Update Sept 30, 2026 9:17pm
UPDATE: Waterbury Times Publisher’s Community Court Case Continued to December 9
WATERBURY, Conn. — The criminal case involving Waterbury Times Publisher and Editor D.M. Livingston has been continued until December 9, 2026, following Wednesday’s court appearance.
Livingston is facing charges of second-degree threatening and breach of peace.
The case was continued while a separate restraining-order matter remains under appeal.
At a previous restraining-order hearing, the court heard from both sides before issuing a 60-day temporary restraining order. Livingston is appealing that decision.
The restraining-order appeal remains pending, while the criminal case will now return to court on December 9.
No final determination has been made in the matter.
The Waterbury Times will continue to provide updates as the case proceeds.
Restraining Order Hearing Results in Two-Month Order; Appeal Planned
The Waterbury Times Publisher and Editor appeared in court for a restraining order hearing following his recent arrest.
After hearing from both sides, the judge issued a two-month restraining order.
The hearing allowed both parties the opportunity to present their respective positions before the court made its decision.
Following the ruling, the Waterbury Times Publisher and Editor stated that he intends to appeal the decision.
The restraining order remains in effect unless modified or overturned through the court process.
Update Sept 18, 2026 3:10pm
Court Timeline Update — September 18, 2026
Waterbury- After a day in court, the pending matter involving charges of second-degree threatening and breach of peace has been continued to September 30, 2026.
The new court date was scheduled to coincide with a September 28 hearing in a separate but related court matter involving the underlying circumstances.
The Waterbury Times will continue to update this timeline as the proceedings move forward.
Court Timeline Update — September 18, 2026 8:32am
Waterbury- Today, a request will be made for a continuance in the pending criminal matter involving charges of second-degree threatening and breach of peace.
The request is based on a separate pending court matter involving related underlying facts, with a hearing currently scheduled for September 28, 2026. The purpose of the request is to allow that proceeding to take place before moving forward further in this matter.
The Waterbury Times will continue to update this timeline as appropriate as the court process moves forward.
Update Sept 13, 2026 8:16am
D.M. Livingston has been released after voluntarily surrendering on the arrest warrant.
The charges are Threatening in the Second Degree (C.G.S. §53a-62(a)(1)) and Breach of Peace in the Second Degree (C.G.S. §53a-181).
The case is currently scheduled in Waterbury Community Court, 400 Grand Street, with Livingston ordered to appear on Friday, September 18, 2026.
The case remains pending
Update Sept 12, 2026 2:15pm
WATERBURY, Conn. — September 12, 2026 — Waterbury Times Publisher and Editor D.M. Livingston has been processed and released after voluntarily surrendering to the Waterbury Police Department on an arrest warrant involving an allegation of threatening another individual.
Livingston was informed Friday that a warrant had been issued and that bond was set at $15,000. He surrendered Saturday and has now been released.
His case is scheduled to appear in Family Court on Friday, September 18.
The allegation centers on threatening content that Livingston maintains he did not create or upload.
The case comes after Livingston previously reported to Waterbury police that he was the target of a cyberbullying campaign involving fabricated content, fake social media pages and the use of his voice.
Livingston has maintained that the material at the center of the criminal allegation was not created or posted by him.
The Waterbury Times will continue to follow the case as court proceedings move forward.
This story will be updated as additional verified information becomes available.
UPDATE: Sept 12, 2026 8:48pm
Waterbury Times Publisher Says He Was Told Arrest Warrant Issued After Police Investigation Into Threatening Content
WATERBURY — The circumstances surrounding threatening material involving Waterbury Times Publisher and Editor D.M. Livingston have taken a significant turn, with Livingston being informed Friday by a Waterbury Police Department lieutenant that a warrant had been issued for his arrest.
According to Livingston, the warrant stems from threatening content that had been circulating online — content he says he had originally reported to the Waterbury Police Department himself in July.
Livingston said the material was edited and generated using artificial intelligence as part of what he described as a cyberbullying campaign directed at him.
The latest development began Sunday, Sept. 6, when Livingston said Waterbury police were called regarding the same threatening material and officers contacted him about it at his home.
Livingston said he immediately pointed out that the material was not new and that it was the same content he had previously reported to police in July.
Following that contact, Livingston said he called the Waterbury Police Department back and was instructed to contact the department on Tuesday.
He did so on Tuesday, Sept. 8.
According to Livingston, police told him that a supervisor had assigned the matter to Detective Rivera and that the detective was off duty until Thursday.
On Thursday, Sept. 10, Livingston said he contacted the department again. He was told that there was an Officer Rivera and was busy, and Livingston left a message requesting a return call.
He said that call never came.
Then, on Friday, Sept. 11, Livingston said he received a telephone call from Lieutenant Martin of the Waterbury Police Department.
According to Livingston, Lt. Martin informed him that a warrant had been issued for his arrest in connection with a threatening allegation and that bond had been set at $15,000.
The Waterbury Police Department’s public telephone directory lists its Criminal Investigations Bureau at 203-574-6941 and identifies the department’s headquarters at 255 East Main Street.
A complicated turn in an already complicated story
What makes the development particularly significant is the history of the material at the center of the investigation.
Livingston maintains that he was the person who initially brought the material to police attention in July because he believed it was part of a deliberate campaign of cyberbullying and harassment.
He says the content was artificially generated and edited and presented as though it were legitimate material involving him, despite being orchestrated.
The subsequent appearance of the same material in a police matter involving an allegation against Livingston has therefore created a situation in which the person who says he originally reported the material now says he has been informed that he is the subject of an arrest warrant connected to it.
That distinction will ultimately be resolved through the criminal justice process.
Livingston said he intends to surrender himself rather than avoid the warrant.
“I am going to deal with this through the proper process,” Livingston said.
He also emphasized that his decision to publish this update is not an attempt to interfere with the investigation or the court process.
It is, he said, an effort to document what has happened from his perspective and to make the chronology public.
The Waterbury Times will continue to document the case
The Waterbury Times has previously reported on Livingston’s experience with the online material and the concerns surrounding fabricated or AI-generated content.
The broader issue extends beyond one individual.
As artificial intelligence makes it increasingly easy to manufacture realistic-looking statements, images, audio and other material, distinguishing authentic information from fabricated content has become a growing challenge for individuals, journalists, law enforcement and the public.
In this case, Livingston says the central question is straightforward: What happens when fabricated material reported as cyberbullying later becomes the basis of a criminal investigation involving the person who reported it?
That question will now move into the criminal justice system.
The Waterbury Times will update this story as additional information becomes available, including the specific allegations contained in the warrant and any subsequent court proceedings.
This story will be updated as the legal process continues.
***Original Reporting***
The Waterbury Times|July 6th 2026
Waterbury- Cyberbullying is often dismissed as “just words on the internet.”
It is not.
For the person being targeted, those words can become a constant presence — a shadow that follows them into their home, their workplace, and their private moments. Unlike traditional bullying, digital harassment does not end when the school bell rings or when someone walks away from a playground. It can continue 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Today, I am experiencing that reality firsthand.
Update SEPT 7, 2026
UPDATE: Waterbury Times Publisher Responds After Police Visit Over Disputed Audio Recordings
Updated Sept 6, 2026 – 10:15am
WATERBURY — Two months after The Waterbury Times first reported that its publisher, DM Livingston, had become the subject of an online harassment campaign involving disputed audio recordings, the matter has taken a new turn.
On Sunday, police came to Livingston’s residence to ask questions about recordings that have been circulating and that, according to Livingston, have been attributed to him.
Livingston says he did not make, create or distribute recordings threatening to murder or kill anyone.
That distinction is important.
In July, The Waterbury Times published a report about an escalating online dispute involving Livingston and recordings of statements he made during a period he has publicly described as a manic episode associated with bipolar I disorder in an attempt to get the Cyberbullying to stop.
Livingston has previously acknowledged making statements he regrets.
He apologized publicly for those statements via TikTok seen 2,193 times with 150 plus likes.
He has never denied that he was angry or that some of the language he used was inappropriate. What he disputes is the subsequent characterization of recordings circulating about him — particularly recordings that he says have been edited, manipulated or otherwise altered and presented as evidence that he made threats of violence
“I said things I regret. I apologized for those things 2 months ago and I did not create the recordings that are now being attributed to me,” Livingston said.
A police report was filed
Following the original controversy, Livingston contacted police on July 6, 2026 and requested that the allegations involving the recordings be investigated.
He says he subsequently obtained a police report documenting his complaint.
Two months later, however, the issue has resurfaced from the opposite direction.
According to Livingston, a person who heard the recordings contacted authorities, and police came to his residence Sunday morning to ask him about the allegations.
Livingston cooperated with the officers.
As of Sunday evening, Livingston said he has not been arrested or charged in connection with the alleged threats.
The Waterbury Times is publishing this update because the allegations directly concern its publisher and because the dispute has now resulted in police involvement.
What Livingston acknowledges
Livingston does not claim that everything said during the original dispute was acceptable.
It was not.
He has acknowledged that he was angry, that he made statements he regrets and that he subsequently apologized.
He has also been open about the fact that he was experiencing a period of serious mental-health instability at the time.
But an apology for words that were actually spoken is not an admission to words that were not spoken.
And Livingston maintains that there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging an angry conversation and accepting responsibility for content that he says he never made.
What remains disputed
The central question is not whether Livingston said things he regrets.
He did.
The disputed question is whether the recordings now being circulated accurately represent what he said and whether he created or distributed any recording threatening another person’s life.
Livingston categorically denies doing so.
He also disputes the authenticity and context of recordings that have been used to portray him as making threats of murder.
Why this update is being published
There is another reason for putting this account on the record.
When allegations circulate online, the first version of a story can become the permanent version of the story — even when important facts emerge later.
This article is intended to establish a contemporaneous record of Livingston’s position and the sequence of events as he understands them.
It is a statement of what Livingston acknowledges, what he denies and what has happened since the original July report.
The Waterbury Times will correct this article if verifiable facts establish that any portion of this account is inaccurate.
Until then, Livingston’s position is straightforward:
He accepts responsibility for allowing hisself to entrapped by a Cyberbully who has made the content which has now sparked 2 Waterbury Police investigations. He does not accept responsibility for content he says he never made and recordings he says he did not create
The matter remains unresolved.
And for that reason, the evidence — including the original recordings, complete recordings rather than edited excerpts, metadata where available, and any relevant police records — matters more than what people are saying about the recordings online.
Original Article Continues- from July 6, 2026
As the founder and publisher of The Waterbury Times, my profession is built on informing the public, telling stories, holding conversations, and creating a platform for the community. But with that visibility has come a new challenge: targeted online harassment designed to damage credibility, attack reputation, and create a false narrative about my work.
Multiple fake social media pages have been created using my name and identity. An anti-Waterbury Times page has been established with content intended to undermine the legitimacy of this publication. Artificial intelligence-generated images have been used in attempts to portray me in ways that are misleading and harmful.
This is not simply criticism.
Criticism is part of journalism. A journalist must be able to accept disagreement, scrutiny, and debate.
But there is a difference between disagreement and a coordinated effort to impersonate, deceive, and psychologically wear someone down.
That difference matters.
The AI Era Has Changed Cyberbullying Forever
For years, cyberbullying involved hurtful messages, rumors, fake accounts, and harassment. Today, technology has introduced a new weapon: artificial intelligence.
AI can create realistic images, fake conversations, and manipulated content in seconds. The average person may not immediately know what is real and what is fabricated.
This creates a dangerous environment where someone’s reputation can be attacked before the truth has a chance to catch up.
For adults with resources, experience, and a public voice, fighting back is difficult.
For children, it can feel impossible.
If This Can Happen To Me, Imagine What Happens To A Child
I am an adult. I run a media company. I have a platform. I have the ability to speak publicly about what is happening.
But what about the teenager who wakes up and discovers classmates have created fake accounts about them?
What about the child who sees an AI-generated image of themselves circulating online?
What about the young person who does not know who to tell, who feels embarrassed, isolated, or afraid?
Many children internalize cyberbullying. They believe the attacks define them. They feel trapped because the internet never forgets.
That is the part of cyberbullying society must understand: the damage is not only digital.
It is emotional.
It is psychological.
It is human.
We Need A Serious Conversation About Digital Responsibility
The internet has given communities incredible opportunities. It allows people to share information, build businesses, organize movements, and tell stories that once would never have been heard.
But with that power comes responsibility.
Creating fake identities, impersonating people, and using technology to intentionally harm others should not be normalized as “drama” or “internet culture.”
It has real consequences.
Schools, parents, businesses, lawmakers, and technology companies must continue addressing how we protect people in a world where anyone can become a target.
Why I Am Speaking Out
I am speaking about this not because I want sympathy.
I am speaking about this because I know there are countless people — especially young people — experiencing something similar who feel they have no voice.
My own struggle has reminded me of an important lesson:
A person can look strong publicly and still be fighting battles privately.
That is why conversations about mental health and cyberbullying matter.
The person behind the screen is still a person.
The person being attacked is still someone’s child, someone’s parent, someone’s friend, someone who deserves dignity.
Technology should be used to connect humanity — not destroy it.
A Request To Stop — And The Decision To Escalate
Before taking further action, an attempt was made to resolve this matter directly.
The individuals and accounts involved were contacted and asked to cease and desist from activities involving the creation of misleading content, impersonation, harassment, and actions intended to damage the reputation of D.M. Livingston and The Waterbury Times.
That request was not honored.
After the continued activity, the matter was brought to the attention of the Waterbury Police Department, where an official report was filed. A police report number has been documented as part of the ongoing record of this incident.
The purpose of involving law enforcement was not to silence criticism or prevent public disagreement. Journalism requires accountability, and public figures — including journalists — must be open to scrutiny.
However, there is a clear distinction between criticism and targeted harassment, impersonation, and attempts to intentionally mislead the public.
The Waterbury Times will continue to document this matter. If additional harassment, impersonation, or attempts to interfere with the operations and reputation of this publication continue, further steps will be considered, including continued cooperation with law enforcement and the appropriate authorities.
This situation also serves as a reminder that online actions have real-world consequences. Behind every account, every post, and every image is a person — and digital spaces must be treated with the same responsibility and accountability expected in the real world.
Leave a Reply