Reply With Quote
lol SA210 working hard, monitoring every thread, looking for legal help.
I think they'll be most concerned with those posters who have made a living doing it for the longest time.
Maybe those posters with real high post counts of practically nothing but defamation?
Isn't it a shame?
Now you're going to have to turn into Chump-the-nice-guy, that should ruin your whole troll schtick tbh.
lol SA210 working hard, monitoring every thread, looking for legal help.
I don't think any of us have a legal ground to stand on, including you and I.
Sounds like you are trying to make a case against SBM and SA210.
Maybe you should calling yourself "counselor", not me.
But I sincerely doubt what they did is any worse than what you've done when you get right down to it.
You can argue your point all you want but it is trivialities tbh.
That's like asking if you'll get a worse ticket for speeding while drinking as you will just for drinking while driving.
No matter how you slice it you still go to jail.
I told them all about this when they started posting the name and picture of the guy they stalked, but they took it further and claimed he was a pedophile what has to be hundreds of times.
It simply meets all the criteria on this end. All that's needed from the person in the picture is proof of damage, which could take one of more forms.
Not really because they say it is you.
How about when you made so much fun of SBM when his bands pic was posted?
That sounds like the same thing to me.
How about that, counselor?
Describe how I made fun of his picture. Be specific in your accusation, counselor.How about when you made so much fun of SBM when his bands pic was posted?
That sounds like the same thing to me.
How about that, counselor?
I supported the removal of his picture.
I'm glad you supported the removal.
And I didn't read your posts about him, I just heard hearsay.
But here is something you all should think about before making wild defamatory statements in the future especially with respect to sites like ST:
http://www.infotoday.com/OnlineSearc...og-89349.shtml
Which says:
"I’m sure everyone’s mother, like mine, at some point paraphrased Bambi’s advice to Thumper and said, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” No doubt this is sound advice when you are 12, but as an adult and an information professional, it takes on a whole new meaning. Where does saying things that aren’t all that nice intersect with freedom of speech?
Those who blog, tweet, and otherwise comment on critical issues affecting their work and workplace communities do so to offer constructive criticism. You have opinions, and potentially concerns, about issues that you want to share with others who might be dealing with similar issues. Sometimes as part of those commentaries, you can’t restrict yourself to remaining “nice” in order to communicate your thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives about the practices or actions of others. But then you run the risk of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)."
And for Blake and Chump who are the anonymity issue, you had best take notice of what has happened in Philadelphia recently.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-update.shtml
Basically it says: "Anonymous commenters are often held up as examples of the worst aspects of the internet. It's an enabler of abhorrent behavior, as the lack of identification allows people to make statements without suffering consequences. Of course, this isn't the only "benefit" of anonymity, but it's the one that gets the most press, so to speak.
A new website has just been ordered to turn over information on an anonymous commenter who's currently the target of a defamation lawsuit.
A Philadelphia judge has ordered the owners of Philly.com - who also own The Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News - to disclose the iden y of a person who posted a comment online.
The ruling came in a defamation suit filed by John J. Dougherty, the powerful head of Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
In October 2012, Dougherty sued over a comment posted two months earlier on a Daily News blog that described a public feud involving Dougherty. The comment identified Dougherty by his well-known nickname, "Johnny Doc," and called him "the pedophile."
Dougherty sued the anonymous poster, and his lawyers subpoenaed Philadelphia Media Network, Philly.com's parent company, to supply the person's iden y. Right or wrong, Philly.com did at least put up a fight. It turned down Dougherty's subpoena, stating it would only reveal the commenter's information with a court order. The order itself is fairly expansive, not only asking for identifying info, but also for all comments posted by "fbpdplt" from August 2012 thru January 2014. (Apparently, only one comment is currently being referred to as defamatory.)
So if I were you two, and your buds who call people pedo and got, I would censor what I say from now on because your days being anonymous are over once they decide to arrest you.
Last edited by xmas1997; 04-28-2014 at 11:19 PM.
What about when they decide to arrest you?And for Blake and Chump who are the anonymity issue, you had best take notice of what has happened in Philadelphia recently.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-update.shtml
Basically it says: "Anonymous commenters are often held up as examples of the worst aspects of the internet. It's an enabler of abhorrent behavior, as the lack of identification allows people to make statements without suffering consequences. Of course, this isn't the only "benefit" of anonymity, but it's the one that gets the most press, so to speak.
A new website has just been ordered to turn over information on an anonymous commenter who's currently the target of a defamation lawsuit.
A Philadelphia judge has ordered the owners of Philly.com - who also own The Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News - to disclose the iden y of a person who posted a comment online.
The ruling came in a defamation suit filed by John J. Dougherty, the powerful head of Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
In October 2012, Dougherty sued over a comment posted two months earlier on a Daily News blog that described a public feud involving Dougherty. The comment identified Dougherty by his well-known nickname, "Johnny Doc," and called him "the pedophile."
Dougherty sued the anonymous poster, and his lawyers subpoenaed Philadelphia Media Network, Philly.com's parent company, to supply the person's iden y. Right or wrong, Philly.com did at least put up a fight. It turned down Dougherty's subpoena, stating it would only reveal the commenter's information with a court order. The order itself is fairly expansive, not only asking for identifying info, but also for all comments posted by "fbpdplt" from August 2012 thru January 2014. (Apparently, only one comment is currently being referred to as defamatory.)
So if I were you two, and your buds who call people pedo and got, I would censor what I say from now on because your days being anonymous are over once they decide to arrest you.
In this case everyone knew the iden y of the defamed person, so your precedent only applies to sa210 and sbm.
Once again.
They indeed could be in serious trouble.
Thanks for pointing that out to them.
Just pointing it out to everyone, no exceptions.
And it was an anonymous poster, so your contention that because of your anonymity you cannot be prosecuted is wrong.
That was not my contention at all, counselor.
Read it again and see if you get it.
Then are you claiming that an anonymous poster cannot be defamed?
Honestly, the Avante bullying should come to a stop. I played a part in it too, but I didn't know Avante was actually being serious with his furious replies. The fact that he doesn't know that he is being trolled makes it all the more wrong.
Also Avante, you don't need to respond to everything someone says...its meant to bait you and you fall for it. Its an internet message board, you're not supposed to give a about what a certain poster says here and there. The moment you stop, all this other nonsense will too.
Good day fellas.
Except that Avante thinks he's doing the bullying.
He even thinks he's initiating it.
Are you?
Well apparently an anonymous poster can defame an anonymous poster after all, and these days anonymity is practically non existent as well.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/about...d-libel-2.html
I guess are numbered on here Chump, you'll be sharing a cell with your bosom buddy Blake.
You can compare uniforms to kill the boredom.
You can visit them when you visit SBM and SA210!Well apparently an anonymous poster can defame an anonymous poster after all, and these days anonymity is practically non existent as well.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/about...d-libel-2.html
I guess are numbered on here Chump, you'll be sharing a cell with your bosom buddy Blake.
You can compare uniforms to kill the boredom.
Wow, it's like I've said many times, sometimes you come up with the most apropos things to comment about, even if they do on occasion make me look the fool, I still have to laugh, even if at myself.
If you're correct then I'll be seeing you in the cell next doorWell apparently an anonymous poster can defame an anonymous poster after all, and these days anonymity is practically non existent as well.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/about...d-libel-2.html
I guess are numbered on here Chump, you'll be sharing a cell with your bosom buddy Blake.
You can compare uniforms to kill the boredom.
Maybe, maybe not.
Most likely not fbh.
You're wrong, so no, neither of us are going to jail.Maybe, maybe not.
Most likely not fbh.
But if I was, you'd be there too.
Would I?
I sincerely doubt that.
You are talking out your ass again which you are really good at doing, and it beats thinking which you are terrible at tbh.
no, according you your Ivy League legal theory, you would be going to prison too.Would I?
I sincerely doubt that.
You are talking out your ass again which you are really good at doing, and it beats thinking which you are terrible at tbh.
But now you say your Ivy League legal theory is just jokes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions