This ought to be good. Well Mr. Peck, you've got our attention now.

Spent all his money on the election,now he wants to sue to get it back

Really?

I say good luck to Mr Peck! It's disgraceful that people can use social media and online media platforms to spread untruths and not be held accountable. Opinion is one thing, misinformation and defamation quite another! I'm completely against all forms of bullying whether cyber or non so I'll be interested to see where this goes.....at the very least let's hope it stops the cowards who don't even comment under their true names!

Hey, Where is are old boy "Tim" on this one? He has something to say about everything. Maybe he will stop talking about teachers pensions and focus on his upcoming court case. Go get em!! Peck.

I voted for Peck but after reading this article it will be a cold day in hell he will ever get my vote again. I beleive in freedom of Speech and seem like Peck dont and now i wish i didnt vote for him.

Good for you Garrett Peck, yes there is Freedom of Speech. But, there is also a thing called "Defamation of Character". If you believe and more so KNOW that you are speaking the truth then use your name, not hide behind a fake name. A certain poster by the so called name of "Tim" has posted many untruths about various people in this community. There are people that do not know these people that he is posting about, and take it as the truth. What if some of these people are people that are say trustees, candidates running against them. I believe in the old saying...
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

Oh, so typical....It's a conspiracy Garrett, all of the cyber bullies didn't like your agenda. Seems like every time a Republican loses to a Democrat, it is because of some mysterious campaign to impugn his reputation, has nothing to do with his lack of meaningful legislation or ideas as the cause. Cry baby....

Our constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not give one the right to publically harass or slander someone falsely. Adding in the ability to do so anonymously does not change that. I see nothing wrong with pursuing their identity.

Boo hoo stop crying

My seven proxies, let me show you them.

Perhaps Patch might consider allowing commenting only if the user is signed in via Facebook. Sure, aliases can still be used in FB but there'd be far less expectation of anonimity.The trolls might think twice and the rest of us might enjoy more constructive threads.

Both Patch and Topix could surely provide web analytics data that I'd be willing to wager demonstrate that the number of visitors who viewed comments impugning Mr. Peck was fewer than the margin of his loss, but then they'd have to admit their own irrelevance.

I would like to know what protections we posters here have against such actions of Garrett Peck and the likes of him, to protect our anonymity ? I believe the courts have made rulings with respect to ISP'S protecting the rights of their users against similar actions. I may be wrong, but am willing to be corrected. Ms. Bertino-Tarrant got approximately 53 % of the vote or over 4,000 votes more than Mr. Peck, so I guess it was more than the postings here on PP.

Oh my god, Christmas is happening for me all over again!

This is right from the Will County Board of Elections:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/IL/Will/40544/113428/en/summary.html

Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant (DEM) 54.32% 41,371
Garrett M. Peck (REP) 45.56% 34,705

So let me see if I understand this; 3 internet trolls, seen only on the Plainfield Patch, are single handedly responsible for Garrett Peck's CRUSHING 6,666 vote defeat??? Seriously? That is a really disappointment for me, because I arrogantly supposed that the 4' x 4' sign for Bertino-Tarrant, that I had on my front lawn might have helped play some minor role in doing so. Apparently, I was mistaken.

I was wondering what happened to screech

This is real sad for an elected official to stoop to this level. Singling out a few posters to claim they derailed his campaign is crazy. And then consider suing them? It will be interesting to see how the court of law looks at this. Elections are won primarily through door to door contact to get out the vote and this is how Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant won.

He just gave those/that moron(s) more power by making it seem like anyone actually acknowledges anything they post on here. I'm pretty sure my 3rd Grader could give some better advice as to how to deal with a "bully". I would be sad for them to stop posting...Real Housewives of New Jersey isn't on right now and I need at least SOME mindless, ridiculous entertainment from idiots.

Wow..... no "Tim" comments now......Interesting.

It doesn't matter who is elected anyways, nobody ever does what they say they will effectively and efficiently because the system is moronic at best.

I didn't realize Tim was so powerful. I just thought he was one of us this whole time! I feel honored to mix comments with such royalty! Wow!

By the way, petty crap like this just lost my vote! Isn't Peck still on the Village Board? Sure there are more important things to worry about!

He is seeking re-election....Peck wants to draw attention to himself.....to put his name out there....so people can vote for him....I guarantee after this election you won't hear a peep from him until the next election....

No matter who, why, or the end result of the case he will have a harder time winning if he runs again. This, in my personal opinion, will only hurt him and not help at all. I do believe no matter if the accusations are true or not everyone deserves the right to face the person who is accusing of anything. No matter the legality of it. Yes free speech is a given right. Along with that right is the defendants ability to refute the accusations face to face or in this case comment to comment. Offering evidence, statements, and at least given the chance to know ofthe aaccuser is even a close enough party to remotely know the truth. If the person throwing things out there has only seen the sunlight through their Window looking past their computer screen credibility is out the door. Peck deserves that right to prove or disprove the assumptions. As well as the person slandering his name also has the right to speak it.

Words have meanings. I hope Peck succeeds. Tim will have the opportunity to defend allegations. Sounds fair to me.

Agreed, JB. This is about election publicity...and it's free. Local radio and TV will follow. Mr. Peck is up against the 1st Admendment and the 4th Estate. Good luck.

Mr. Peck...I voted for you in the last election and have always voted for you however, I won't again. You lost the election and I am sorry for that however, if you had problems with comments being made about you, you should have dealt with it at the time. Bringing a lawsuit later saying the comments hurt your election prospects...well, I just lost all respect for you.

The political angle is neither here nor there. As I said before, opinion is one thing, defamation quite another. It's quite laughable that 'Tim' hasn't commented to defend himself, unless of course he knows that he is quite guilty. Maybe an apology would be a good start Timothy, and as for everyone else, as a community we have to stand strong against any form of bullying. Spreading lies and untruths via whatever platform, is indeed bullying period and we must not applaud it, ever.

Olddeegee,
No. No one has been banned or suspended from Patch due to this issue.

If this Tim guy is name in a lawsuit its much smarter of him or her to remain silent right now...

As I said before no matter truth or not doing this only hurt his political career even more then anything "tim" said. Which sucks because he has all the rights to face "Tim." Yet can't because anonymity at the moment. I don't believe the lawsuit will go through as the patches privacy policy doesn't allow for giving out personal information. Also requiring them to divulge the ip address without an actual crime there is no precedence....

I think there are a few states that passed anti cyber bullying legislation where it can be prosecuted and the information handed over.....

From what I know Illinois hasn't passed anything yet.

I'm so not speaking as an legal person... Just from my bleak knowledge of things.... Lol...

Boo hoo Mr peck point the finger at yourself for losing the election.maybe you should keep low key instead of acting like you have so much power.the walls have ears and eyes.

I thought I had posted this previously, but while he is at it, why doesn't Mr. Peck charge all registered voters in his district who did not bother voting with electoral apathy?

Very frivolous legal proceedings!

I support putting restrictions on cyber-bullying because I think it is uncouth, childish and hurtful. However, to say a "cyber-bully" on a little-known blog could sway an election by 7,000 votes is nonsense. The losing candidate was solidly endorsed by the Chicago Tribune, a much more widely read publication than the Patch with its estimated readership of what, 72? While I think Peck may have been the better candidate, the fact of the matter is quite simply that Republicans didn't fare well at any level in the last election, and looking deep there are many good reasons for that. Being a Republican, I can't say I'm really proud of making that observation, but the voters have apparently made that observation and have spoken. And they've spoken much more loudly at the polls than "Tim" or anyone else can on a little-known and insignificant blog. I'm not taking either side here, but at some point in time one has to put emotions aside and be realistic. If The Patch has that much power, it's market price has just escalated substantially. While I support anyone's endeavor to retaliate against slander, which again is not only malicious but in and of itself wrong, I don't believe it had anything to do with the outcome of the election.

While I voted for Mr. Peck and argued with the folks he's going after in some of the forums being referenced I am against the invasion of privacy he is asking the court to allow him in this case. Freedom of speech is constitutionally protected. I would however add that I believe the comments accusing him of bribing the police and abusing his wife, which I think are both felonies, go too far. I think the old saying is there's free speech but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater???

I don;t think that anyone, including Mr. Peck really believes that anything posted on the Patch precluded him from wiinning the election. However, there is an issue of libel here (the comments made were in writing and posted in a public forum) and he has every right to pursue these people if the accusations were truly unfounded.

That being said, it makes him look stupid and weak and politically he'll be done.

Quote from paragraph 3: "He claims they are responsible for derailing his campaign."
Quote from paragraph 12: "In the court filing, Peck attributes his loss in the November election to the online comments, stating, "as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defamatory content, [Peck] was not elected to the 49th District Illinois State Senate."

I agree with what you are saying about libel and the right to pursue the unfounded accusations. But the captions clearly state that the "cyber-bullys" were a direct cause of the election loss, which is hogwash. What I also believe is hogwash is that Peck is a wife abuser and capable of bribing police. What I'm saying is, pursue these people for libel and there would be alot of support there; but pursue them for derailing an election by 7,000 votes and there will be absolutely none. Look at Obama. People have accused him of being a muslim, a person not of American descent, a racist, and that his name is an ellision derived from "o-bomb-em." He still won in a romp. At some point the public should be given enough credit to be able to sort out the preposterous from reality. I believe Peck is a decent and well-intentioned person, as most of us are. He lost because there was a great deal of ill will among voters towards Republicans this time around, not because 3 people on a blog read by 72 said nasty things. They were childish asses for saying those things, but I don't think it had anything to do with the voter tally.

Libel and defamation are not protected speech and there is not a more disgusting site on the internet than Topix.

Where are u tim? Miss ya buddy.

For years, I have been seeing those big red PECK signs all over the place every time there is an election. Before this past election, I did reseach to find out as much as I could about ALL of the candidates. Although my research concluded that Peck spent lots of money on last year's campaign, the MAJORITY of what I found on this guy was negative. Folks, people don't get bad reputations by accident. It it walks like a duck it's usually a duck...

What happened to free speech? Yes, defamation of character and libel are two serious issues here but when it comes down to it, it had nothing to do with him losing the election...he lost by a large amount of votes. It is the voters responsibility to make his or her own mind up about a potential candidates and whatever they may be reading from the media. To some it may look like he cannot handle the loss of the election or he is just mad that people can actually voice their own opinions about said election and candidates. This stunt will definitely stick in peoples minds and I do not think it will be for the better...really for the worse. I just think this whole petition thing will be a waste of time and money. If anything, maybe the forums need to be closely monitored.

He's a sore loser! What a joke!

I know, I "only" vote based on what "Tim", "Eyes on Plainfield" or "Ron" say. Oh wait, that is an untruth so I guess I better say that my previous sentence is sarcasm and I buy know means mean to infer any such negative or positive connotations against the aforementioned people. I post my statement for my amusement and ask that you not consider them when making decisions that affect either your own or someone else’s livelihood.

If I understand the defamation laws properly, Mr. Peck only has to prove the statements made by "Tim" and "Ron" were believed by as little as a single potential voter. If one person took their statements against him at face value (say an infrequent visitor of Patch who was unfamiliar with them) and therefore voted against him as a result, then Mr. Peck has a case. Damages may be negligible, but the law still supports Peck that he was the victim of Libel.

I find it interesting that people assume that because they are permitted to post on sites like the Patch using a nom de plume that they are somehow magically protected by freedom of speech, and therefore can post whatever they like without consequence. Granted, as a political figure a certain amount of mudslinging in Mr Pecks direction by his opposition is expected and is not considered defamation under the law, personal attacks implying or stating he has engaged in criminal activity are not protected by the laws. Nor does adding "my opinion" or other means of trying to deflect responsibility or negate consequences of making false claims.

Personally, I was taught by my father never to get into a pissing contest with a skunk. Even if you know you can win, you are both going to end up smelling bad at the end of the battle. What these "Tim" and his ilk say does not injure me personally, so I opt to ignore it. That being said, I know I often read what they say with the thought "Wow - I would nail this guy to the wall if he made accusations like this against me or my family". I am also embarrassed for the people who start posting support for "Tims" "right" for freedom of speech when the victim of one of his attacks starts trying to defend himself (thinking of a certain downtown pub and its owner). The idea seems to be to kick someone when they are down and out and drag their name through the mud and sling accusations, and it is covered under freedom of speech. It is admirable to support our right to Freedom of speech, not so admirable to support someone making false/hurtful claims - and the fact that people choose to defend the accuser implies they believe what that person is saying.

whats next, cross reference all the ip addresses who read any article related to peck and check against how that person voted and if against peck subpoena them to ask if they made a decision based on defamatory comments written by people on patch. get over it, you lost and one reason may be why is because peck did not use social media well enough to counter the malcontents.

@J Simon

Gee, I wonder how many suits were/are filed using the same standard you claim is the base line for a lawsuit, with respect to all of the signs, posters, outright lies, that targeted our President ? I am sure that at least one voter voted for Mr Romney by virtue of the "truth" behind said actions ? Read some left/right wing fringe blogs, or listen to Fox news and see if what they post/say is in any way libelous, or defamatory towards their targets. It's politics, dirty as it is, but accepted by voters, on one side or the other. Not many law suits filed, I would venture a guess.

Well J Simon, seeing as i'm the person that actually took the time and energy to write about being in defense of Tim and Ron, i'll go ahead and slow you down a bit. At no point did I EVER believe the things that Tim was saying about anything that he ever said in the comments. I even went out of my way by going through the meeting notes of every Plainfield Village Board Meeting from 2012 to refute some of the things Tim said.
That said, if you can't handle the things people are saying in the comments, then don't read the comments. Read the story that is posted and end your reading experience there. Garrett Peck is setting a terrible precedent with this. I came out in defense of Tim, Ron, and Eyes on Plainfield, not because I like these guys, but because Peck, by doing this, is completely and totally refusing to take responsibility for his own short comings during the election.
And by the way, you are commenting anonymously. So is GrandpaMike, OldDeegee and everyone else that doesn't use their actual name as their user name. You are no different than any of the guys being accused. You might clean up your words better and pull your punches, but you still aren't attaching your name to your words. Keep that in mind.

I don't expect to change anyone's thoughts. Nor do I want it to sound like i'm defending the commenters on anything beyond face value. And in truth, Garrett Peck probably isn't as good of a person as some of you might want to believe. I have stories too, that have been told to me by a number of people, about him.
I chose to omit them because if Peck is willing to pull this to go after commenters, he'd do it to me too, and my goal is not to get my friends who told me these things caught up in the mess.
The fact is, Garrett Peck lost his bid for senator. If the story is true, he spent 80k out of his pocket on it. I'd be mad, too. But there is a saying that goes along the lines of "let sleeping dogs lie." Peck would have most likely been reelected to the village board.
Now, by him being a sore loser and blaming other people instead of himself, he has turned this into a much bigger deal. The newspapers are carrying it. It's a story now. And a LOT of people disagree with him and his thought process of attacking commenters like this.
He hurt his own chances, come the April election. Plainfield isn't Chicago. A couple days worth of the news cycle aren't going to wipe this story out. This story will linger through the April elections. I wish i'd followed through in my thought process to run for the Village Board, because his spot is now very much in jeopardy.

Tim....Tim.....come out come out where ever your are.

What does Glen Beck have to do with this?!

Hey Peck Supporter, if you are such good friends with Peck, as you claim, then let him know to email me. I'd love to interview him. I will give him every inch of type space he wants to tell his end of the story. All we are getting are sounds bytes out of him. Let him actually speak. I'd love to hear his side, and i'd love to be the one asking the questions.
If you notice, I was the one who wrote in defense of the fact that he was at basically every village board meeting last year, and unlike what Tim said, I said very matter-of-factly that he had voted yes on all but a handful of things, and pointed out the things he didn't vote yes on.
You obviously don't understand the words I was saying, but then again, you are just some anonymous guy sounding off your opinions at 3:30 in the morning, so for all any of us know, YOU are actually Tim or Ron trying to throw us off the scent. Since you don't have a real name, i'm going to be forced to believe that you are no different from either of them.

Here is an intersting story about a "Texas couple who filed a defamation lawsuit over three years ago against anonymous posters on the Internet forum Topix.com won a $13.8 million judgment from a jury".
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury-awards-13-million-texas-defamation-suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071

This is becoming a silly schoolyard scuffle, as if the combatants are eight years of age and somebody stolen the other's ball. Everyone really needs to lighten up because all that is happening is that the participants are looking sillier and sillier and more and more childish to anyone browsing this. This is the kind of stuff that escalates to ridiculous proportions for no valid reason and damages reputations in the process. People damage each other, then they damage themselves while attempting to damage the other in return. All that adds up to is both sides losing while occupying a bloody room and no good becomes of it. As a child of the sixties, a saying from that era echoes true here and decades later bears repeating..."make love not war."

peck supporter won't even use his own name.

its been weeks and no update. whats the latest news on this silly, frivolous, waste of time, reaching, cry baby lawsuit?

Tim, if you are so rightous, why don't you debate Peck and the other people you slam in a public forum? Why violate the Patch's user agreement and hide behind a fake name? You are a coward!

Go for it Mr Beck:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/vp/51042835/#51042835

It is wrong to use defamation, lies and libel regardless if here on this forum, or out in the real world. As such I understand Mr Peck’s position and actions to sue for libel. It is also just as wrong to use the legal system to silence fair and open speech, and for that one can also be sued under S.L.A.P.P provisions Aka: strategic lawsuit against public participation.

I hope Mr. Peck is prepared for such an action, and I hope the posters he is suing seek legal representation. Mr. Peck is a public figure, so he must show actual intent of malicious against him to win any type of suit, and he’ll have to prove those posts actually made him lose the election.

Patch and Tropx would be wise to reject the petition, or risk losing the trust of their users.

Whether done anonomously or publicly, a case of willful maliciousness with intent to inflict damage should be relatively easy to sort out from a case of a wiseguy just being a wiseguy. Somebody publicly saying your mama has a fat butt is alot different than somebody publicly saying that they observed her firsthand shoplifting. One being a snide and stupid comment, the other being a malicious lie that can be prosecuted. I'd think it's a fair and logical assumption that any observers would simply see this kind of stuff for what it is and little more. While I can see a way to support either side of this, I can't help but thinking it would preserve alot of dignity to just let it go. Then again, I'm not one of the two people involved, so my passion, understandably, is at a different level.