On another note, adulterers in many states should beware, because adultery is a criminal offense in your state. In the state of Florida, for example:

Adultery and Florida Law

In the state of Florida, the law specifies that a person may be criminally charged if he or she is "living in open adultery". Anyone found to be engaging in extramarital relations may be found guilty of adultery. Furthermore, both individuals in the extramarital relationship may be charged with adultery, even if only one of the couple is married. This means that an unmarried individual engaging in an affair with a married person may be charged with "living in open adultery" as well.

Charges and Penalties

Under Florida law, "living in open adultery" is a second-degree misdemeanor. A person found guilty may be penalized as follows:


Imprisonment: Up to 60 days in jail
Fines: Up to $500 in fines
In addition to these court-ordered penalties, a person found guilty of adultery will have a criminal record. This can add insult to injury by further tarnishing an individual's personal and professional reputation. A criminal record can also make it more difficult to find or keep a job, secure a loan, or successfully apply to an educational institution. Clearly even one instance of adultery can have costly criminal and civil penalties that can cause irreparable harm to you and your family. here

We need to keep this in mind when speaking to betrayed spouses of Florida cheaters and encourage them to file criminal charges. Dr Harley also believes there should be civil pentalites for adutlerers. He advocates a TEN YEAR PRISON SENTENCE for those who climb into the pig pen with a spouse of a deployed soldier.

Seeking Balance,

I for one, am very dismayed at the turn of events on this thread. I see that you are giving YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION on the legalites of the BS being sued.

I DON'T see where you advised any BS's NOT to expose.

A question was asked and you answered it.

You should be able to voice that opinion without being attacked.

Just wanted to you to know that someone out here gets what you were trying to say.

I am a BS, NOT a WS.

Pup,

I am glad that sb's professional opinion on this thread helped you to understand the legalities of the BS being sued.

Picking, I would not expect you to be able to pick up on foggy attitudes after such a short time here. Even if you read all of SB's posts, you wouldn't necessarily pick up on it.

I call SB on her fog any time I see it, out of care. I don't go around randomly trashing on people. I want the very best for each and every person here, and sometimes that involves pointing out undesirable attitudes and thought patterns, especially when they occur over and over again.

SB hasn't gotten it yet, and I see you don't either. That's fine - recovery takes time on both sides of the fence. Plenty of people here do get it, not because we've all drunk the kool-aid, but because we have dealt with the fog day in and day out, and recognize it in any form or any amount.

My confidence comes from my own years of experience, not the approval of my peers, or anywhere else for that matter. Hopefully you, and SB too, will stick around, keep learning, and help defog the next generation.

I believe the original question asked by Sugar Cane is: What are the legal ramifications of exposing on FB?

This is the response given by Seeking Balance:
Off the top of my head: defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent representation, & tortious interference with contract.

Nowhere did seeking say that exposure shouldn't be done. A question was asked, and an answer was given.

And Neak, IMHO, I feel that perhaps you and some of the others here don't GET what she was trying to say.

If a doctor is prescribing a drug for an illness, and I ask about the side effects, shouldn't I be told? In real life my father was prescribed a cholesterol drug, in which muscle failure occurs in 1% of people taking the drug. Guess what, he was that 1%. If someone else I knew were taking that drug and asked me about it, I would tell them about my Dad.

That doesn't mean that no one should ever take it, just that they should have a valid answer to a question they asked me.

To say that I don't get it, is again imho, a DJ on your part.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this subject, and yes, I will continue to stick around.

Actually, THIS was Sugar's request.

Seeking's answer:
But I have yet to see any posts by Seeking to quote any case that demonstrates a lawsuit won under any of these grounds, which makes her comment unsupportable.

This is what caused this thread to take off in two different directions. Proper debate etiquette was not followed.

PUP, she was asked if it is illegal to expose an affair in the US and it most certainly is not. She was asked directly on what legal grounds someone could win a suit and she replied with a litany of nonsense: that was refuted by other posters and 2 other board attorneys. She couldn't defend her opinion obviously.

I know you mean well, but the answer seekingbalance gave was purposely distorted in order to scare betrayed spouses away from doing something which she does not approve. [for obvious reasons] Everyone here knows how she feels about exposure and why she feels that way. While she may be an attorney, she is first and foremost a very fogged out, self serving wayward and that attitude obviously colors her so called "professional" opinion.

As board members, I feel an obligation to point out obvious agendas when I see them, especially when they threaten to harm other board members. We have so many marriages here that have been saved by these exposure tactics. If one person doesn't expose because they read her scare tactics, then that would be a tragedy.

Again, I will respectfully agree to disagree with you regarding whether or not her answer was purposely distorted.

Again, I see it as a DJ.

Thanks for your response.

tortious interference with contract


That looks like a good one to bring against the om/ow.

"Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship." If an ow/om's intent is to induce the mm/mw to breach the marriage contract by sleeping with them on the side, well...

Pup,

I liked your analogy to the medicine. As an intelligent, reasoning adult, I would weigh the pros and cons of taking such a medicine and make a thoughtful decision. I think the same about exposure. I think it is right that it is advocated here as it has been successful numerous times. I also agree with you that SB was simply stating what could happen. As an intelligent, reasoning adult, I would like to have that information as well. Who wouldn't?

Mr. W also brought up legal ramifications of snooping which is also a valid concern.

Many times I think those who have been betrayed are very focused on what SHOULD be and what is FAIR. I think it is safe to inform them that real life isn't always like that.

A woman sued McDonalds because SHE spilled hot coffee on her lap. There have been lawsuits by buglers who have injured themselves during a robbery.

I am one of those people that would like to know all the facts before making an informed decision. If SB were nearby and I needed an attorney, I would consider hiring her. (of course, I am a (F)WW as well so I am sure my opinion is suspect.)

I think it admirable of you as a BS to speak up on her behalf

And that is ok, because we are not trying to fill seekingbalance's lovebank: a big no no. It simply needs to be pointed out where she is coming from because her own mindset greatly affects her powers of reason.

Thanks for your response.

Well, this is the problem with seekingbalances's "advice" and why she couldn't defend it. It is not real life. She did not "inform" us about real life risks, but imagined risks. Our other board attorneys disagreed with her perspective. We have advocated thousands of exposures over the years and have to yet to hear anyone who was faced with the criminal penalties she cited. If it was a real life threat, surely there would be evidence, right?

So, no I don't agree that we stupid BS's are focused on what should be fair at the expense of legalities. Sure, there is risk in everything we do. But in this issue, there is more risk in NOT exposing because we do have actual cases here that ended in divorce because they didn't expose.

Did any of those lawsuits also involve the successful litigation against the BS who exposed? If not, how are they relevant here?

Does anyone know of any successful suits against the BS who exposed?

Anyone?

But speaking of risks, I would caution any waywards who believe they can scare a BS out of exposing with this lame threat: that your BS may have a case for extortion against you. As outlined by other board attorney, MrW:

Some of your previous posts have not lead me to believe that protecting the BS was a top priority to you.

One posting that comes to mind in particular was questioning whether the BS thinks about the consequences and humiliation before they expose...

I know of no successful suits...I haven't even heard of anyone filing a suit over exposure. I don't imagine any WS/AP would want to open that can of worms. Just look how Tiger Woods' bimbos were received by the public when they were whining and pouting. Unless a WS/AP wants to go there because of some perceived injustice given that there is PROOF and therefore TRUTH to such statements ....get real.

That is where my thinking is too.

Seeking, if you have seen thousands and thousands of frivolous suits, can you tell us how many were defamation cases in comparison to other types of cases?

I am just a layperson but in a business law class I took years ago, I recall the attorney teaching the class emphasizing that defamation is hard to prove and that attorneys don't pursue this type of litigation like they do others (car accidents, etc) because of that fact.

WOW. SB might be onto something, folks! Can you imagine how much EXPOSURE you could get if a WS brought such a suit and all the evidence of an affair was dragged out into the open court?? That would be awesome!! I relish the thought of a WS asking Texans on a jury to punish a poor betrayed spouse for simply saying the truth about her cruel, vindictive WS' behavior? That would go over real well! We so luuurve adultery here in Texas!! At my company we escort the cheatin buggers off the premises with an armed security guard! buh-bye..

And just think, the BS could then parlay that evidence into a nice, fat EXORTION case.

Giddy with excitement!

Okay. I have been on the phone with an attorney friend of mine (not to dismiss my attorney friends on this site ) We had a nice chat about this whole bowl of noodles, and he made reference to one thing that I think we need to look at: Publication Of Private Facts. This is a tort that relies on four elements for validation:
1. The facts must be disclosed publicly. (ie Facebook.)
2. The facts being disclosed must be private in nature and not facts that are generally known by the public.
3. The facts would be considered offensive by a 'reasonable' person.
4. The facts being disclosed must not be considered newsworthy or a matter of public concern.

That's one I'd take a look at. However, my attorney friend wondered (and I've got to agree) how many OPs would pursue making a public disclosure of their affair even worse by suing.

I've been combing the internet and can't find case law on this. The main thing I've seen that I would use caution with is the number of exposure targets.

I'm not an attorney, but if I were going to expose on FB I would make sure to attempt to expose to friends who appear to be related to the OP, and I'd keep the numbers low (no sending to all 1,000 friends, KWIM?) I would also add a line in my exposure letter:
"I do not wish to make this affair a matter of public knowledge. I am only trying to contact relatives of OP in order to ask for help and support in ending this affair."

A lawsuit, even a frivolous lawsuit, is not the end of the world.

Some of us would love to stand up for freedom of speech.