 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Chat. |
| User | Post |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1471/1697 |
Sounds like it wasn't a fair trial to me.  |
| beneficii Posts: 269/310 |
I don't know. It looks like the defendant never had a chance to defend herself. She didn't have any money and couldn't hire a lawyer. By the time she can hire a lawyer, it will be too late to appeal and so she's probably going to be paying a substantial amount of money out of each of her paychecks to pay these damages for the rest of her life. Seems pretty harsh for a fricking Internet post. |
| ||bass Posts: 508/594 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#United_States_law |
| Sin Dogan Posts: 743/861 |
This is hardly the kind of abuse that Scheff claims it is. Bock posted negative remarks about Scheff probably because I don't know, she was really concerned for her children? How many parents do you know that get overly defensive of their children and criticize those who don't help them with every fiber of their being? I mean clearly Scheff cared more about gaining something from those comments made from Bock than to actually help her out in getting back her children. If Scheff didn't want the attention and money so badly she would just leave things be. If Bock really wanted to ruin Scheff I think she might have gone through a more prominent or professional mode of telling people. I checked the forum (fornits), and it has only around 200,000 posts total. And it was formed in 2001!(seemingly no crashes or anything-- there are users registered from 2001 on there) |
| Rom Manic Posts: 382/557 |
Blogosphere beware: You may be next in line for a LAWSUIT!
O NOES WAT HAPPENED TO MY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?! |
| Emptyeye Posts: 742/869 |
Did any of you actually bother to read the article?
This was not merely "flaming"; indeed, as I read the story, calling the woman a "crook" and a "fraud" would be the very definition of slander. Am I saying she should've been awarded 11 million dollars for it? No. But I'm hardly surprised the court found in her favor. This wasn't like the defendant said "lol u suxxx moron". Flaming may or may not be illegal; knowingly posting lies in an attempt to ruin someone, however,is most definitely illegal. |
| DarkSlaya Posts: 830/936 |
I'm not ever going back to the US.
Btw, that woman is just the kind of people that really suck, are bitchy, should really die. "Ono, people on the internet hurt my feelings, let's sue for 11M." I've always been against sueing for that ridiculous ammounts of money for such a thing. (unless said things made you lose that amount of money, then I'd say it's fine, as compensation) Btw, did I state she should die. I think I didn't. SHE SHOULD DIE. (sorry about that, but I really can't stand it) |
| Guy Perfect Posts: 370/451 |
Something as subjective as the definition of "fool" would be one of those things you'd need a clever lawyer to make work in your favor. |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1467/1697 |
Err... actually it does. 
Until it's a lie, it isn't illegal. |
| Guy Perfect Posts: 368/451 |
Hey, 'moron' is a sensitive word around here. It's like 'terrorist' or 'anthrax.' Or to a lesser extent, 'west nile.' Simply not something to be joking about. I bet someone just committed suicide simply by reading our little conversation, here. How does it feel to have that one on your shoulders? Such crude and unthoughtful statements can have ramifications far beyond anything you may have considered.
Okay, so that sceario is entirely unlikely... But the fact of the matter is, something damaging to a person's sense of well-being or reputation are things that have been losing legal battles ever since Judge Judy was invented. Freedom of speech lets you say things like "I hate when black people complain about their supposed ancestors being enslaved." Freedom of speech does not let you say things like "You, a specific person who is also black, are a fool for thinking you should recieve retribution for your ancestrial work force." |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1466/1697 |
Wow, that was SO UNEXPECTED! I mean, you totally caught me off guard with that comment! It was funny too!
I'm dead serious though, you don't seem to understand that flaming isn't against the law. I can go up to anyone in the world and call them a moron and no one can do a thing about it, you know why? Freedom of speech does protect that. I can say black people like to eat watermelon, even if people think that's a bad thing, no one can stop me. The KKK can have it's ralies and I can say shit if I want to. Now if I said you were gay and had gay sex with some other gay guy, and that was harmful to you and flat out wrong as in, it isn't an opinion, then you could sue me. Learn2law. And btw, I can spend 10 minutes and get 50mill from those damnable felonies! :o |
| Guy Perfect Posts: 367/451 |
You just cost yourself 11.4 mills bills, Prinny. I'm going for the world record. Say hello to the prosecuting end of this lawsuit. (-: |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1464/1697 |
Wow... You're a moron. |
| Guy Perfect Posts: 366/451 |
Originally posted by Racer Xeo You can read over it as many times as you want. The first amendment will not entitle you to be disrespectful to a fellow citizen. Like many things, I'm against the general idea of the government taking control of what we are allowed to do. However, I have no objections to them cracking down on things we're already not allowed to do. Flaming people is illegal (hear that, oh Forum Communities of Earth), and I'm not worried that the government is doing something about it. |
| Xeo Belmont Posts: 440/1016 |
Where art thou First Amendment. |
| asdf Posts: 3553/4077 |
Of course it could be considered illegal. The problem is, most just brush it off, flame back, continue trolling or ignore it. Very few take it so seriously, and when someone does so, it makes them look like a dick. Especially in this case, given the position of the one being sued.  |
| Guy Perfect Posts: 365/451 |
In the United States and many other countries, public slander has been illegal for decades. I see no reason why the internet would be exempt from this law. |
| rubixcuber Posts: 186/356 |
Next person who flames or intults me or says something stupid in my presence is getting sued! Muahahahahah!
People should be able to post on the internet without worrying about being sued for $11.3M. This had better not become a trend. |
| HyperHacker Posts: 3704/5072 |
 |
| Ailure Posts: 1983/2602 |
Maybe if they started to spread lies about her, I might understand this.
But for flaming? Which is the internet equilant of shouting at someone? wow. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
