Slander, Libel & Privacy 101
Replies
-
Too lawyer-ish is just not possible with me.too lawyer-ish or maybe my words are too big?? lol:ohwell:0 -
Too lawyer-ish is just not possible with me.too lawyer-ish or maybe my words are too big?? lol:ohwell:
Hmmmm....what is too big?!?0 -
God I love Jack.....yum
I had that exact same thought when I rolled down and saw that gif.0 -
^I don't understand what you have against women and gophers.0 -
We shouldnt let the truth get in the way of a good slander or libel!
Im interested in the computer laws (Why on earth pick Tonga, I dont know .. they only have one steam-powered computer
). Im studying Forensic Computing and the UK laws frankly scare the doobies out of me.
So many loopholes! :noway:
Im going back to my mountain in the desert, shaving my head and joining the monastery to grow root vegetables. Its all too much :huh:0 -
Scotland has arguably the toughest "cyber stalking" laws in the world right now. 5 year mandatory prison sentence for using a computer to stalk people. That's fairly hardcore.We shouldnt let the truth get in the way of a good slander or libel!
Im interested in the computer laws (Why on earth pick Tonga, I dont know .. they only have one steam-powered computer ). Im studying Forensic Computing and the UK laws frankly scare the doobies out of me.
So many loopholes! :noway:
Im going back to my mountain in the desert, shaving my head and joining the monastery to grow root vegetables. Its all too much :huh:0 -
-
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
What, precisely, is a Christian name?
As a non-Christian, I only know that I don't have one.0 -
Like a Jewish name, but more Jesus-y.
-
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
What, precisely, is a Christian name?
As a non-Christian, I only know that I don't have one.
I actually hate the term "Christian name," however it's an old-school legal reference.0 -
Like a Jewish name, but more Jesus-y.
-
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
What, precisely, is a Christian name?
As a non-Christian, I only know that I don't have one.
I actually hate the term "Christian name," however it's an old-school legal reference.
Simply means the name they were given at birth. During the time the phrase was coined, in most instances an infant's name was publicly declared at their christening ceremony, which is a Christian tradition. Hence, the term "Christian name". An alternate term, "given name", may be used if you prefer that.0 -
You don't have to Google stuff just to talk to me. You can just say, "I have soooooo missed your awesomeness." It's ok. We all know.
Like a Jewish name, but more Jesus-y.
-
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
What, precisely, is a Christian name?
As a non-Christian, I only know that I don't have one.
I actually hate the term "Christian name," however it's an old-school legal reference.
Simply means the name they were given at birth. During the time the phrase was coined, in most instances an infant's name was publicly declared at their christening ceremony, which is a Christian tradition. Hence, the term "Christian name". An alternate term, "given name", may be used if you prefer that. 0 -
You don't have to Google stuff just to talk to me. You can just say, "I have soooooo missed your awesomeness." It's ok. We all know.
Like a Jewish name, but more Jesus-y.
-
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
What, precisely, is a Christian name?
As a non-Christian, I only know that I don't have one.
I actually hate the term "Christian name," however it's an old-school legal reference.
Simply means the name they were given at birth. During the time the phrase was coined, in most instances an infant's name was publicly declared at their christening ceremony, which is a Christian tradition. Hence, the term "Christian name". An alternate term, "given name", may be used if you prefer that.
If by "missed" you mean I noticed it's been awfully quiet around here lately, then, yes, I missed you. And I didn't Google it. My dad was a Baptist pastor for 13 years, I've grown up in church, and I attended Christian schools growing up, so I know about as much as one possibly can regarding Christian traditions. Although, upon rereading my previous comment, I'll admit the wording sounds awfully Wikipedia-ish. Maybe I should be doing technical writing for a living. 0 -
I wish. That would make my days so much easier.The word on the streets is that he just a paralegal, couldnt pass the bar all the times he tried
I know, right?!! Playing on MFP is so much work, damn it0 -
Ahhh. Shucks. Thanks.yes, I missed you.0 -
And quiet? Clearly you've not been paying attention.0
-
-
Is BlaBla-A's act of copying and pasting BlaBla-B's quotes an act of "libel?"
No. Not even a little. Libel, like slander, is a form of defamation of character. However, unlike slander, libel entails written defamation. Libel is not an issue here for the following two (2) reasons:
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
B. Truth is an absolute defense in any libel case. If it's "true," it's not "libel."
C. "Libel" and "Liable" are NOT the same d@mn thing.
-- Libel = defamation of character
-- Liable = responsibility for an act or action
For the record... A is situationally dependent and B is by no means absolute.0 -
The "truth" is what's known as an "affirmative defense" in any libel case. Coupled with the First Amendment, the "truth" is an absolute defense.
-
Is BlaBla-A's act of copying and pasting BlaBla-B's quotes an act of "libel?"
No. Not even a little. Libel, like slander, is a form of defamation of character. However, unlike slander, libel entails written defamation. Libel is not an issue here for the following two (2) reasons:
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
B. Truth is an absolute defense in any libel case. If it's "true," it's not "libel."
C. "Libel" and "Liable" are NOT the same d@mn thing.
-- Libel = defamation of character
-- Liable = responsibility for an act or action
For the record... A is situationally dependent and B is by no means absolute.
Trust me. 0 -
The "truth" is what's known as an "affirmative defense" in any libel case. Coupled with the First Amendment, the "truth" is an absolute defense.
-
Is BlaBla-A's act of copying and pasting BlaBla-B's quotes an act of "libel?"
No. Not even a little. Libel, like slander, is a form of defamation of character. However, unlike slander, libel entails written defamation. Libel is not an issue here for the following two (2) reasons:
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
B. Truth is an absolute defense in any libel case. If it's "true," it's not "libel."
C. "Libel" and "Liable" are NOT the same d@mn thing.
-- Libel = defamation of character
-- Liable = responsibility for an act or action
For the record... A is situationally dependent and B is by no means absolute.
Trust me.
If your knowledge is supposed to earn my trust... no dice.
Depending on state laws, situations can occur like Noonan v. Staples
Edited to add: The thing about absolutes is that they aren't so absolute.0 -
If you ask the mods, ALL of my threads cause them mental anguish.Can this thread be considered harrassment and cause for mental anquish?
0 -
<<<<<<<<<My SN is my legal name.
Remember that when you quote me, foo'.
Oh and yes, I understood everything clearly, before someone decides to point out that I'm stupid.0 -
The only issue raised by Noonan vs Staples, Inc. is a question of competency of counsel pursuant to the defendant's failure to raise the First Amendment as an irrefutable base-argument and affirmative defense, which by chance, they later petitioned to remedy, but were denied on the basis of procedure, not precedent.. In my opinion the court was in err by assuming a state-level statute from 1902 was "Constitutional," prima facie.
The "truth" is what's known as an "affirmative defense" in any libel case. Coupled with the First Amendment, the "truth" is an absolute defense.
-
Is BlaBla-A's act of copying and pasting BlaBla-B's quotes an act of "libel?"
No. Not even a little. Libel, like slander, is a form of defamation of character. However, unlike slander, libel entails written defamation. Libel is not an issue here for the following two (2) reasons:
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
B. Truth is an absolute defense in any libel case. If it's "true," it's not "libel."
C. "Libel" and "Liable" are NOT the same d@mn thing.
-- Libel = defamation of character
-- Liable = responsibility for an act or action
For the record... A is situationally dependent and B is by no means absolute.
Trust me.
If your knowledge is supposed to earn my trust... no dice.
Depending on state laws, situations can occur like Noonan v. Staples
Edited to add: The thing about absolutes is that they aren't so absolute.
When and if that case is further appealed, Noonan will lose.
I will take my years of experience, the First Amendment to the Constitution, volumes of case law and thousands of quashed libel cases over a single, mishandled case you Googled, any day of the week.
Next.0 -
I just want to know how a guy gets more than 2000 posts in 2 months and holds down a job and interacts with his family and works out.
Not that it matters.0 -
The only issue raised by Noonan vs Staples, Inc. is a question of competency of counsel pursuant to the defendant's failure to raise the First Amendment as an irrefutable base-argument and affirmative defense, which by chance, they later petitioned to remedy, but were denied on the basis of procedure, not precedent.. In my opinion the court was in err by assuming a state-level statute from 1902 was "Constitutional," prima facie.
The "truth" is what's known as an "affirmative defense" in any libel case. Coupled with the First Amendment, the "truth" is an absolute defense.
-
Is BlaBla-A's act of copying and pasting BlaBla-B's quotes an act of "libel?"
No. Not even a little. Libel, like slander, is a form of defamation of character. However, unlike slander, libel entails written defamation. Libel is not an issue here for the following two (2) reasons:
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
B. Truth is an absolute defense in any libel case. If it's "true," it's not "libel."
C. "Libel" and "Liable" are NOT the same d@mn thing.
-- Libel = defamation of character
-- Liable = responsibility for an act or action
For the record... A is situationally dependent and B is by no means absolute.
Trust me.
If your knowledge is supposed to earn my trust... no dice.
Depending on state laws, situations can occur like Noonan v. Staples
Edited to add: The thing about absolutes is that they aren't so absolute.
When and if that case is further appealed, Noonan will lose.
I will take my years of experience, the First Amendment to the Constitution, volumes of case law and thousands of quashed libel cases over a single, mishandled case you Googled, any day of the week.
Next.
Is someone going to spot my medical bill for the f--king aneurysm I got reading this. Too much smart stuff, or at least too many words. Can we go back to boobs and bacon please, or least throw in a math problem so I can play. Words don't work for an engi-nerd like me.
But it is fun to watch you talk.
Plus I agree with Gorilla. I never argue with a man whose ears touch his shoulders.0 -
Boobs AND bacon?? Those are three of my favorite things.
And, technically, they touch my traps. Just sayin.0 -
I'm dripping with awesome. And, I type over 100 words a minute.I just want to know how a guy gets more than 2000 posts in 2 months and holds down a job and interacts with his family and works out.
Not that it matters.0 -
The only issue raised by Noonan vs Staples, Inc. is a question of competency of counsel pursuant to the defendant's failure to raise the First Amendment as an irrefutable base-argument and affirmative defense, which by chance, they later petitioned to remedy, but were denied on the basis of procedure, not precedent.. In my opinion the court was in err by assuming a state-level statute from 1902 was "Constitutional," prima facie.
The "truth" is what's known as an "affirmative defense" in any libel case. Coupled with the First Amendment, the "truth" is an absolute defense.
-
Is BlaBla-A's act of copying and pasting BlaBla-B's quotes an act of "libel?"
No. Not even a little. Libel, like slander, is a form of defamation of character. However, unlike slander, libel entails written defamation. Libel is not an issue here for the following two (2) reasons:
A. I'm fairly sure BlaBla-B's screen name is not their given, legal, Christian name. Since we don't know who they actually are, libel is not applicable under any circumstance.
B. Truth is an absolute defense in any libel case. If it's "true," it's not "libel."
C. "Libel" and "Liable" are NOT the same d@mn thing.
-- Libel = defamation of character
-- Liable = responsibility for an act or action
For the record... A is situationally dependent and B is by no means absolute.
Trust me.
If your knowledge is supposed to earn my trust... no dice.
Depending on state laws, situations can occur like Noonan v. Staples
Edited to add: The thing about absolutes is that they aren't so absolute.
When and if that case is further appealed, Noonan will lose.
I will take my years of experience, the First Amendment to the Constitution, volumes of case law and thousands of quashed libel cases over a single, mishandled case you Googled, any day of the week.
Next.
You can assume a court is in error, but that doesn't change the verdict. I will also take my years of experience over yours. However, feel free to assume and proclaim that I just "google" things. I mean you are the only attorney online, so it's by no means possible that someone else could know case law.
For the record, I never said that truth isn't a good defense. I merely pointed out your error in telling people online that it's an "absolute" defense. I also pointed out that A isn't set in stone either. Despite your disclaimer, some people will actually take what you say as advice. Either aim for better accuracy or don't post legal "non"-advice online.0 -
[/quote]
You can assume a court is in error, but that doesn't change the verdict. I will also take my years of experience over yours. However, feel free to assume and proclaim that I just "google" things. I mean you are the only attorney online, so it's by no means possible that someone else could know case law.
For the record, I never said that truth isn't a good defense. I merely pointed out your error in telling people online that it's an "absolute" defense. I also pointed out that A isn't set in stone either. Despite your disclaimer, some people will actually take what you say as advice. Either aim for better accuracy or don't post legal "non"-advice online.
[/quote]
*Eating popcorn*
Kids, go to bed. This is about to get AWESOME.0 -
I ALWAYS appreciate a well-written informative post. Thank you for educating and raising the tone around here! :drinker:0
-
It's ok man, you can just say that you lost. Everyone already knows it.You can assume a court is in error, but that doesn't change the verdict. I will also take my years of experience over yours. However, feel free to assume and proclaim that I just "google" things. I mean you are the only attorney online, so it's by no means possible that someone else could know case law.
For the record, I never said that truth isn't a good defense. I merely pointed out your error in telling people online that it's an "absolute" defense. I also pointed out that A isn't set in stone either. Despite your disclaimer, some people will actually take what you say as advice. Either aim for better accuracy or don't post legal "non"-advice online.0 -
No, it means that I'm better at propagating a manifestation of the truth, slated in favor of my particular argument, at any given moment.
Pfft again. You're a lawyer. it just means you're better at lying than the average Joe.
I wouldn't lie to you, banana-person.
pfft
6'3Are you short? Just wondering....
Omg I think you might be my husband. Lawyers! :noway:0 -
Don't flatter him...it only encourages him.I get a kick out of everything Gorilla posts!! :laugh:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions