I have just found out that my life is to be broadcast on the web....

[OjosMojo]

just show him this. it'll break his little heart.

Top 10 Freest Countries

1. Hong Kong

Too friggin' funny...

1. Hong Kong isn't a country;

2. Hong Kong is a territory of the Communist Peoples Republic of China, which is totally under the complete tyrannical boot of the Communist Party of China;

3. Which was draconianly demonstrated recently by the Communists' outright forceful suppression - not simply oppression - of "freedom" and "democracy" in Hong Kong, it's Communist-ruled territory.

 

[OjosMojo]

This is just arrant nonsense.

Understandable.

You're a modern limey: you natively believe free speech is simply what an agreeable socialist mob deems it to be (compared to your ancestors who obediently left free speech fully up to a monarch to forcibly deem).

You, limey dog, are why, in very large part, so many individual liberty-revering Americans love them some weapons, their constitutional right to bear arms, so much: they have no desire at all to waste any time debating "free speech" as you or your preferred mob deem it - they'd just rather shoot you.

 

[pensivepoet]

You actually give a flying fuck what anybody says about you anywhere on the net?
You need to get laid, get drunk~or both.
That's the only shit that matters.

 

[pointless]

Too friggin' funny...

1. Hong Kong isn't a country;

2. Hong Kong is a territory of the Communist Peoples Republic of China, which is totally under the complete tyrannical boot of the Communist Party of China;

3. Which was draconianly demonstrated recently by the Communists' outright forceful suppression - not simply oppression - of "freedom" and "democracy" in Hong Kong, it's Communist-ruled territory.

yeah, those libertarians don't know shit, do they?

 

[Sean]

Understandable.

You're a modern limey: you natively believe free speech is simply what an agreeable socialist mob deems it to be (compared to your ancestors who obediently left free speech fully up to a monarch to forcibly deem).

You, limey dog, are why, in very large part, so many individual liberty-revering Americans love them some weapons, their constitutional right to bear arms, so much: they have no desire at all to waste any time debating "free speech" as you or your preferred mob deem it - they'd just rather shoot you.

You live in a country where you can be jailed for not mowing your fucking lawn, for Christ's sake. And it's a federal offence to unlock a cell phone. Freedumb! 'Merica!

 

[Lord Pmann]

Just because suing is a pain in the arse and not worth the effort doesn't mean the law isn't there.

Actually, it does, in the case of public figures. I know it's hard to accept, but you are wrong. There is a public figure exception. You can print untrue things, as long as the intent cannot be proven as malicious.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice".

 

[Sean]

Actually, it does, in the case of public figures. I know it's hard to accept, but you are wrong. There is a public figure exception. You can print untrue things, as long as the intent cannot be proven as malicious.

Can public figures sue for libel? Simple question, yes or no?

 

[warrior queen]

Until he mentions you specifically by name, I doubt a lawyer could do anything. The longer he posts stuff the better chance of him hanging himself, if I was you I'd egg him on in some nonchalant way lol.

Tbh, I am far more concerned that what he writes will be hurtfull to our children.
He has hurt them quite a bit already, and putting up information about me that is totally untrue will be yet another damaging thing to them.
They are already upset that he keeps linking his rants to them.......and then complains about how they don't keep in touch with him.....

But I am also concerned that what he may write about me could end up in some way damaging my life - job, etc. - even though it may not be true.

So far, if I search the net with my real name, nothing comes up except an email address.
I kinda want to keep it that way.

 

[doctor_insanus]

You live in a country where you can be jailed for not mowing your fucking lawn, for Christ's sake. And it's a federal offence to unlock a cell phone. Freedumb! 'Merica!

As long as the jackboots keep the proper "undesirables" under control, it will preserve the illusion.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Maybe he'll refer to this thread:

Anal with 9 inches.

 

[doowdniw]

You live in a country where you can be jailed for not mowing your fucking lawn, for Christ's sake.

I've got to know where you pulled that one from. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I don't know. The local city has the authority by city ordinance to charge for mowing costs if one fails to keep grass and weeds below 12 inches. I'm not sure about the throwing in jail bit. Cite?

 

[OjosMojo]

yeah, those libertarians don't know shit, do they?

I rather say, in this case, it's you, actually.

You live in a country where you can be jailed for not mowing your fucking lawn, for Christ's sake.

I live amid the prevalent nature of the Chihuahuan Desert, on barren, isolated land once deemed possession of either the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Republic of Texas, or the USSA, in a county of almost 7k sq miles and not even 10K people, a locale, indeed, where even the most able of history's most outright American conquerors - the Comanche - could never exist for any practical period of time, let alone succeed.

"mowing your fucking lawn" is, then, only a biased and bigoted limey issue - obviously.

 

[pointless]

I rather say, in this case, it's you, actually.



I live amid the prevalent nature of the Chihuahuan Desert, on barren, isolated land once deemed possession of either the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Republic of Texas, or the USSA, in a county of almost 7k sq miles and not even 10K people, a locale, indeed, where even the most able of history's most outright American conquerors - the Comanche - could never exist for any practical period of time, let alone succeed.

"mowing your fucking lawn" is, then, only a biased and bigoted limey issue - obviously.

oh, you're right. i'm sorry. i'll correct.

yeah, you don't know shit, do you?

yep. that works much better. thanks, man. really appreciate the help.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Can public figures sue for libel? Simple question, yes or no?

Yes. Anyone can sue for practically anything. They will not win, however. Public figures will not win even if it is libel unless they prove malicious intent.

Your question is irrelevant to your misinformed statement that you made earlier:

"Libel has never been protected speech"

It has been protected speech, regarding public figures. Libel is protected as free speech against public figures, as long as it is not malicious.

Again, I realize it's incredibly hard to admit you are wrong, especially from a colonial. However, he we are.

I presume you asked a simple "yes or no" to try to trap me into something. It's a poor argument tactic used by people who have poor reasoning abilities. Similar to this...

Yes or No response only, please: Do you enjoy beating your wife?

 

[Sean]

I've got to know where you pulled that one from. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I don't know. The local city has the authority by city ordinance to charge for mowing costs if one fails to keep grass and weeds below 12 inches. I'm not sure about the throwing in jail bit. Cite?

First one off Google, there are a shedload more:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/woman-goes-to-jail-for-not-mowing-lawn-182126275.html

 

[Aella_]

Ironic that a Brit would mention "mowing the lawn".
But then, we're talking about Sean.

 

[Sean]

Yes. Anyone can sue for practically anything. They will not win, however. Public figures will not win even if it is libel unless they prove malicious intent.

Your question is irrelevant to your misinformed statement that you made earlier:

"Libel has never been protected speech"

It has been protected speech, regarding public figures. Libel is protected as free speech against public figures, as long as it is not malicious.

Again, I realize it's incredibly hard to admit you are wrong, especially from a colonial. However, he we are.

I presume you asked a simple "yes or no" to try to trap me into something. It's a poor argument tactic used by people who have poor reasoning abilities. Similar to this...

Yes or No response only, please: Do you enjoy beating your wife?

If you can sue under libel laws for something someone prints, then libel is not protected speech. It's that fucking simple. You seem to love arguing about stuff that you don't understand and seem incapable of learning.

 

[warrior queen]

Maybe he'll refer to this thread:

Anal with 9 inches.

We had already been apart for quite some years by then!
And as it's true, I would have no problem with that becoming public knowledge
Most of my friends know about this site and quite a few lurk....

My kids aren't upset that I have a sex life...... in fact, my two oldest keep trying to get me to go on dates because (in their words) "you need to get laid, Mum!"

 

[OjosMojo]

oh, you're right. i'm sorry. i'll correct.

yeah, you don't know shit, do you?

yep. that works much better. thanks, man. really appreciate the help.

You actually play Sean's disingenuously effeminate game almost as well as he does.

Why don't you share with us, then, how Hong Kong - which isn't a country, and which cannot choose their own political candidates without the Communist Party of China slating them first for them, and after its Communist-allowed government forcibly suppressed the latest efforts of individual liberty-loving citizens to simply and freely and democratically choose their own leader - could possibly be the freest country in the world according to anyone but some wannabe's poll?

 

[OjosMojo]

We had already been apart for quite some years by then!
And as it's true, I would have no problem with that becoming public knowledge
Most of my friends know about this site and quite a few lurk....

My kids aren't upset that I have a sex life...... in fact, my two oldest keep trying to get me to go on dates because (in their words) "you need to get laid, Mum!"

They should treat you to a night at the zoo.

 

[pointless]

you are aware that i am not the living avatar of the cato institute, right?

 

[pensivepoet]

Maybe he'll refer to this thread:

Anal with 9 inches.

No, please don't drag me into this.
I swear it was just the one night

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If you can sue under libel laws for something someone prints, then libel is not protected speech. It's that fucking simple. You seem to love arguing about stuff that you don't understand and seem incapable of learning.

Either accurately and comprehensively research AMERICAN law or shut the fuck up. Pmann is trying to tell you that there is a SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL DISTINCTION under United States libel law for PUBLIC FIGURES versus private individuals NOT in the public eye. He is correct and you are flat ass wrong. He even accurately quoted you the current Supreme Court precedent for fuck sakes.

Look it up, damnit!

 

[Miasorrow]

Sorry to hear WQ...sounds like a loser


*coffee spew* fuck me - it's the only thing that keeps the GB going

It's not hate that keeps the GB going. It's called loneliness.

And opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink.

 

[Sean]

Either accurately and comprehensively research AMERICAN law or shut the fuck up. Pmann is trying to tell you that there is a SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL DISTINCTION under United States libel law for PUBLIC FIGURES versus private individuals NOT in the public eye. He is correct and you are flat ass wrong. He even accurately quoted you the current Supreme Court precedent for fuck sakes.

Look it up, damnit!

The distinction is immaterial to the argument. If the public figure can prove malice, then the speech is not protected. You can quibble about the actual definition about what is or is not libel, but you can't argue that libel is protected speech.