Reply With Quote
well sure, it's just my opinion based on your re ed posts on this board.You have no idea, and that is the moot point.
I mean , you don't even know what a "public figure" slander/libel suits means......and worse, you're too lazy to look it up.
And if you had a partial scholarship from both, what would you do?
I had a partial based on grades I made 20 years earlier.
well sure, it's just my opinion based on your re ed posts on this board.You have no idea, and that is the moot point.
I mean , you don't even know what a "public figure" slander/libel suits means......and worse, you're too lazy to look it up.
Now your ass is talking again.
But that is par for your course.
UT because the cost would still be way more to attend Rice.
So how did you get so dumb so fast?I had a partial based on grades I made 20 years earlier.
Oh no, I can easily confirm your definition of "being on Facebook makes you a public figure" is wrong.
It's pretty obvious you know absolutely nil about media law, and even less about life in general even though I give you the benefit of my knowledge about the law in the media.
Or are you going to claim that the internet is not a media en y?
You should have stayed in school and graduated from grade school.
So you are saying that if you post on facebook or any other forum, you do not give up your right of being a private citizen?
I never said simply if are on any site, I said if you yourself actively posts on one.
In that case you are a public figure.
Yeah, this is demonstrably false.
I don't know when you took your Ivy League course, but this just isn't true.
You have any Facebook public figure cases you're referring to, matlock?
No.
Simply no.
You two can't be serious!
Sorry, trolls, but what I stated is fact and you are both very very wrong.
It is what it is.
I cannot help it if both of you are just so totally ignorant that you don't know the law.
What I said is completely true and factaual and whats more cab be verified by any law professor, student, newsman, or attorney at law.
Bask in you ignorance if you want to but don't blame me for telling you the honest indisputable truth of the matter/
Just more blithering idiocies from the two dumbest trolls I've ever seen on here, dumber than two bags of rocks.
Probably more than you know about patent law
Who is a public figure?
Sorry, trolls, but what I stated is fact and you are both very very wrong.
It is what it is.
I cannot help it if both of you are just so totally ignorant that you don't know the law.
What I said is completely true and factaual and whats more cab be verified by any law professor, student, newsman, or attorney at law.
Bask in you ignorance if you want to but don't blame me for telling you the honest indisputable truth of the matter/
Just more blithering idiocies from the two dumbest trolls I've ever seen on here, dumber than two bags of rocks.
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/...ity/defamation
And more examples:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/exam...rivate-figures
Not one mention of "some guy who posted a few pictures of himself on facebook."
In light of this new evidence, would you like to amend your argument, counselor?
more twisted lies!
Once you have been escorted out of the Playboy Mansion, don't try to go back inside.
You just proved my point under your "b" heading.
Since we all posted on this site, as well as entered into public discussions we forfeited our rights to be considered private citizens under the law.
This site may be privately owned, but it is still a public site and a part of the media.
You might try pleading ignorance of the law, but it will get you even less further than doing the same for a speeding ticlet.
And you'll never find an attorney to take your case, muxh less one worth his salt, they will just laugh in faces as I am doing now.
If you don't think someone who posts on facebook or on here or any other public forum is considered a public figure then you are both a whole more stupid than I ever thought you could be.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ugly characters.
You two stupid ignorant idiots just proved what I said all along.
So now you don't understand what "media" means.You just proved my point under your "b" heading.
Since we all posted on this site, as well as entered into public discussions we forfeited our rights to be considered private citizens under the law.
This site may be privately owned, but it is still a public site and a part of the media.
You might try pleading ignorance of the law, but it will get you even less further than doing the same for a speeding ticlet.
And you'll never find an attorney to take your case, muxh less one worth his salt, they will just laugh in faces as I am doing now.
If you don't think someone who posts on facebook or on here or any other public forum is considered a public figure then you are both a whole more stupid than I ever thought you could be.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ugly characters.
You two stupid ignorant idiots just proved what I said all along.
And you aced the media law course you took.
Just when I think you might take a knee and walk out, you throw another interception.
So good.
So then you are saying that the internet is not a media?
What an idiot you are.
lol you have the definition and examples right in front of you, yet you still cling to the belief that a teenager who posts her picture on facebook is a public figure so you can call her a pedophile by name with pictures and you would have no legal ramifications.You just proved my point under your "b" heading.
Since we all posted on this site, as well as entered into public discussions we forfeited our rights to be considered private citizens under the law.
This site may be privately owned, but it is still a public site and a part of the media.
You might try pleading ignorance of the law, but it will get you even less further than doing the same for a speeding ticlet.
And you'll never find an attorney to take your case, muxh less one worth his salt, they will just laugh in faces as I am doing now.
If you don't think someone who posts on facebook or on here or any other public forum is considered a public figure then you are both a whole more stupid than I ever thought you could be.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ugly characters.
You two stupid ignorant idiots just proved what I said all along.
No wonder you are scared to divulge which school you attended.
Dp
Last edited by Blake; 04-28-2014 at 08:34 AM.
There are different types of media on the internet. In this case, this messageboard would be considered social media. Mass media is basically what makes a public figure a public figure.So then you are saying that the internet is not a media?
What an idiot you are.
does many people watching a Tom Cruise movie on the internet make Tom a public figure? Yes.
Does Avante creating a Facebook page on the internet him a public figure? No.
Does that mean that Avante can't take legal action for libel on a messageboard as a private citizen? If he can meet certain criteria, he can absolutely sue for defamation of character.
Would he win his case? My slappy opinion is that he wouldn't stand a chance.
And the best case scenario for him would be that the board owners are forced to remove all pedo references about him and prohibit future references.
Only part of what you say is true. The part I put in bold needs to be questioned. Why did you say no?
Yes, Avante could sue as could Chump, but since they posted on this social "public" media site they would have "very little" recourse under the law.
They would have to spend thousands of dollars to sue which I said was prohibitive at best.
You are wrong that facebook and this public site here IMHO does not make you a public en y because even though it is a social media, it is also a mass media and even more so because it reaches more people than TV or the movies do, it reaches all over the world whereever there is a computer and the internet.
Even so, as a public figure, you would still be able to sue. It is just extremely unlikely you would win your suit, and even if you did win such as when Mel Gibson did, the winnings would be so negligible that it really was not worth it. I explained all this before.
That is why most politicos who are defamed resort to defamation to retaliate, it is easier, quicker, and much much less expensive.
I also explained all this in my posts before. You are saying nothing new that I did not already tell you.
The difference is you claim a facebook post does not make you a public figure, but by the very nature that facebook is a in the public domain then you are wrong.
However, if someone else posts you on one of these sites, and you can prove that you never did, then by law you are still a private en y since it was done either against your will or without your consent and knowledge.
I believe this pretty much covers most of it.
Your statement that posting on a site like this and entering into discussions, or on facebook does not make you a public figure, is interesting and needs to be elaborated on if you can substantiate your argument.
Can you?
You made this part up, didn't you?
If not explain how it does not make you a public figure since even though it is a social media it is also a mass media and therefore a public media.
Sorry counselor, you have provided no support for your contentions. I posted two sites that disprove your contention that putting one picture on facebook makes on a public figure.
You have posted nothing to prove it.
Regardless, one cannot post outright falsehoods about a person whose name and picture are included in the post, especially ones that could damage the reputation or livelihood of the person falsely accused. So when SA210 and SBM stalked a guy, posted his name and picture and labeled him a pedophile several hundred times, they left themselves wide open to legal action -- provided the person named can prove damages of one kind or another.
SBM and SA210 finally read the articles I posted at the time, and they have permanently backed down from ever posting the name of the guy they stalked.
It's hilarious they do pretty much everything I tell them to -- except anything that would make them find out what they really want to know.
lol
Because the legal definition of "public figure" has been definitively set. It's crystal clear what the criteria is.
Starting a Facebook page does not meet the criteria of suddenly making the Facebook page owner a "public figure".
It's realllly simple.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
