Republican sues anonymous commenters

Is Conservative a schizo? :confused:

He thanked a post saying they shouldn't disclose jack shit, and then posts himself that it's a reasonable decision.
 
I don't think they should disclose anything.

Well, the remarks were defamatory. I don't believe freedom of speech allows defamation. If it did, there would be no such thing as defamation lawsuits.

That depends on who is offended, and to what extent. There are better ways to resolve this. Totalitarianism is not something to look forward to. Imagine making a claim, and have your sources disappear? Happens all the time.
 
Is Conservative a schizo? :confused:

He thanked a post saying they shouldn't disclose jack shit, and then posts himself that it's a reasonable decision.

I dont have to agree with what someone says, to thank them for expressing their opinion... do I?

No, and you don't have to explain yourself to us. Just watch out for splinters sitting on the fence. Examine both your Principles, and the ramifications, the effects, on all sides. How does this effect whistle blowers?
 
Is Conservative a schizo? :confused:

He thanked a post saying they shouldn't disclose jack shit, and then posts himself that it's a reasonable decision.

I dont have to agree with what someone says, to thank them for expressing their opinion... do I?

No, and you don't have to explain yourself to us. Just watch out for splinters sitting on the fence. Examine both your Principles, and the ramifications, the effects, on all sides. How does this effect whistle blowers?

Sorta takes the little ball out of their whistle, I'd say
:thup:
 
And the comment was she MIGHT have put it down her bra....not that she DID put it down her bra.

Come on....
 
Is Conservative a schizo? :confused:

He thanked a post saying they shouldn't disclose jack shit, and then posts himself that it's a reasonable decision.

I dont have to agree with what someone says, to thank them for expressing their opinion... do I?

No, and you don't have to explain yourself to us. Just watch out for splinters sitting on the fence. Examine both your Principles, and the ramifications, the effects, on all sides. How does this effect whistle blowers?

There is a difference between blowing the whistle on a company or boss who is breaking the law, and simply defaming them. True whistle-blowers would be protected under the law, while someone simply defaming would not be.
 
And the comment was she MIGHT have put it down her bra....not that she DID put it down her bra.

Come on....

I doubt heavily that she'd actually win a defamation suit against this individual. But just to play devil's advocate here, should that really be left to the judgment of the newspaper? :dunno:
 
I don't think they should disclose anything.

Well, the remarks were defamatory. I don't believe freedom of speech allows defamation. If it did, there would be no such thing as defamation lawsuits.

That depends on who is offended, and to what extent. There are better ways to resolve this. Totalitarianism is not something to look forward to. Imagine making a claim, and have your sources disappear? Happens all the time.

Defamation depends on who was defamed? Like, it's ok to defame one person, but not another?
 
And the comment was she MIGHT have put it down her bra....not that she DID put it down her bra.

Come on....

I doubt heavily that she'd actually win a defamation suit against this individual. But just to play devil's advocate here, should that really be left to the judgment of the newspaper? :dunno:
To reveal or not reveal the identity of their anonymous posters over something like this? Yes.

If this is sue worthy I would think that would have to be proven before getting the identities.
 
Well, the remarks were defamatory. I don't believe freedom of speech allows defamation. If it did, there would be no such thing as defamation lawsuits.

That depends on who is offended, and to what extent. There are better ways to resolve this. Totalitarianism is not something to look forward to. Imagine making a claim, and have your sources disappear? Happens all the time.

Defamation depends on who was defamed? Like, it's ok to defame one person, but not another?

How do you defame someone by saying they might have stuffed money down their bra?

If someone types Obama might be a traitor, is that defaming him?
 
That depends on who is offended, and to what extent. There are better ways to resolve this. Totalitarianism is not something to look forward to. Imagine making a claim, and have your sources disappear? Happens all the time.

Defamation depends on who was defamed? Like, it's ok to defame one person, but not another?

How do you defame someone by saying they might have stuffed money down their bra?

If someone types Obama might be a traitor, is that defaming him?

If that is the standard then there is defamation going on in nearly every thread on this messageboard.
 
Well, the remarks were defamatory. I don't believe freedom of speech allows defamation. If it did, there would be no such thing as defamation lawsuits.

That depends on who is offended, and to what extent. There are better ways to resolve this. Totalitarianism is not something to look forward to. Imagine making a claim, and have your sources disappear? Happens all the time.

Defamation depends on who was defamed? Like, it's ok to defame one person, but not another?

Actually yes, and it was mentioned in the link. Public persons have a higher threshold to prove defamation, simply because they are 'public'.

I don't think the 'alleged' bra-stuffer is going to win her case...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top