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

[girlsmiley]

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?

Can you iggy him?

 

[Sean]

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.

That may be what you're arguing, PPman is just a dumbass with the IQ of a radish, what I'm arguing is that libel is not protected speech.

 

[girlsmiley]

A reasonable person, had he understood the distinction, would have acknowledged Pmann's point <snip>
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.

Slimey-ass Sean. Has a nice... ring to it. Lol!

Hi Colonel.

Sup Pmann!

 

[girlsmiley]

That may be what you're arguing, PPman is just a dumbass with the IQ of a radish, what I'm arguing is that libel is not protected speech.

*Facepalm*

 

[warrior queen]

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.

I was completely unaware of it all till yesterday.
I guess I really don't want to find that my job is somehow compromised because of erroneous info on the net.
Up till now I have not reacted at all to any of the horrid things he's done to the kids or myself (other than coming here to vent!).... but if he puts false info using my name on the web, I may not have a choice anymore.

 

[TwinkleStars]

I'd be more worried for the kids then anything else. I hope this doesn't reflect back to them in any way. It would seriously suck if their friends found the site.

 

[snugglestruggle]

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.

This made me laugh

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!

They can warn you, fine you and mow your lawn for you and present a bill but they cannot jail you for that.

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.

Wasn't there a movie called Absence of Malice based on a real case where a Newspaper libeled someone in the public eye? I think Paul Newman & Sally Field were in it.

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.

Can't you block his site in your browser settings? Also there are companies you can hire to scrub traces of you off the web.

*Facepalm*

This ^ was well timed, Hiya Chic a dee

 

[Lord Pmann]

That may be what you're arguing, PPman is just a dumbass with the IQ of a radish, what I'm arguing is that libel is not protected speech.

Except that the court case cited set precedence for it being protected. Your small excerpt of that takes an entire precedent and simplifies it to a level that doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense going forward.

Another question for you: Why aren't tabloids sued more often for printing things that are not true?

I'll even give you the answer. It is because they are protected under the public figure clause.

No matter how many times you try to insult my intelligence, you continue to make yourself look like a fool and as if you're uneducated in the law. I am no expert, but I know enough about business law to speak with knowledge, rather than arguining what I do not know.

I can legally print something untrue and damaging (the very definition of libel) about a public figure, but as long as I didn't do so knowingly or with malicious intent, it is protected under free speech.

Here you go:

History of Defamation and the First Amendment
In the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain defamatory statements were protected by the First Amendment. The case involved a newspaper article that said unflattering things about a public figure, a politician. The Court pointed to "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The Court acknowledged that in public discussions -- especially about public figures like politicians -- mistakes can be made. If those mistakes are "honestly made," the Court said, they should be protected from defamation actions. The court made a rule that public officials could sue for statements made about their public conduct only if the statements were made with "actual malice."

Also, another protected bit of libel is parody and satire. There is another place where you are wrong. It's why SNL or any number of shows get away with saying things that would be considered libelous/slanderous.

So I've given you public figures, parody and satire. Those are all instances where print that would normally be considered libel, is protected. How many examples do you need?

Try going to this website:

www.theonion.com

See thousands and thousands of libelous articles protected by the First Amendment.

At what point will you admit you're wrong?

 

[Sean]

Except that the court case cited set precedence for it being protected.

No, it absolutely did not.

 

[Lord Pmann]

No, it absolutely did not.

Answer this:

How does The Onion get away producing thousands of articles that are libelous, yet they are protected? Please explain that.

 

[Sean]

Answer this:

How does The Onion get away producing thousands of articles that are libelous, yet they are protected? Please explain that.

Because they aren't libellous. That's the entire point, you fucking retard.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Because they aren't libellous. That's the entire point, you fucking retard.

Weren't you the one who was bitching about the mincing of the definition of libel earlier? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Someone given several points on why he is wrong and he is still unable to admit he doesn't know what he is saying.

And, just to prove you are wrong:

The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages.

Read that bolded part. The libel must be considered malicious to get damages. Soooooo, non malicious libel does not constitute grounds for damages.

How many ways must you be proven wrong before you'll tuck your tail between your legs, grab your pitchfork and leave a loser?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That may be what you're arguing, PPman is just a dumbass with the IQ of a radish, what I'm arguing is that libel is not protected speech.

No, I'm pretty certain he and I are both arguing the same thing. And you didn't come remotely close to answering my question.

 

[Sean]

Weren't you the one who was bitching about the mincing of the definition of libel earlier? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Someone given several points on why he is wrong and he is still unable to admit he doesn't know what he is saying.

And, just to prove you are wrong:



Read that bolded part. The libel must be considered malicious to get damages. Soooooo, non malicious libel does not constitute grounds for damages.

How many ways must you be proven wrong before you'll tuck your tail between your legs, grab your pitchfork and leave a loser?

Who's talking about damages?
This is just the same as when you were trying to say that the big bang theory violated Newtonian Mechanics.

 

[Lord Pmann]

No, I'm pretty certain he and I are both arguing the same thing. And you didn't come remotely close to answering my question.

He won't answer it, because to answer it is admitting he is wrong. On top of the public figure exception, I gave him parody and satire. He simply says it's not libel (which it is). He pretends like he understood the concept of these exceptions and tries to hang onto some poorly assumed dignity.

 

[snugglestruggle]

What this thread is missing is Kelso saying "Burn" every time a point is scored.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Who's talking about damages?
This is just the same as when you were trying to say that the big bang theory violated Newtonian Mechanics.

Damages... Learn about tort, for the love of God.

Perhaps you can find a Tort for Fucking Retards book somewhere.

 

[TwinkleStars]

What this thread is missing is Kelso saying "Burn" every time a point is scored.

http://img.pandawhale.com/171777-that-70s-show-kelso-burn-gif-i-Y6om.gif

You're welcome.

 

[Sean]

Weren't you the one who was bitching about the mincing of the definition of libel earlier? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Someone given several points on why he is wrong and he is still unable to admit he doesn't know what he is saying.

And, just to prove you are wrong:



Read that bolded part. The libel must be considered malicious to get damages. Soooooo, non malicious libel does not constitute grounds for damages.

How many ways must you be proven wrong before you'll tuck your tail between your legs, grab your pitchfork and leave a loser?

From Falwel v Flynt:

Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html#sthash.nMph5tbc.dpuf

...
Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. 5 The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html#sthash.nMph5tbc.dpuf

 

[jezzilee]

WarriorQueen I feel very bad for you. I hope that it doesn't cause you too much discomfort. Is it in blog format? Are you able to leave a reply? Perhaps you could refute his misinformation, although that may be exactly what he wants you to do. I don't have a good answer for this.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Because they aren't libellous. That's the entire point, you fucking retard.

Let's try this: If someone is murdered and the killer confesses, but the trial results in a mistrial and the killer goes free, does that mean the victim wasn't murdered? Libel is a civil tort. I don't believe most civil torts are defined by whether or not they result in a favorable judgment for the plaintiff.

Help us out here, Blackstone.

 

[Sean]

Let's try this: If someone is murdered and the killer confesses, but the trial results in a mistrial and the killer goes free, does that mean the victim wasn't murdered? Libel is a civil tort. I don't believe most civil torts are defined by whether or not they result in a favorable judgment for the plaintiff.

Help us out here, Blackstone.

I'm pretty sure murder doesn't come under the law of tort.

And the outcome for the plaintiff in the SCOTUS pretty much DOES define the law, that's kind of the point.

 

[Lord Pmann]

From Falwel v Flynt:

Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html#sthash.nMph5tbc.dpuf

...
Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. 5 The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html#sthash.nMph5tbc.dpuf

Your examples are moot. You say that libel is never protected. You could show me 500 cases where it is not protected. I could show you one where it is and I would be right.

I've given you so many examples of why you are wrong. Accept it.

And quit ignoring Hogan's questions.

 

[Lord Pmann]

I'm pretty sure murder doesn't come under the law of tort.

And the outcome for the plaintiff in the SCOTUS pretty much DOES define the law, that's kind of the point.

This has nothing to do with whether it's criminal or civil. It's a line of reasoning. How can you be so fucking stubborn? How can you not understand simple reasoning? You're smart. But man, you're as thick as a retarded mule.

 

[Lord Pmann]

I'm curious, Sean... I presume you have a law degree to go with that physics degree as well?