DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

[Hawkeye]

Because if you knew his name, you'd do what?

[_RayAgostini]

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.

[_Mike Reed]

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.

[_RayAgostini]

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".

[_Mike Reed]

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.

[_RayAgostini]

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.

[_Mike Reed]

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.

[_Chap]

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.

[_RayAgostini]

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.

[_RayAgostini]

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?