Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
check this out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207669/Vogue-model-wins-landmark-ruling-unmask-anonymous-blogger-called-whore.html
(sorry about the site it's from!)
This kind of changes things dramatically for the DiS social board, dontchafink????
by the by Joan Madden, ho ho
i am merely waiting for the most appropriate time to release it
- getting the name of a registered google blog user versus getting the name of an anonymous poster on a forum who potentially uses IP scrambling software anyway = a whole different ballgame.
though, its more of a hate campaign don't ya think ?
This is slagging off - Daniel Kelly you're a skanky ho. Will he try to unmask me for that ? nah
She might try to sue for character assassination but I'll counter that by saying she did it to herself. <snap, snap, snap>
She can now try and sue the blogger, but calling someone skanky is normally not considered libel or slander, particularly not in the US.
but 'psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank' and 'desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one' probably are.
this is all a good thing for my mind. the anonymity of the internet makes people go a little odd and i think the world would be better of with out.
not statements of fact.
I'd like to see anyone argue in court that they have a soul.
if something is hostile and offensive, and not serving any purpose in being published then it counts as libel. even references incorporating abstract concepts can be considered insulting, especially in america i would imagine.
The US Supreme Court has observed in the past that in free debate erroneous statements are inevitable and must be protected - otherwise free expression would not have the ‘breathing space’ it needs and media self-censorship would be inevitable. The fear of not being able to prove the truth of the published words in court, and the recognition of the expense and resources required to do so, would limit public debate.
In order to succeed in a defamation case, claimants would therefore need to show that not only were the allegations untrue but that they were made maliciously or with reckless disregard to the truth.
it emerged that the person writing the posts was someone she actually knew, rather than a disembodied geek.
the blogs were anonymous so it was only through this process that she could prove it was someone she knew.
secondly, she was stabbed in the face by a man wielding a broken glass bottle a couple of years ago. it's possible that she's a little phobic about public violence at the moment.
Feel free to come round.
It's home to Rayleigh Pink Toothbrush...a notoriously grotty venue.
in a COURT OF LAW