Client Confidentiality

[JT Brooklyn]

In LA B.N. is about a 5 on a scale from 1 to 10. So I doubt he has that much "Intimate Knowledge" about any Celebrities. MAYBE Other than Chit-Chat from other 5 out of 10 "Workin Guys"..:+

[Guest Conway]

So what's the difference between people like Ben and people like those here who insisted that their right to expose HooBoy's real identity was greater than the right of HooBoy's family to privacy at the time of his death?

 

More than one person who has criticized Ben here, in this thread, is guilty of equally poor judgment and behavior in reveling on the fact that they knew HooBoy's true identity and giving that identity to anyone who asked on a public internet forums despite the wishes of Hoo and his family that his M4M life remain confidential.

 

Make no mistake about it, Ben made a mistake here. He would do well to acknowledge the same. But, for several posters in this thread who criticize Ben for violating Hatch's privacy, you're nothing but a bunch of loathable hypocrites.

 

It is perhaps the most ridiculous case I have ever read of the pot calling the kettle black. And, it is precisely why so may of these Ben critics have no credibility with anyone who reads this nonsense.

[jackhammer91406]

JT,

Don't be too sure.

The information being repeated by another of his clients includes mention of several L.A. based celebrities.

 

There exists in this country an attitude that any criticism of our leaders is considered unpatriotic and anti-American.

 

In the situation we are discussing, the same sort of mindset appears present. Anyone who questions the behavior of this particular escort is jumped on by his defenders, even if those with questions have defended him in the past on other issues. OK, cool. But no amount of rationalization is going to justify the basic facts. He broke the basic rule. It's not only that he published gossip about a colleague's client, it's also that his clients are running around with info on each other and spilling it. Where did that info come from? And his cavalier reaction is that he didn't break any confidentiality because Hatch isn't his client? Weak.

 

There was a thread sometime back in which an escort came to the MC talking about a client who is a baseball player. While we had to take at face value that this escort was legit, I saw nothing in his comments that could identify the player, and my only reaction was that the escort showed bad judgement (however titillating the post was).

This case is different. And there are some who hire escorts precisely because they don't want a discussion of themselves or their behavior by an escort after the fact. These men will be very reluctant to hire an escort who violates that basic rule.

 

While my decision on whether to hire Ben was made long ago (he isn't really my type although he is very likable in person),I presented my views as a warning to Ben. Silly me, I was worried about his continued success.

 

Again, if he's got more inquiries than he can possibly service, I guess he really doesn't need to worry.

[jackhammer91406]

I agree Conway. What you described is beyond the line. But where did this exposure take place?

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Clarity

 

Chuck,

It's good to see you.

 

I am not sure what your reply means.

I will activate my profile response if you wish to fill me in in private.

[woodlawn]

>So what's the difference between people like Ben and people

>like those here who insisted that their right to expose

>HooBoy's real identity was greater than the right of HooBoy's

>family to privacy at the time of his death?

 

The difference is that the people you're yelling at, unlike BN, did not obtain the information they published through a business relationship in which they promised confidentiality to the person in question, or from someone who obtained the information through such a confidential relationship.

 

There are not many people who would hire a prostitute who told them, "If you hire me, I'll feel free to pass on anything I learn about you to anyone I feel like talking to about it." That, in case you haven't figured it out, is the basis of the objections people have made in this thread to BN's behavior: information was made public by someone who promised NOT to make it public. The people you're yelling at didn't make any promises of confidentiality to anyone.

 

You may think it shows "poor judgment" to reveal Hooboy's identity, but it's obvious that others disagree, and there's no particular reason for them to care what you think.

[Guest Conway]

It was deleted from here. But, it still exists in an active thread on another internet forum, you know, the one run by the kind of mentally challenged types dedicated to the destruction of this one.

 

The audacity of some people in making such blatant claims of disreputable activity when they are guilty of the same simply amazes me.

[Guest Conway]

Wooody wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The difference is that the people you're yelling at, unlike BN, did not obtain the information they published through a business relationship in which they promised confidentiality to the person in question, or from someone who obtained the information through such a confidential relationship."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

First, let me say that I'm not yelling at anyone. Instead, I'm engaging in a thought provoking and logical debate with certain members of this board that I have addressed. Your interjection was neither requested nor does it have any value where the discussion is concerned.

 

Second, you really don't know who I'm addressing with my statement. And, frankly, it's none of your business who I'm addressing. You're assuming that you know of whom I speak. But, i don't think you do. Further, you really possess no kbnowledge that supports your position that the people I am referring to had no business relationship with HooBoy.

 

Constant insertion of one's self into everyone else's business doesn't give one expertise so much as it makes one an annoying busybody.

 

Finally, it should be noted that BN did not have a professional relationship with Mr. Hatch thus rendering your entire overblown statement as having no merit.

 

___________________________________________________________________

"There are not many people who would hire a prostitute who told them, "If you hire me, I'll feel free to pass on anything I learn about you to anyone I feel like talking to about it." That, in case you haven't figured it out, is the basis of the objections people have made in this thread to BN's behavior: information was made public by someone who promised NOT to make it public. The people you're yelling at didn't make any promises of confidentiality to anyone."

______________________________________________________________________

Again, you're mistaken. I'm not yelling. But, so that we can understand, please tell us where you were standing in relation to Mr. hatch and Mr. Nicholas when A) mr. Hatch hired Mr. Nicholas as a prostitute and B) Mr. Nicholas "promised not to make it public."

 

If you cannot verify that these two discussions took place, then you're relyng upon an assumption that confidentiality should exist between a prostitute and John. Further, it would seem that, on an ethical basis, the same courtesy of assumed confidentiality would exist between John and his sources of referrals for prostitutes.

 

Let's be honest, if the man who operated this site as HooBoy

was to violate the confidentiality of one of its posters by chit chatting about an an individual members pecadillos that he learned of as a result of operating this site, people would be very disappointed. Those who display certain procilvities toward commonly known mental illnesses might become obsessed or compulsive over such an event.

 

Why? Because you had a business relatiionship with HooBoy. You participated in his forums. If you ever clicked on an ad on the site or used his discount travel agency, you had a business relationship with him.

 

Yet, you hold that you should not be bound to the same assumed confidentiality that you would demand that HooBoy (or BN) should be held to.

_____________________________________________________________________

"You may think it shows "poor judgment" to reveal Hooboy's identity, but it's obvious that others disagree, and there's no particular reason for them to care what you think."

_________________________________________________________________

I think that the reason that I would care is that I have a great deal of consistent credibility here as evidenced by the fact that you feel the need to respond to nearly everything I write here.

 

You may not like my nessage. But, it is always consistent and bears the truth as opposed to the scandalous negative public relations efforts of some less sane participants in this forum.

 

Just today, I visited another site where one of the posters participated in libelous activity by suggesting that a poster on this site was a meth addict. What a shame. Do some people not have more activity in their lives and more to do with their days than to speculate mindlessly about the drug addictions of people that they don't even know?

 

In think it would serve the accused well if engaged a personal attorney to sue the offending party for slander and the site on which it was posted for libel. If the offending party had top retain an attorney, maybe he'd think twice about making baseless slanderous statements about total strangers.

[JT Brooklyn]

Jackhammer..Well said. I guess any further discussion would just be "OverKill" on the subject of a "Working Guy with a Big Mouth". Which fewer and fewer People, seem to have any Interest in as time goes by. :+

[KY_TOP]

"Client Confidentiality" is extremely important to me when hiring an Escort. I expect that Escort to keep my private info private. Many people hire Escorts because they are not open for whatever their reason might be. Also, if it where known that they hired, it could have drastic repercussions in anything from their job to possible personal relationships. I understand some Escorts talk amongst their selves about clients, especially those clients they may have in common. Small talk between Escorts about clients or mutual clients is one thing, making that info public through the internet is another thing. BN has been very proud that several gay websites are picking up his blog, increasing it's readership amongst the gay community. Therefore passing on what another Escort told him through his blog has even more potential to harm someone.

[splendidpup]

Confidentiality and discretion rank up there with being clean and disease-free and having a big dick and/or a great ass. That's why it is especially damaging that in his attack on Benjamin Nicholas, the initial poster chose to smear another escort. If one wants to keep this battle raging, go right ahead. Just keep everyone else out of the line of fire.

 

Ben

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/benla.html

[KY_TOP]

>That's why it is especially damaging that in his attack on

>Benjamin Nicholas, the initial poster chose to smear another

>escort. If one wants to keep this battle raging, go right

>ahead. Just keep everyone else out of the line of fire.

 

I agree that speculating on the other Escort that the info came from, was uncalled for not knowing who that Escort is.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Shouldn't this thread be in the Deli?

[woodlawn]

>First, let me say that I'm not yelling at anyone. Instead, I'm

>engaging in a thought provoking and logical debate with

>certain members of this board that I have addressed. Your

>interjection was neither requested nor does it have any value

>where the discussion is concerned.

 

I really don't give a shit whether you welcome my participation in this discussion. Unless you're going to lie about it, you must admit that there have been many occasions when you have "interjected" your opinion into discussions in which no one asked for it -- in fact, that description probably fits the great majority of your posts on this board. If you are going to insist that others NOT do something you have done time and again, you may yet set a new standard for hypocrisy here.

 

>Second, you really don't know who I'm addressing with my

>statement. And, frankly, it's none of your business who I'm

>addressing.

 

What was I saying about "setting a new standard for hypocrisy"? Given the dozens of occasions when you have commented on conversations between others that had absolutely nothing to do with you, who the fuck are you to tell me or anyone that what is said here is none of our business?

 

> You're assuming that you know of whom I speak.

>But, i don't think you do. Further, you really possess no

>kbnowledge that supports your position that the people I am

>referring to had no business relationship with HooBoy.

 

You're quite wrong on both counts. As usual.

 

>Constant insertion of one's self into everyone else's business

>doesn't give one expertise so much as it makes one an

>annoying busybody.

 

If you really believe that, then you should stop the "constant insertion" of which you are indisputably guilty. Hypocrite.

 

>Finally, it should be noted that BN did not have a

>professional relationship with Mr. Hatch thus rendering your

>entire overblown statement as having no merit.

 

If you ever learn to read English, you will be able to see in my previous post that I also included the situation in which one person obtains information from someone else who obtains it through such a relationship. In the meantime, perhaps your remedial English teacher could explain it to you. If you ask him nicely.

 

>Again, you're mistaken. I'm not yelling. But, so that we can

>understand, please tell us where you were standing in relation

>to Mr. hatch and Mr. Nicholas when A) mr. Hatch hired Mr.

>Nicholas as a prostitute and B) Mr. Nicholas "promised not to

>make it public."

 

This point has already been addressed in my immediately previous paragraph.

 

 

>If you cannot verify that these two discussions took place,

>then you're relyng upon an assumption that confidentiality

>should exist between a prostitute and John.

 

In the centuries-long history of commercial contracts, it has for generations been the case that contracts involving a given industry are interpreted in light of the "custom and practice" in that industry. There can be no question that in this industry confidentiality is part of the "custom and practice" that informs a contract between buyer and seller.

 

> Further, it would

>seem that, on an ethical basis, the same courtesy of assumed

>confidentiality would exist between John and his sources of

>referrals for prostitutes.

 

Not an unreasonable assumption, in my opinion.

 

 

>Let's be honest, if the man who operated this site as HooBoy

>was to violate the confidentiality of one of its posters by

>chit chatting about an an individual members pecadillos that

>he learned of as a result of operating this site, people would

>be very disappointed.

 

What makes you think he didn't? Isn't it true that people who had the same health issues he did are often indiscreet? I think that puts the case about as politely as is possible.

 

>Those who display certain procilvities

>toward commonly known mental illnesses might become obsessed

>or compulsive over such an event.

 

Since neither of us is qualified to discuss psychiatric pathology, such a discussion would seem pointless.

 

>Why? Because you had a business relatiionship with HooBoy.

>You participated in his forums. If you ever clicked on an ad

>on the site or used his discount travel agency, you had a

>business relationship with him.

>

>Yet, you hold that you should not be bound to the same assumed

>confidentiality that you would demand that HooBoy (or BN)

>should be held to.

 

The fact that you have a business relationship with someone doesn't ALWAYS imply that it is a confidential relationship. It depends entirely on the circumstances and on the "custom and practice" in that industry.

 

>I think that the reason that I would care is that I have a

>great deal of consistent credibility here as evidenced by the

>fact that you feel the need to respond to nearly everything I

>write here.

 

Your assumption that you have any credibility here is quite unwarranted. An equally valid explanation for my responses is that I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel. I've always found it to be a much underrated pastime.

 

>You may not like my nessage. But, it is always consistent and

>bears the truth as opposed to the scandalous negative public

>relations efforts of some less sane participants in this

>forum.

 

In fact, I have pointed out above in this response just how INconsistent you are -- for one thing, you never hesitate to horn in on other people's conversations, but you complain loudly when others do the same as you do.

 

>Just today, I visited another site where one of the posters

>participated in libelous activity by suggesting that a poster

>on this site was a meth addict. What a shame. Do some people

>not have more activity in their lives and more to do with

>their days than to speculate mindlessly about the drug

>addictions of people that they don't even know?

 

If there were not vast numbers of people who enjoy gossip about the pecadilloes of others, magazines like "Us" and "People" wouldn't exist, much less be the profitable enterprises they are today. This board would not exist either. I should think that would be obvious to anyone of at least average intelligence.

 

>In think it would serve the accused well if engaged a personal

>attorney to sue the offending party for slander and the site

>on which it was posted for libel.

 

I think it would serve him well also. If he retained an attorney who actually understands the legal definitions of the terms "slander" and "libel," that attorney might explain to him that he has no case whatsoever.

 

 

> If the offending party had

>top retain an attorney, maybe he'd think twice about making

>baseless slanderous statements about total strangers.

 

And just how would you know whether the statements in question are baseless? Well?

[Steven_Draker]

Deja vu

 

http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/m4mdc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=76442&mesg_id=76442&listing_type=search

[Guest alanm]

Good link. It is interesting that HooBoy gave his opinion about gossip on that December 2004 thread, given that HooBoy himself would shortly become the subject of the most intense gossip possible. It is painful to read TomCal's posting eight months later. I have never met TomCal but always respect his comments; guess he just had a bad couple of days with that thread.

 

Unless Benji wants to apologize (unlikely), this would be a good place to end this subject!

[Steven_Draker]

>All escorts, in my experiences, freely discuss previous clients, when asked to do so.

 

I don't know what your experiences and the escorts you've hired are, but I respectfully disagree.

 

Steven Draker ~

[FourAces]

Barry should receive an award for being the first person associated with this site to question and point out a popular escorts' wrong doing.

 

Chuck you deserve the EYES WIDE SHUT award for not taking this seriously. I cannot think of another person associated with this board who has been so violated by an escort .. or have you simply prayed that we all would forget Vicent Michael's detailed post about you?

 

I find as time goes on escorts like VM, BN and SA do themselves in by allowing their huge egos to emerge. Bragging seems to simply be part of the process. Rationalzation is just one more step.

 

One day enough men who hire (therefore enable) these immature boys to run wild in the candy shop will wake and end their escort ego-filled party.

 

 

I'm certain Ben is busy emailing Barry and the troops to gain back any support that was lost. I hope for once the troops will stamp those emails, "return to sender."

 

One day someone is going to use a site like Escort Speak to post all kinds of personal information on these sour young thangs (sic). Remember do onto others as you ....

 

And to anyone STILL trying to defend what BN has done this time you're losing any respect you might have had from your peers. No logical person can justify this HUGE JUDGMENT ERROR.

 

But then it isn' the first time we've heard about BN sharing information about clients. Former long time poster Tomcal wrote about it, he tried to alert us till HB put a stop to it. Thankfully, he was able to complete his alert away from this MC and saved several the potential issues that go along with identity backmail.

 

 

 

RT

[+ glutes]

>But then it isn' the first time we've heard about BN sharing

>information about clients. Former long time poster Tomcal

>wrote about it, he tried to alert us till HB put a stop to it.

 

And why would HB put a stop to it??

[JT Brooklyn]

As long as B.N.isn't "Doing them", he thinks a Big Mouth(for other than suckin Clients Dicks) is cool? That statement in itself says alot! :+

[Nicholas571]

That Benjamin would pass along the name of someone who visited with another escort is an enormous breach of the confidentialty members of this site rely upon. With the many other choices available to us, I can't imagine why anyone would risk meeting with this guy.

 

x(

[Guest Conway]

"I think it would serve him well also. If he retained an

attorney who actually understands the legal definitions of

the terms "slander" and "libel," that

attorney might explain to him that he has no case whatsoever."

 

All lawsuits can be incredibly expensive to defend whether they have merit or not. Especially if the plaintiff was to receive pro bono counsel. That's my professional experience.

 

I imagine that your personal information could be gleaned rather easily either from a subpoena of the owners of this board or EZ Board followed by a subpoena of your IP. From there you could be served and deposed. In the deposition, we'd find how much you really know versus how much harmful gossip you are spreading.

 

Thereafter, all of your sources for your "stories" could be deposed. Of course, you'd want to have your own legal representative at those depositions.

 

Then, if your sources don't support your claims, they could take their claim to trial.

 

You should make sure you have $50M to $100M in your personal bank account.

[woodlawn]

>All lawsuits can be incredibly expensive to defend whether

>they have merit or not.

 

>Especially if the plaintiff was to

>receive pro bono counsel. That's my professional experience.

 

They are also expensive to initiate, and it is the plaintiff, not the defendant, who must bear that expense. I find it very difficult to believe that any attorney would want to waste his time on the suit you propose, since it is utterly without foundation in law -- much less that he would agree to bear the expense of initiating the suit himself. He would have to be a complete moron.

 

As usual, you are talking about a subject of which you know nothing.

 

>I imagine that your personal information could be gleaned

>rather easily either from a subpoena of the owners of this

>board or EZ Board followed by a subpoena of your IP.

> From

>there you could be served and deposed. In the deposition, we'd

>find how much you really know versus how much harmful gossip

>you are spreading.

 

You seem to be forgetting -- or more likely you never knew -- that in a civil suit BOTH sides have the right to conduct discovery proceedings. The plaintiff in such a suit is every bit as vulnerable to the disclosure of private information as is the defendant. In fact, in a suit for defamation he is arguably MORE vulnerable, since HIS reputation is the basis of the suit, while the defendant's reputation has little or no relevance. As Doug recently pointed out elsewhere, anyone associated with this site would have to be crazy to expose himself by bringing such a suit, for much the same reason that he would have to be crazy to fire a gun at someone else while both are in the passenger cabin of a jet flying at 30,000 feet.

 

>You should make sure you have $50M to $100M in your personal

>bank account.

 

You know absolutely nothing about the process you are trying to describe, and can accomplish nothing by making empty threats in connection with it -- other than to make yourself look foolish. In light of the fact that you recently vowed never again to mention a certain group of people and promptly went back on your vow, don't you think you look foolish enough already?

[Doug69]

>You know absolutely nothing about the process you are trying

>to describe, and can accomplish nothing by making empty

>threats in connection with it -- other than to make yourself

>look foolish.

 

Not that any more reasons are needed for demonstrating Conway's litigation "point" to be one of the dumbest ever posted here, but I do want to point out, for fun, that if the Deej were foolish enough to follow Conway's advice and commenced the litigation Conway were proposing with a pro bono lawyer, and the Court read Conway's advice to Deej that he should do so NOT in order to win, but simply in order to impose litigation costs on Woodlawn and subject him to invasive discovery, the lawsuit would not only be dismissed, but the Court would almost certainly impose all costs and fees - and additional sanctions - on Deej and the imaginary pro bono counsel he has dancing around in Conway's head.

 

Moreover, the lawsuit would never even proceed to the discovery stage, since you cannot, as a matter of law, defame an online screen name. The case would be dismissed prior to there being any discovery.

 

And, even if it did proceed to discovery, the person who would be in the most pain would be Deej, not Woodlawn, since - as Woodlawn insinuated - there is probably no worse position to be in, discovery-wise, than that of a defamation plaintiff, since your reputation generally - and not just with respect to the specific matter at hand - is relevant to the claims and defenses. That pretty much means that anything you've done even remotely related to the allegedly defamatory statements or which would in any way affect the plaintiff's reputation would be discoverable.

 

By contrast, almost nothing about Woodlawn would be discoverable in such a lawsuit other than the basis for his statements. I'd much rather be in the position of Woodlawn than Deej in the lawsuit Conway is wacking off to.

 

All of that assumes that Deej could get a pro bono lawyer to pursue such an idiotic claim. Just assuming that to be the case for fun, it's really difficult to think of any proposal more idiotic and reflective of abject stupidity than the one being pursued by Conway here.

 

Seriously, when people uneducated and uninformed with regard to the law start pontifficating about it because they watched a few Law & Order episodes, I really want to fucking puke.

[+ deej]

http://www.dfapam.com/ari.gif

 

HTH