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

[great lover]

My ex (father of two of my kids) has made a website and is planning to put details of our relationship on there.
Never mind that it will be all one-sided, and that he will paint his affair with rose....

I don't want my personal and private life out there!

Anyone faced this?
What did you do to stop it, or at least make it a more truthfull account?

I call bullshit!

 

[warrior queen]

I call bullshit!

Go ahead..... I was after info if this sort of thing had happened to anyone else.
As it appears it hasn't, I guess my only option is to wait till Monday and get some legal advice.

He can write whatever he wants, but if it harms either me or the kids I need to know what can be done.
Like I said - judging by what has already been put up, most of it will be false.

 

[great lover]

Go ahead..... I was after info if this sort of thing had happened to anyone else.
As it appears it hasn't, I guess my only option is to wait till Monday and get some legal advice.

He can write whatever he wants, but if it harms either me or the kids I need to know what can be done.
Like I said - judging by what has already been put up, most of it will be false.

Just double dog dare him. I bet all the donuts in my house, he won't do it.

 

[Lord Pmann]

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.

I can bring a lawsuit against nearly anyone for nearly anything, you dumb fuck. Whether it goes forward or you win is the issue. The reason you won't win is because they are protected under the public figure clause.

I showed you exactly how libel, in the case of public figures, is protected. Yet, you are too fucking arrogant to admit you're wrong.

 

[warrior queen]

Just double dog dare him. I bet all the donuts in my house, he won't do it.

He's already mentioned me, but not by name yet. What he has said is that there is a lot more he has to write about 'that period' of his life, and everyone should stay tuned.....
He has used names in some of his other writings.
He is basically linking all the things he sees as wrongs done to him by people with various Gov't departments that have been involved. So in all likelihood, my name will come up alongside the Child Support Agency, etc.

When I first read it, it looked like the ramblings of a 'poor me' mind..... but then I saw the really nasty stuff.

 

[Lord Pmann]

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!

Thank god for someone who can actually understand the fucking law. I'm amazed at this dumb motherfucker's stupidity at times. He's clearly an intelligent guy, but he's an idiot beyond measure. And possibly the most arrogant fucker I've ever heard in my life. He makes me think of one of those mother's basement dwelling computer programmers who has a high IQ and thinks he's king shit because of it. Yet, he's a complete idiot when it comes to simple logic and comprehension.

As I said, I don't doubt he's intelligent. But he's fucking useless beyond compare.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Go ahead..... I was after info if this sort of thing had happened to anyone else.
As it appears it hasn't, I guess my only option is to wait till Monday and get some legal advice.

He can write whatever he wants, but if it harms either me or the kids I need to know what can be done.
Like I said - judging by what has already been put up, most of it will be false.

Actually weighing in on the issue... I think you'll have a very hard time recovering any damages or getting it squashed. If I recall, you're in two separate countries. You've already got a hard battle to fight. Separating it by an ocean... Man, I can only imagine how tough that would be.

Best of luck with it, because it sounds like you've got a hard battle.

 

[doowdniw]

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

That does seem a bit excessive. I suppose the alternative would be to cut the weeds for her, put a statutory lien on the property for the services provided by the city, foreclose the lien and sell the property, and put her and her family at the curb. On second thought, maybe the night in jail wasn't so bad after all.

 

[Sean]

I can bring a lawsuit against nearly anyone for nearly anything, you dumb fuck. Whether it goes forward or you win is the issue. The reason you won't win is because they are protected under the public figure clause.

I showed you exactly how libel, in the case of public figures, is protected. Yet, you are too fucking arrogant to admit you're wrong.

http://www.hollywood.com/tv/david-schwimmer-wins-defamation-suit-57182569/

 

[Lord Pmann]

http://www.hollywood.com/tv/david-schwimmer-wins-defamation-suit-57182569/

Are you just a fucking idiot or can you not read?

Shamed charity boss Aaron Tonken claimed the actor demanded and received two Rolex watches in return for attending a fundraising event.

As I said earlier, it boils down to whether it's malicious or not. This is clearly malicious.

I CLEARLY posted the actual rules. Libel is protected if the person is:

1. A public figure.
2. Unknowingly posts false information.
3. Posts false information without malicious intent.

If you don't think libel is protected speech for public figures, how do you think tabloids exist? They post untrue stuff in every issue and rarely can anyone ever win a suit. Why? Because it's protected.

It's like you can't read and understand a law that's so clearly written. It's not even one of the tougher ones.

 

[Sean]

Thank god for someone who can actually understand the fucking law. I'm amazed at this dumb motherfucker's stupidity at times. He's clearly an intelligent guy, but he's an idiot beyond measure. And possibly the most arrogant fucker I've ever heard in my life. He makes me think of one of those mother's basement dwelling computer programmers who has a high IQ and thinks he's king shit because of it. Yet, he's a complete idiot when it comes to simple logic and comprehension.

As I said, I don't doubt he's intelligent. But he's fucking useless beyond compare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...entura-vs-chris-kyle-a-case-where-no-one-won/

 

[Sean]

Are you just a fucking idiot or can you not read?



As I said earlier, it boils down to whether it's malicious or not. This is clearly malicious.

I CLEARLY posted the actual rules. Libel is protected if the person is:

1. A public figure.
2. Unknowingly posts false information.
3. Posts false information without malicious intent.

If you don't think libel is protected speech for public figures, how do you think tabloids exist? They post untrue stuff in every issue and rarely can anyone ever win a suit. Why? Because it's protected.

It's like you can't read and understand a law that's so clearly written. It's not even one of the tougher ones.

LMAO. It's clearly not protected speech if you can sue and win. Period. You're a moron.

 

[Sean]

Thank god for someone who can actually understand the fucking law. I'm amazed at this dumb motherfucker's stupidity at times. He's clearly an intelligent guy, but he's an idiot beyond measure. And possibly the most arrogant fucker I've ever heard in my life. He makes me think of one of those mother's basement dwelling computer programmers who has a high IQ and thinks he's king shit because of it. Yet, he's a complete idiot when it comes to simple logic and comprehension.

As I said, I don't doubt he's intelligent. But he's fucking useless beyond compare.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/courtney-love-ends-defamation-row-818025

 

[Lord Pmann]

I'll post it again and maybe you can actually try to read it this time:

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".

Libel is protected under the first amendment unless malice is proven. I don't know if you understand how the legal system works. People get sued for saying things all the time and the ruling is that "it's protected under free speech". How is that so hard to understand?

Go back to hooking up your keyboards and mice, something that may be a bit more on your reasoning level.

 

[lovetoread]

Go back to hooking up your keyboards and mice, something that may be a bit more on your reasoning level.

Did you just dis the IT working people here?

Yes I attach such things, once I fucking fix the machine it is hooked up to. How that has anything to do with how smart one is doesn't make any fucking sense.

Unless you think there is a line of work where one does just plug in mice and keyboards?

 

[Lord Pmann]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/courtney-love-ends-defamation-row-818025

Should you just look up what the word malicious means?

Love told her followers how the designer was a drug-pushing, thieving prostitute with a history of assault and battery.

...explaining that Love hadn't demonstrated how her comments about the fashion designer were in the public interest nor presented any socially important implications.

Also, without knowing the fashion designer's popularity, she may not even be a public figure. I suspect she would be, but her public presence would come into play.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Did you just dis the IT working people here?

Yes I attach such things, once I fucking fix the machine it is hooked up to. How that has anything to do with how smart one is doesn't make any fucking sense.

Unless you think there is a line of work where one does just plug in mice and keyboards?

I dissed the fucking idiot trying to argue about law when he clearly knows nothing.

 

[Sean]

I'll post it again and maybe you can actually try to read it this time:



Libel is protected under the first amendment unless malice is proven. I don't know if you understand how the legal system works. People get sued for saying things all the time and the ruling is that "it's protected under free speech". How is that so hard to understand?

Go back to hooking up your keyboards and mice, something that may be a bit more on your reasoning level.

No, libel is not protected under the first amendment. Your own fucking quote says exactly that, you fucking retard.

 

[Sean]

From the conclusion to Justice Brennan's opinion in NYT v Sullivan:

We hold that such a proposition may not constitutionally be utilized to establish that an otherwise impersonal attack on governmental operations was a libel of an official responsible for those operations. Since it was relied on exclusively here, and there was no other evidence to connect the statements with respondent, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a finding that the statements referred to respondent.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So, to explain to the hard of thinking, this wasn't libel.

 

[warrior queen]

Actually weighing in on the issue... I think you'll have a very hard time recovering any damages or getting it squashed. If I recall, you're in two separate countries. You've already got a hard battle to fight. Separating it by an ocean... Man, I can only imagine how tough that would be.

Best of luck with it, because it sounds like you've got a hard battle.

The website was created specifically to highlight various people and govt depts that he feels have done him wrong during his 40-odd years as an Australian citizen - he states this quite clearly and has already named more than a few.
I'm thinking that because he has stated that, I may have grounds IF he uses my name.

 

[butters]

The website was created specifically to highlight various people and govt depts that he feels have done him wrong during his 40-odd years as an Australian citizen - he states this quite clearly and has already named more than a few.
I'm thinking that because he has stated that, I may have grounds IF he uses my name.

if you don't plan on ignoring him, i'd suggest you make no comments on there but take screen shots if your name appears because he sounds like a total fruitloop. if he starts going after these people in a physical way, you have some sort of evidence. seems highly unlikely, though, as he's in another country.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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.

You're the one who's quibbling about definitions. A few hours ago you said "If you can sue under libel laws for something someone prints, then libel is not protected speech. It's that fucking simple." And you made that statement in direct rebuttal to Pmann's correct linkage with the malice standard to a RECOVERABLE defamation claim under the law.

Of course, the mere ability to file suit is NOT that simple as a standard for recovery, so NOW YOU choose to DEFINE "libel" itself as that which is actionable under law (including the malice standard) rather than the plain language understanding of a false statement that would, if erroneously believed by others, serve to harm the reputation of the subject about whom the statement was made. It was quite obviously this latter context of libel and the circumstances of how the law treats it that Pmann was referring to and attempted to educate you on.

A reasonable person, had he understood the distinction, would have acknowledged Pmann's point but argued that "libel" isn't "protected" by the malice standard as much as the definition of the offense is thereby significantly amended from what had previously been understood AND STILL, IN FACT, APPLIES TO A DIFFERENT SEGMENT OF INDIVIDUALS BASED ENTIRELY ON PUBLIC NOTORIETY.

But you didn't do that. You picked a fight, and then adopted a slimey-ass posture as if the whole malice distinction was one which you actually understood. Which you clearly did not.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'll tell you what I tell my daughters when one of them is pissed someone says something about them on FB or twitter

Stay off the damn net and don't read it.

People who know you will not believe him. People who do not know you? Who gives a shit what they think?

The fact you started this thread gives him a win. Just play the ignorance is bliss game and let him rant. You don't bring it up to him, you don't react, he loses.

 

[Lord Pmann]

You're the one who's quibbling about definitions. A few hours ago you said "If you can sue under libel laws for something someone prints, then libel is not protected speech. It's that fucking simple." And you made that statement in direct rebuttal to Pmann's correct linkage with the malice standard to a RECOVERABLE defamation claim under the law.

Of course, the mere ability to file suit is NOT that simple as a standard for recovery, so NOW YOU choose to DEFINE "libel" itself as that which is actionable under law (including the malice standard) rather than the plain language understanding of a false statement that would, if erroneously believed by others, serve to harm the reputation of the subject about whom the statement was made. It was quite obviously this latter context of libel and the circumstances of how the law treats it that Pmann was referring to and attempted to educate you on.

A reasonable person, had he understood the distinction, would have acknowledged Pmann's point but argued that "libel" isn't "protected" by the malice standard as much as the definition of the offense is thereby significantly amended from what had previously been understood AND STILL, IN FACT, APPLIES TO A DIFFERENT SEGMENT OF INDIVIDUALS BASED ENTIRELY ON PUBLIC NOTORIETY.

But you didn't do that. You picked a fight, and then adopted a slimey-ass posture as if the whole malice distinction was one which you actually understood. Which you clearly did not.

This.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

From the conclusion to Justice Brennan's opinion in NYT v Sullivan:

We hold that such a proposition may not constitutionally be utilized to establish that an otherwise impersonal attack on governmental operations was a libel of an official responsible for those operations. Since it was relied on exclusively here, and there was no other evidence to connect the statements with respondent, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a finding that the statements referred to respondent.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So, to explain to the hard of thinking, this wasn't libel.

I trust you will agree with me that when analyzing matters of Constitutional law as decided by the Supreme Court, it is vital to understand the FULL CONTEXT of the decision in its entirety.

I would submit that in the concluding quote you cited from Justice Brennan's opinion, he called into question whether Sullivan had been adequately identified with sufficient legal specificity to have been libeled. But the issue of adequate identification would not have represented NEW LAW with respect to libel. Adequate specificity of identification HAS ALWAYS been a necessary element of libel law.

But that is quite a different matter as to whether the Sullivan decision itself established a NEW malice-based standard for the libeling of public officials, and it is THIS PRINCIPLE which Pmann and I are arguing that the case adopted for the first time.

So I ask you quite simply. Are we or are we not correct in that belief?

Since you are so fond of "yes or no" answers, this should be an easy one for you.