The MAD Board, Promoting Frivolous Lawsuits or Just Crazy?

[_Bond James Bond]

They're more of what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.....

LOL. Good one Bcspace. Does this mean you have to be a pirate for them to relevant. :D

[_cinepro]

I have to admit I like this one...

Don't ask us to ban you. You are responsible for what you post and the amount of time you spend here.

[_Blixa]

Be scared. Really scared when Julianne (where is the transcript?)

starts talking out of her a##.

And this next threat should really cause fear in the hearts of all men:

mfbukowski:

Great idea- that sounds like a lot more fun than video games!

I have a few in the crosshairs already!

That bukowski is one funny guy, I tell you!

Well, Wittgenstein told him everything was a game, so...

[_Bond James Bond]

I can't believe my account is still active. I just logged in other there for the first time in a couple years. Someone up there loves me. ;)

(I miss ttribe. I've never had more fun disagreeing completely with someone.)

[_Fifth Columnist]

I'm glad Crockett dumped a load of cold water on the stupidity over at MAD. The alleged precedent setting case involved Twitter deciding to given in to a subpoena to produce its user's private information. Whoa! Of all things that are not precedent setting, this one is it.

The reality is that defamation law in the U.S. is WEAK. Why? Because of that pesky Constitution and its first amendment. Honestly, I haven't seen a good case of defamation alleged by anyone on this board or MDD. DCP's fake post about Eric using drugs or something came close, but would still be a tough sell. Personally, if I ran this board, I would tell anyone who made a defamation allegation to go stuff it where the sun don't shine.

[_MsJack]

She's probably referring to the c-word accusation, which in addition to probably being true, wasn't presented in a way that can constitute libel. You're allowed to present evidence that someone said something even if they deny it. Juliann probably just takes it as simple fact that the accusation was a trumped up lie, thus making you guilty of libel.

I figured as much, EA. Bottom line, it's a ridiculous accusation no matter how you slice it.

Incidentally, this is actually the second time someone has talked about filing a lawsuit against me over things that I wrote online. The first person did so anonymously on my blog, but I have good reason to believe my anonymous accuser was Joyce McKinney a.k.a. "Bernann McKinney," the woman accused of sexually assaulting a Mormon missionary in England in 1977. A poster named "eb" came to my blog and posted some very long rants about how Mormonism was a cult, McKinney was sweet and virginal before the Mormons got to her, the missionary she assaulted was a loser and she was doing him a favor, and I was engaging in libel against McKinney for writing what I wrote about her. "eb" claimed McKinney had contracted a lawyer and was going to sue me. It was astonishingly crazy stuff.

I was new to blogging at the time and wasn't sure whether McKinney really could build a libel case against me, so I did a lot of reading on the subject and even contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation to discuss it. If I recall correctly, they thought I was pretty safe.

I suppose Juliann can take consolation in the fact that, of the two people to talk of bringing frivolous lawsuits against me, she's definitely the least crazy.

For the record, at this point neither William Schryver nor any representative of William Schryver has said a word to me about a lawsuit. Personally, I think it's incredibly poor form for Juliann and anyone else at MDDB to speculate on potential lawsuits involving anyone other than themselves.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well whenever Darth J finishes his period of mourning (since the Bulls lost) maybe he can jump in with some expert advice. He's an attorney.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

It looks like MAD has now completely deleted the OP and all responses to it. I'm glad we were able to preserve what little we could over here.

I guess there is no censorship like self-censorship.

[Guest]

The entire thread was just deleted minutes ago. (UPDATE: The thread has returned, but I'm leaving below the rest of my post as I originally posted it.)

I had the feeling that was where this thread was heading as soon as juliann started making her thinly-veiled references to my "Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny" thread here at MDB, so I preserved the relevant comments in a text file on my computer.

I'm presenting them here along with their original, now-defunct links. Enjoy.

Post #1, from juliann (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012438):

Charles Glasser, global medial counsel for Bloomberg News in the US, said South Tyneside’s victory “puts Twitter and social media users on notice that they may be held accountable for what they publish”.

Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist counsel at London-based law firm Withers LLP, said: “This case concerning serious allegations about South Tyneside councillors could have significant repercussions across the blogosphere.

“With Twitter quietly assisting in the process, the case could have an equally significant impact on future applications by those seeking to protect their privacy and reputation anywhere in the world, as a result of activity on Twitter.”

It sets precedent for future rulings.

Anybody want to place bets on how long it will take someone to sue and identify everyone hiding out on a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith?

Post #2, from frankenstein (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012441):

Anybody want to place bets on how long it will take someone to sue and identify everyone hiding out on a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith?

or vice versa, many of LDS defenders are just as vile and insulting as those they accuse.

edited for clarity.

Post #3, from juliann (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012452):

There will always be some outliers. So why haven't you sued them? Are there really that many who hide behind false identities so you can't?

Trouble is, you will have to prove money damages and you have to prove that something they said isn't true. I can only think of one person who would have a slam dunk lawsuit for libel right now because not everything that was published was true and the accuser actually published the damage she caused....either very brave or very stupid.

That is the problem with getting anywhere near the mass hysteria witch hunting that I have seen online. It only takes one major lawsuit like this one to turn the tables. I sure wouldn't want my future in the hands of someone I had done some real life damage to.

And from what I gleaned from the Tanner's lawsuit against FAIR, it is where the plaintiff lives that matters. The Tanners live in Utah so that is where the case took place. So I would assume that whatever state a victim lives in is where the trial takes place. So I wouldn't be messing with anyone who lives in CA right now. ;)

Maybe there are some lawyers here who know how it all works.

Post #4, from ttribe (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012705):

Trouble is, you will have to prove money damages and you have to prove that something they said isn't true. I can only think of one person who would have a slam dunk lawsuit for libel right now because not everything that was published was true and the accuser actually published the damage she caused....either very brave or very stupid.

You're way off base. Assembling a consolidation of links to the person's OWN WORDS in context, does not (under any circumstance I can imagine) constitute libel.

Post #5, from Ms. Jack (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012715):

I can only think of one person who would have a slam dunk lawsuit for libel right now because not everything that was published was true and the accuser actually published the damage she caused....either very brave or very stupid.

This piqued my curiosity. Tell me, Juliann: who exactly is this "very brave or very stupid" woman who is guilty (in your eyes) of libel over on "a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith"?

Post #6, from Ralph Man (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012742):

This piqued my curiosity. Tell me, Juliann: who exactly is this "very brave or very stupid" woman who is guilty (in your eyes) of libel over on "a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith"?

Maybe she is unaware that truth is a defense against libel.

edit: Yes, I read the original comment.

Post #7, from Skylla (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012792):

Let's keep this thread focused on the issues Nemesis has brought up and stick to hypothetical situations please.

Skylla

Post #8, from Nemesis (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... 1209012807):

Maybe she is unaware that truth is a defense against libel.

edit: Yes, I read the original comment.

It has to be 100% truthful for the defense to work. T's crossed and I's dotted. But do not drag this board into the mud we don't have those issues here and like it that way.

Nemesis

The entire thread was deleted within minutes of this post by Nemesis.

Hmm . . . I wonder if they'll ban juliann now for bringing up the MDB William Schryver "scandal" just like they banned consiglieri, RockSlider, and GiGi1975 for bringing it up.

Any bets?

[_moksha]

I imagine we will be told that none of the MAD suits are paid for out of tithing funds, but rather from business profits from MAD advertising. The residents of the Great and Spacious Trailer Court will have much to fear, until all the suits are dismissed by the Federal Court in Denver and MAD is forced to pay all the accrued court costs and legal fees.

Dr. Scratch may have to fork over his BH Roberts Chair in Mopologetics to Will in compensation though.