BarackNRoll08 wrote:You kids are ridiculous. I'm leaving again, until I find out someone else has posted an articles with MORE lies about me. Then, I'll be back. Until then, kids... keep on being ridiculous.
Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
BarackNRoll08 wrote:You have to say that about Jerry Jr., don't you? I mean, seeing as how he's your cult leader like Jerry Sr. was to students before.Ladies and gentlemen, the face of our cult leader.
BarackNRoll08 wrote:Oh, I do enjoy your ignorance. For the record, this ^^^ is what happens when you look up important stuff on Wikipedia.RagingTireFire wrote:Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.BarackNRoll08 wrote:I do believe this could be used to sue someone for "libel" or "defamation of character."You would be wrong.
No, you are wrong.
RagingTireFire wrote:BarackNRoll08 wrote:Oh, I do enjoy your ignorance. For the record, this ^^^ is what happens when you look up important stuff on Wikipedia.RagingTireFire wrote: You would be wrong.Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.
No, you are wrong.That's just for your information. You may now continue whining.
- First of all, in order to bring a lawsuit involving defamation, slander or libel, it isn't enough that someone says something that hurts your widdle feewings. You have to provide proof of damage to your livelihood or reputation. Neither of those are at stake here.
Secondly, defamatory, slanderous or libelous statements have to be evidentially proven as false. Personal opinions concerning your motivations and/or relative intelligence do not constitute "factual" statements -- in the legal sense -- and, therefore, cannot be proven to be untrue.
Thirdly, courts tend to shy away from cases involving conflict based in political arguments due, in part, to the appearance of conflict of interest and also because it would be just a giant waste of the court's time to mediate everytime someone flipped their wig over a political discussion.
Fourthly, referring to the leader of a religious organization as a cult leader IS potentially libelous. Fortunately for you, the Supreme Court ruled that statements involving public figures are not necessarily deemed damaging in the same way that they would pertain to ordinary citizens. This ruling came about as the result of the defamation case filed against Larry Flynt by Jerry Falwell, Sr. In case you can't appreciate the irony here, it was thanks to Jerry, Sr that you are (probably) OK calling his son a cult leader. So, lucky you.
BarackNRoll08 wrote:You kids are ridiculous. I'm leaving again, until I find out someone else has posted an articles with MORE lies about me. Then, I'll be back. Until then, kids... keep on being ridiculous.
Sly Fox wrote:In my experience with the Falwell family over the past 30+ years, they have never been shy about stating what they believe and standing by it. If anything it should be on their family crest.
1. "the first party responsible for any comments are/is the website administrators...secondly she has to prove "damage" as a result of slander or libel and since she probably hasnt lost any money due to this, then she has no legal basis to file a suit (Friend #1Both of the people I talked to have been in law school (one is not anymore while the other completed his JD) but both agree on one thing...legally you dont have any recourse in a libel or slander suit for the reasons stated in their explanations. That also does not give you reason to freely bash Jerry Jr regardless. You're a friend of mine but I do have to draw the line somewhere even with my friends. The fact remains that you were a serious minority at Liberty but when you came to this school, you agreed to be under the rules of the school (she actually lived in the same dorm as a few friends of mine last year). To turn around and then call Jerry Jr and Jerry Sr cult leaders and to basically do everything you could to talk ill of everything that they stood for is reprehensible in my view. Youre allowed to disagree which is one thing but what you have been doing is beyond disagreeing. As I said, you are a friend but Im not going to sit by and let the school Ive been a part of for many years get bashed by anybody
2. if she posted it on the net already then no because it's free game once it's out there...no take backs...plus, she'd have to spend money on an atty...thats a case they'd only take hourly (Friend #2)
JDUB wrote:wow, i went away for a few hours and things got really, really dumb.Fixed.
Sly Fox wrote:Sadly I sensed this was coming. I hope this doesn't scare away a legitimate Obama supporter like Psalm from posting. I think you see how actually stating a case for your candidate went much further than throwing temper tantrums. Aye.Psalms would like to announce that he's still here. = ) . . . He will still post. = )
Psalm34:1believer wrote:Feel free to talk sports, too.Sly Fox wrote:Sadly I sensed this was coming. I hope this doesn't scare away a legitimate Obama supporter like Psalm from posting. I think you see how actually stating a case for your candidate went much further than throwing temper tantrums. Aye.Psalms would like to announce that he's still here. = ) . . . He will still post. = )
ToTheLeft wrote:haha. Ok, so next years Superbowl picks. Random off the top of your head.....Psalm34:1believer wrote:Feel free to talk sports, too.
Psalms would like to announce that he's still here. = ) . . . He will still post. = )
ToTheLeft wrote:That's for you to tell us...haha. Is this a jab that I make up things off the top of my head? =)
Psalm34:1believer wrote:I found this when researching Obama's views on reparations--->It's only an associated press article so I cannot vouch for everything that is in it.Unless they arre over 150 years old I don't think they experienced slavery. Also, how would repirations work? Should people who can trace their heritage back to the Union Army (Or the Army of Northern Aggression) be exempt/ After all, their relatives were the ones who helped end slavery? ALso, what about those who trace their ancestory back to a time AFTER the civil war? Why should they be responsible. Reparations are a stupid and silly idea. Not a civil discoure but at least it is true!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZ0B ... gD92A5GCG0
Is this what you are referring to? If so, to be quite honest I have not really given this issue a lot of thought. Granted, slavery was horrible, and I apologize to any in the African American community who have had to endure that. I do think that what was done was done. We can't change the past. Would money or any other form of payment really permanently supress those memories? ...On the other hand, I have never gone through that. Maybe payment is deserved. I honestly couldn't say. I'm sorry, I'm not all that familiar with issue, nor Obama's stance on it. My personal opinion is that an "apology" (as hinted in the article) would be appropriate, but actual payment is going a bit to far. . . Again, just a personal opinion.
BarackNRoll08 wrote:You kids are ridiculous. I'm leaving again,
- By LU Armchair coach
As the undisputed GOAT LU Armchair Coach (55 years[…]
- By jbock13
- By PAmedic