Publicantion of Private Facts.

Aoxomoxoa said:
Well let's see now, Howey, Poet, Darla and Rune have all made accusations of paedophilia on here, so they have made themselves liable to prosecution, is that right?
Click to expand...

That would depend on if the accusations were true and if they were stated as an opinion or fact.
 
Asa said:
To be actionable under the doctrine of publication of private facts, it comes down to motive.

There are several tests a plaintiff must pass: was it a public disclosure of private facts no generally known; then the reasonable test: would the facts be offensive to a reasonable person. Example: Gary published the fact that Bob paid cash for a new car would not be damaging (maybe if Bob was in bankruptcy, but then the disclosure is covered because it was a crime), and would a reasonable person think it was offensive; and is the publication of private facts a legitimate public concern.
Click to expand...

I think the 1st Amendment gives me the right to be offensive if I want to.
 
Damocles said:
To a lawsuit. First you would have to show damage though. How many people who know you really think that because any of them said this here?

The reality is one would have to show damages to be able to successfully sue somebody for something like that. You are relatively anonymous because of the reality that the chances of somebody from your home town seeing a post on this site are pretty much nil, they'd then have to figure out who you are, then they'd have to fire you or something, tell your boss, etc. because they'd actually believe that the "accusation" were true...

At that point you'd have an actionable cause.
Click to expand...

Good point, if one of the "victims's" boss saw the post and fired the "victim", an action could be brought for lost wages.
 
There is also a huge difference legally speaking, between...

"I think Jimmy has AIDS."

and

"Jimmy has AIDS."
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Since Howey believes that he can intimidate people into silence by threatening litigation, I wonder if he might reflect on the fact that he has accused people of paedophilia surely that is grounds to sue as well. Maybe Soc could enlighten as regards that situation?
Click to expand...

He is a loud talker.

First of all, the reason the internets is a quagmire from a legal standpoint is that unless an individual allows their true identity to be known, accusing someone of having AIDS, pedophelia etc can't cause any material harm because you are an anonymous individual. That hoWARD chose to disclose his true identity is on him. Nobody else. Plus where is the line drawn? Can I sue Desh for calling me a sociopath? A psychopath? This is silliness and hoWARD knows it

He is nothing more than an idiot, a troll and tries to run this board. It is funny that he thinks he is "in" with the mods and they laugh behind his back. He will go the way of Poet soon enough. Give anyone enough rope and they will surely hang themselves.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Just as I thought Howey is an empty vessel, a barrel to be precise, and as we all know they make the most noise.
Click to expand...

Damo said it clearly. You would have to prove damages. Now how has hoWARD been damaged? Nope. It is just a very sore spot and he doesn't like it.

The only reason I stopped is not because I am worried about faggy hoWARD, it is because Damo asked me to quit and I like Damo and obliged.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Since Howey believes that he can intimidate people into silence by threatening litigation, I wonder if he might reflect on the fact that he has accused people of paedophilia surely that is grounds to sue as well. Maybe Soc could enlighten as regards that situation?
Click to expand...

What about the stigma of Howey suggesting that a person or a member of that person's family engages in homosexual behavior??
 
Damocles said:
To a lawsuit. First you would have to show damage though. How many people who know you really think that because any of them said this here?

The reality is one would have to show damages to be able to successfully sue somebody for something like that. You are relatively anonymous because of the reality that the chances of somebody from your home town seeing a post on this site are pretty much nil, they'd then have to figure out who you are, then they'd have to fire you or something, tell your boss, etc. because they'd actually believe that the "accusation" were true...

At that point you'd have an actionable cause.
Click to expand...

So all of Howards complaining about AIDs is just bluster; because of the very reasons you cited?
 
Damocles said:
What stigma?
Click to expand...

fOcBSok.gif
 
Jarod said:
There is also a huge difference legally speaking, between...

"I think Jimmy has AIDS."

and

"Jimmy has AIDS."
Click to expand...

actually not much if the intent of the speaker is to convince the listener of that the comment is the truth and to act upon it.......classic example "I don't actually know if Jimmy has AIDS, I'm just sayin'"........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top