Canadian David Simpson Identified as Abusive STD Report Author

A Canadian man named David Simpson has been identified as Hornyfucker89 on STDCarriers.com by a source confirmed to be a Canadian law enforcement official. The details of incidents allegedly involving Mr. Simpson are the subject of a Cyberbullying Report posted by STDCarriers.com to discourage abuse of the website. We want to send a message to anyone considering posting false accusations or using adult language so obscene that no reasonable website could be expected to tolerate such language even if the acts described could technically describe the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Normally we do not take down reports that are not proven to be false, but we chose to make an exception for one containing graphic adult language. This exception did not result in the release of user data because technically it was not proven false and did not contain pornography. We are considering possible changes to the Terms of Use (TOU) to make explanations or comments like the one at issue here a TOU violation. Mainly we just don't think that an explanation that contains such graphic depictions of sexual activity useful even if the depictions are just verbal. Such comments are so much more likely to be the work of a vindictive person that the likelihood of them being honest are quite small.

So, how do you describe a sexual relationship with a person as your reason for knowing that the person has a STD? Start by looking at Mr. Simpson's explanation for what not to say, "I f*cked this young lady really hard and she swallowd all of my c*m for hours. I just know because I gave it to her. The little sl*t loves an*l s*x." One might say that descriptions of sex acts a person likes could be useful is helping people figure out if the person described is someone they have been with, that is technically true, but the message can be conveyed without such graphic language if it is needed for identification purposes. This case included a picture of the subject, so describing the bedroom habits of a person has little to no identifying use when the report includes a picture of the person. So, one can conclude that if they have a picture then such details are not necessary absent some other factor that could make identification from the photo difficult. Now if the person uses disguises, has aged significantly since the photo, gained or lost significant weight, or suffered an injury scarring them beyond recognition the photo becomes useless. That still would not support Simpson's explanation for several reasons; First, Simpson's explanation is nothing but unnecessary graphic sexual language; Second, if Simpson considered such details necessary for a partner of that subject to realize that they may have been with the person using obscene language would not be needed to describe those traits. Third, including something like, "this person engages in high risk behaviors such as unprotected oral and anal sex" would be allowed if combined with additional useful information so that the report as a whole is useful. Describing sexual behavior must be done tactfully.

In the future we will look into amending the TOU so that activity like Mr. Simpson's will be a violation without also making the inclusion of useful information a violation. That can be tricky because so much of deciding if such information crosses the line relies on editorial opinion. We like to reserve TOU violations for conduct that can be proven ask black and white so to speak. We don't like to rely on determinations that could differ from person to person. A case like Simson's probably would not result in another person determining that it is useful and serving a purpose beyond humiliating a victim, so our policy will have to probably rely on a reasonable person standard. For instance it might read something like "you agree that a reasonable person standard applies to review of your work and not post anything that a reasonable person could believe to serve no useful purpose" or we might make you agree not to describe anything that would be porn if it were an image.

We also don't normally trust the word of law enforcement when it comes to identifying a person that they say administers a user account. It is entirely possible that this official made up the name David Simpson, but we don't know what reason if any the person would have for doing so. We do know that an individual was convicted of crimes in Canada for among other things photographing a woman in her bathroom and accused by police of authoring an obscene STD report on STDCarriers.com. That enough for us to feel comfortable saying that the name of this person probably is David Simpson. If that turns out not to be the case, then the blame for that would have to be placed on law enforcement. We do know that in Canada there is a tendency not to name people like Simpson to protect the victims of his crimes. We don't think that a reasonable officer would name someone in a case like Simpson's as a way to duck any future request from us for the name of the defendant. We think the officer would just tell us that they can't tell us that information rather than give a fake name.

Conclusion

If you abuse STDCarriers.com and we find out who you are then we will post everything we know about you online. People like David Simpson are the reason why the website it constantly attacked publicly for what should be a useful and potentially life-saving service. People always ask us what we can do to protect innocent people from finding their names smeared. We like to respond by passing that responsibility to the individual user because absent something that can only be false, we cannot support accusations against users by those accusing them of lying unless given proof of their lies. People like David Simpson abuse our support of free speech to turn what would otherwise be nothing but a potential life saver into the target of not just criticism but also a target of the government. If it were not for people like David Simpson we probably would not have been targeted by members of the U.S. Congress and FBI in 2012 for the purpose of finding some way to shut down what they admit to being a legal website.