a slap in the face.

Selectwoman Levine, who said she had not read the comments about her until a friend forwarded printed copies, said she was infuriated initially and yearned to hit back. But she says she's overcome the urge to answer her critics online.

"Lay down with pigs," Levine said, "get up with stink."