DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
Because if you knew his name, you'd do what?
Last edited by Hawkeye on Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
Mike Reed wrote:Because if you knew his name, you'd do what?
You've edited this post several times. Is this your last edit? Okay.
I'd seriously be considering prosecution for defamation of character. That's what I'd be doing.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
RayAgostini wrote:Mike Reed wrote:Because if you knew his name, you'd do what?
You've edited this post several times. Is this your last edit? Okay.
I'd seriously be considering prosecution for defamation of character. That's what I'd be doing.
You'd have have no legal basis for pressing charges for Scratch defaming another person. I'm not saying I agree with what's happened. I just think it's silly the way you bluster about, as though you can or will do anything about it. Hamblin's public statement specifically is fair game, however you look at it. And it is Hamblin's statement that we are talking about now.
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
Mike Reed wrote:You'd have have no legal basis for pressing charges for Scratch defaming another person.
I have a whole board full of it. Just the fact that his name is now "mud" here, with no justifiable basis, is enough for anyone to convince lawyers to prosecute. I've studied up enough on the emerging Internet laws regarding prosecution and defamation, and if Shades wants to ban me for this - so be it. It's not his board I'm after, but the anonymous slanderer "Doctor Scratch".
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
RayAgostini wrote:Mike Reed wrote:You'd have have no legal basis for pressing charges for Scratch defaming another person.
I have a whole board full of it. Just the fact that his name is now "mud" here, with no justifiable basis, is enough for anyone to convince lawyers to prosecute. I've studied up enough on the emerging Internet laws regarding prosecution and defamation, and if Shades wants to ban me for this - so be it. It's not his board I'm after, but the anonymous slanderer "Doctor Scratch".
You can only press charges for slander if it is made against yourself or your minor children.
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
Mike Reed wrote:You can only press charges for slander if it is made against yourself or your minor children.
Internet defamation laws are still emerging, worldwide:
Defamation Laws & the Internet.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
RayAgostini wrote:Mike Reed wrote:You can only press charges for slander if it is made against yourself or your minor children.
Internet defamation laws are still emerging, worldwide:
Defamation Laws & the Internet.
The link you give states specifically that those who can sue are those who have been defamed. You have not been defamed by comments made against Hamblin and Peterson.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
RayAgostini wrote:Mike Reed wrote:You can only press charges for slander if it is made against yourself or your minor children.
Internet defamation laws are still emerging, worldwide:
Defamation Laws & the Internet.
Old habits die hard. Or at least they morph:
"What will you say if evidence emerges to prove the Book of Mormon is true?"
---->
"What will you say if the law is changed so you could be sued?"
(To which the answer is, of course, that a law that 'emerges' later can't make a illegal a preceding action. Quite apart, that is, from the large degree of protection to free speech given by the US Constitution which would make it very difficult to outlaw criticism, even open mockery, of someone who deliberately puts himself in the public sphere as much as DCP has done, and is as deliberately contentious as DCP has been.)
Ray A. is a strange being: an exmo kamikaze for Mopologetics. Still, we all have the right to choose what we want to be.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
Mike Reed wrote:The link you give states specifically that those who can sue are those who have been defamed. You have not been defamed by comments made against Hamblin and Peterson.
I wasn't ever concerned about me. I'm only a low-life taxi driver with the morals of an alley cat.
All I am saying, Mike, is that Internet laws are always evolving, and we all ought to be careful. A future court, for example, may try to determine whether DCP's reputation was harmed here through cyber-space, and what the lasting consequences were. For example, and this is only hypothetical, if he lost his job as editor of The Review because of commentary here, and a court found that dismissal to be unfair based on message board prejudice and ill-informed speculation, he could sue the ass off all involved.
Including Chap.
Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review
Chap wrote:
Old habits die hard. Or at least they morph:
"What will you say if evidence emerges to prove the Book of Mormon is true?"
---->
"What will you say if the law is changed so you could be sued?"
(To which the answer is, of course, that a law that 'emerges' later can't make a illegal a preceding action. Quite apart, that is, from the large degree of protection to free speech given by the US Constitution which would make it very difficult to outlaw criticism, even open mockery, of someone who deliberately puts himself in the public sphere as much as DCP has done, and is as deliberately contentious as DCP has been.)
Ray A. is a strange being: an exmo kamikaze for Mopologetics. Still, we all have the right to choose what we want to be.
Hi Chap. How's life treating you? Bummer?